1987-06-29

PRIVILEGE


Mr. Speaker:: On Friday last, just before the House adjourned, the Hon. Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Mazankow-ski) renewed notice of his intention to move a motion under Standing Order 57 in relation to Government Business No. 5.
If the closure motion is moved and adopted later this day, the result will be that at one o'clock Tuesday morning all debate on the motion for the reinstatement of capital punishment will end and the House will divide on the motion and any amendments thereto.
On Friday, June 19, the day after the Deputy Prime Minister first gave notice of closure, the Hon. Member for York Centre (Mr. Kaplan) rose on a question of privilege, arguing that the Deputy Prime Minister was making illegitimate use of the rules of the House. The Hon. Member for York Centre, in his argument, referred to a ruling by the Chair on April 14, 1987, and asked the Chair to apply the same logic used then to the present situation.
When the Chair ruled on April 14, the House was at a standstill. Routine Proceedings were, for several days, totally taken up by dilatory tactics that were a matter of grave concern to me. I refer Hon. Members to page 5120 of Hansard, where I reported my dilemma as follows:
The House is nevertheless facing an impasse which it has been unable to resolve for itself. There comes a time when the Chair has to face its responsibilities. When circumstances change and the Rules of Procedure provide no solution, the Chair must fall back on its discretion in the interests of the House and all its Members.
Further, on page 5121 of Hansard, I said the following:
I repeat my conviction that the entire question of the use of dilatory motions during Routine Proceedings needs to be examined and that no procedures should be sanctioned which permit the House to be brought to a total standstill for an indefinite period. Division bells are no substitute for debate.
If Hon. Members have taken from my ruling of April 14 that the Chair would, in the future, exercise discretion on any or all of the rules of the House, they have misunderstood the
letter and the spirit of the ruling. The discretion I exercised on that day was in the context of an absolute lack of any guidance in the Standing Orders-I repeat, in the context of an absolute lack of any guidance from the Standing Orders-or in the precedents, or practices, or conventions of this House. Nor was there any direction from the House itself, at that moment.
The Hon. Member for York Centre and the Hon. Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson) were skilled advocates in the arguments they presented on June 19 last. The Chair appreciates that it may be very difficult for Hon. Members on both sides of the capital punishment debate to focus only on the Speaker's role at this time. It is essential, I might add, that the Chair refrain from showing sympathy with one side or the other on such an important national debate. What the Chair must now address is, quite simply, the terms of Standing Order 57, which have been unchanged since 1913.
Notice of closure has been given 23 times since 1913; it has been moved and adopted 19 times. It is not a new Standing Order, even if only infrequently used. This present situation is not without precedent. Closure has been used by all Parties while in Government; it has been used after much, and after very little debate. It remains to this day a procedural avenue available to the Government. By and large, the timing of its use becomes a political issue, but some debate clearly must have taken place. Thus, the timing of closure in debate is clearly not a procedural matter.
[Translation\
The Hon. Member for York Centre (Mr. Kaplan) referred to the British practice which is quite different. The application of closure in Westminster cuts off any further debate. The British rule is very severe, and that is why their Standing Orders authorize the Speaker to refuse the motion if he finds it abuses the rules.

The British practice, which has been referred to, is quite different. When closure is applied in Great Britain no further debate can take place. In our Commons, debate continues after the adoption of the closure motion until 1 a.m. on that sitting day. The British rule is more severe, and thus their Speaker is given by a specific Standing Order the discretion to refuse the motion. The Canadian Commons has not given its presiding officer such discretionary power.
I have reviewed all of the arguments put forward by the Hon. Member for York Centre, the Hon. Member for Windsor West (Mr. Gray), the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis), the Hon. Member for Humber-Port au Port-St.

June 29, 1987
Interparliamentary Delegation Report
Barbe (Mr. Tobin), and the Hon. Member for Burnaby. Politically speaking, I can understand their concern; procedurally speaking, as your presiding officer, as were many Speakers before me, I am without authority to intervene when a Standing Order is used according to our rules and practices.
The House has adopted Standing Order 57. The House must accept its consequences, if it is invoked. The Hon. Deputy Prime Minister, having given notice at a previous sitting, has so far complied with the terms of Standing Order 57. If he chooses to move the appropriate motion later today, I shall have no choice but to put the question to the House.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Bob Hicks (Scarborough East):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 101, 1 have the honour to present to the House the Eighteenth Report, in both official languages, of the Canadian NATO Parliamentary Association.


COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Don Blenkarn (Mississauga South):: Mr. Speaker, 1 have the honour to present, in both official languages, the tenth report of the Standing Committee on Finance and Economic Affairs in relation to the smuggling and tax evasion of those bringing motor fuel into Canada.
The committee makes a number of recommendations, principally directing the Department of National Revenue to reinstate the licences of independent dealers in petroleum products who have successfully passed a history of audit, and introduce a new system whereby new entrants into the field will obtain a licence by filing a letter of credit to ensure that they can and will pay tax due.
The committee calls upon the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Andre) to investigate the pricing of motor fuels since the recent Budget, to determine what anticompetitive behaviour there has been, if any, by the major refiners in the country.


AGRICULTURE-THIRD REPORT OF STANDING COMMITTEE
Mr. A. H. Harry Brightwell (Perth):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the third report of the standing committee on agriculture to which, pursuant to Standing Order 99(2), the committee requests a comprehensive response.
This report is a study on the tobacco-growing industry, Mr. Speaker, and of the communities affected by the decline in that industry. This industry is in decline, and the decline is damaging farm families and the communities, and some of the decline is caused by government policy on smoking and by taxation.
This report makes recommendations that could ease the transition that is occurring and, in doing so, could benefit all depressed communities in Canada.


JUSTICE AND SOLICITOR GENERAL-FOURTH REPORT OF STANDING COMMITTEE
Mr. David Daubney (Ottawa West):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the fourth report of the Standing Committee on Justice and Solicitor General, on the subject matter of Private Member's Bill C-234, the Missing Children Search Act, to which the committee requests that the Government respond prior to September 1, 1987.
The committee recommends that the Criminal Code be amended to ensure that searches for missing children are properly and expeditiously carried out and to make it an offence to fail to report a missing child or to fail to assist in the search for a missing child.


AGRICULTURE-FOURTH REPORT OF STANDING COMMITTEE
Mr. Lee Clark (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the fourth report of the Standing Committee on Agriculture dealing with farm input costs. Pursuant to Standing Order 99(2) the committee requests that the Government table a comprehensive response within 150 days.


MULTICULTURALISM-FIRST REPORT OF STANDING COMMITTEE
Mr. Gus Mitges (Grey-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, 1 have the honour to present the first report of the Standing Committee on Multiculturalism, in both official languages.
In this report, Mr. Speaker, your committee wishes to point out that many Canadians still face discrimination and that the human and economic resources inherent in the linguistic and cultural diversity of Canada have not been utilized to realize the full potential of Canada's multicultural, multiracial society. There is an overwhelming need to move ahead now with specific measures to integrate multiculturalism into all aspects of Canadian social, political and economic life.
June 29, 1987

The Standing Committee on Multiculturalism therefore puts forward major recommendations to accomplish this and asks the Government and all Hon. Members to give these recommendations their serious consideration.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]


MARRIAGE (PROHIBITED DEGREES) ACT MEASURE TO ENACT
Mr. Rob Nicholson (Niagara Falls) moved: that Bill S-5 (from the Senate), an Act to amend and consolidate the laws prohibiting marriage between related persons, be read the first time.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present a Bill that will amend and consolidate the laws prohibiting marriage between related persons. It is straightforward and will clear up any confusion that may exist with respect to prohibited classes of individuals entering marriage. This matter has received full consideration and has been passed by the other place. I hope that it receives speedy passage in the House.
Motion agreed to and Bill read the first time.


PETITIONS
Hon. Herb Gray (Windsor West):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to present a petition to the House signed by some 45 people in the Windsor area. It calls on the federal Government to amend the Criminal Code to make it possible for provincial Governments to more easily deal with the problem of the proliferation of strip clubs, a problem concerning many in the Windsor area.
This petition, while signed by some 45 people, represents petitions signed by some 20,000 people in the Windsor area calling for the kind of action spelled out in the petition. In this regard, there will also be petitions presented by my colleagues from the Windsor area.


Mr. Steven W. Langdon (Essex-Windsor):: Mr. Speaker, I too have a petition to present which calls on the Government to make changes to the Criminal Code which will delegate to provincial Governments the capacity through their liquor licensing laws to regulate and to control strip clubs in the City of Windsor and, of course, elsewhere in the Province of Ontario.
This subject has been of great concern to the citizens of Windsor for many months. I am very pleased to present this petition from approximately 50 Windsor residents, which
Petitions
petition represents a much greater number of people who have also signed petitions in this city.


Mr. Howard McCurdy (Windsor-Walkerville):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join with my colleagues from Windsor in tabling a petition signed by some 50 people from the Windsor area representing some 20,000 people who have signed similar petitions. They are concerned about the proliferation of adult entertainment parlours in that city, particularly with respect to the apparent involvement of criminal elements in this activity. They seek the enactment of legislation which would allow the province to pass laws regulating and governing the manner of dress or degree of nudity of persons employed by or in establishments providing adult entertainment.


Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, 1 have the honour to present a petition in which the petitioners express their opinion that the new system of taxation of northern benefits hurts people, especially in the communities of Thompson and Wabowden, that the taxing of northern benefits is heavy-handed and complicated, taking away benefits intended to compensate employees for loss of amenities.
The undersigned call upon the House of Commons to direct the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) to reconsider this system of taxing northern benefits as part of tax reform. This petition is signed by people from Thompson, Wabowden, Lynn Lake, Leaf Rapids, Flin Flon and The Pas, Manitoba.


Mr. Dan Heap (Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, it my honour and pleasure to present a petition from more than 400 Canadians from places such as Toronto, Whitehorse, Vancouver and other parts of British Columbia, Alberta, Winnipeg, Windsor, Smith's Falls, Perth, London, Ontario, Kelowna, Halifax and Ottawa.
The petitioners are very concerned for the many people who are driven by persecution to seek safety in Canada and for the breakdown of the previous system of refugee determination.
They support the proposal put forward by the Standing Committee on Labour, Employment and Immigration a year and a half ago, which had all-Party support and was also endorsed by the Canadian Council of Churches, many members of the Bar Association, the Canadian Jewish Congress, and others.
They urge that Parliament enact legislation which will embody the principles of fair and quick oral hearings for refugee claimants before a refugee board independent of the Immigration Commission, universal access to such hearings for

June 29, 1987
Petitions
every claimant in Canada, and adequate opportunity to arrive in Canada to make this claim.
I also have a petition signed by more than 600 Canadians from all over the country-Toronto, Ottawa, Vancouver, other parts of British Columbia, Newfoundland, and Alberta. They point out that the Government's proposed legislation, Bill C-55, fails to meet the demands of the public and the recommendations of the Standing Committee on Labour, Employment and Immigration.
Therefore they urge Parliament to ensure that Bill C-55 will be withdrawn and to substitute therefor legislation embodying the principles of fair and quick oral hearings of claims of refugee claimants before a refugee board independent of the Immigration Commission, universal access to such hearings for every applicant in Canada, and the right of appeal on the basis of fact.


Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Mr. Speaker, once again, it is my duty to table some twelve petitions signed by people from my riding who wish the House would be kind enough to help La Maison d'Amitie, a francophone non-profit organization which looks after women and children in distress.
Mr. Speaker, those people are presenting a petition in which they humbly state that according to a report made public by the Canadian Advisory Council on the Status of Women, one woman out of eight is subjected to psychological, economic, sexual or verbal violence by her spouse; that at a time when the Government should act instead of cracking down, the National Capital Commission intends to raise the rent for La Maison d Amitie, the only non-profit francophone organization for women and children in distress, by more than 3,000 per cent; that the Prime Minister himself stated recently in the House that the problem of battered women is one of the most serious social and legal challenges facing us today; therefore, the petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to urge the National Capital Commission to reverse its decision to raise the rent and to continue, as in the past, charging the symbolic sum of one dollar.


Mr. Jim Fulton (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to table today a petition signed by northerners who are concerned that the new system of tax deductions for northern residents has been unfairly applied, that the taxing of northern benefits is heavy-handed and complicated, and that it taxes away benefits intended to compensate northerners.


Mr. Dave Dingwall (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I have upwards to 100 petitions which I would like to
table today, signed by residents from Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island, Newfoundland, Quebec, Ontario, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Alberta, British Columbia, and the Northwest Territories.
The proposed changes to the Patent Act will directly affect all Canadians who are not protected by private or government medical programs.
Whereas the federal Government's proposals will raise the already high cost of provincial health care programs; whereas the monopoly granted to innovative pharmaceutical companies will prevent competition from generic companies, will result in an increase of drug costs and prices, and will severely restrict the ability of average Canadians to buy necessary prescription drugs; and whereas the proposed changes to the Patent Act are another example of the Canadian Government's concession in the free trade negotiations with the United States at the expense of every day Canadians, the petitioners call upon the Government of Canada to reject these proposals with regard to the amendments to the Patent Act which will inevitably increase prescription drug prices for all Canadians.


Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops-Shuswap):: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to present a petition on behalf of a number of northern Canadians, pursuant to Standing Order 106, who are of the opinion that the new system of tax deductions for northern Canadian residents have been applied in an unfair way and leave out many communities which ought to be included in terms of being able to take advantage of special northern deductions.
They believe that the northern benefits system is heavyhanded and complicated and taxes away existing benefits which were in fact intended to compensate employees working in northern Canada because of the loss of amenities they experience.
They ask the House of Commons to direct the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) to reconsider the system of tax measures when the tax reform study takes place, since he promised to do so in the 1987 Budget.


Mr. Sid Fraleigh (Lambton-Middlesex):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present on behalf of citizens of Ontario and Canadians from across the country 1,425 signatures calling upon Parliament to pass a motion favouring the return of capital punishment in Canada.
These signatures, which now total 29,904, represent the strong will of Canadian people on this important issue.


Mr. Patrick Crofton (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition signed by 1,043 Canadians from across the country, urging Members of the House to
June 29, 1987

support the motion before it calling for the restoration of capital punishment.


Mr. Bill Gottselig (Moose Jaw):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present on behalf of citizens from across Canada 1,014 signatures calling upon Parliament to pass a motion favouring the return of capital punishment in Canada.
The signatures, which now total 31,961, represent the strong will of Canadian people on this important issue.


Mrs. Mary Collins (Capilano):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present petitions on behalf of citizens of British Columbia and other Canadians from across the country including 1,000 signatures. They call upon Parliament to pass a motion favouring the return of capital punishment in Canada.
These signatures, which now total 32,961, represent the strong views of the Canadians who signed these petitions on this important issue.


Mr. Paul Gagnon (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, 1 am pleased to present on behalf of citizens of Nova Scotia, British Columbia, Ontario, and Alberta-Canadians from across Canada-1,255 signatures calling upon Parliament to pass the motion favouring the return of capital punishment.
These signatures, which now total 34,216, represent the strong will of the Canadian people on this important issue.


Mr. Alex Kindy (Calgary East):: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to present, pursuant to Standing Order 106, a petition signed by 3,493 people from my riding and elsewhere in Alberta, asking Parliament to vote at one o'clock tomorrow morning in favour of capital punishment.


Mr. Bill Domm (Peterborough):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present to the House of Commons the final number of petitions which have been received by various Members of Parliament, bringing the total, despite temporary disruptions in the postal service, to 39,256 persons from across Canada. They urge Parliament to support the reinstatement of capital punishment at the appropriate time during our vote at one o'clock tomorrow morning.
These signatures were collected by the Canadian National Police Association, the Ontario Provincial Police Associations, the Victims of Crime, Citizens Responding to You, and Citizens United for Safety and Justice.
They urge Parliament to vote in support of a return to capital punishment in Canada for certain acts of planned, deliberate murder, and the killing of police officers and prison guards.
Message from the Senate QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER


Mr. Doug Lewis (Parliamentary Secretary to Deputy Prime Minister and President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, I would ask that all questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall all questions be allowed to stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Miss Nicholson (Trinity):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order in response to what the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary has just said. May I just point out that I have had a question on the Order Paper since February 20. It really seems a long time, and I wonder if the Parliamentary Secretary might have an answer tomorrow, if not today.


Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, with respect, I believe, to Question No. 85, we have made inquiries and I was promised last week that we would have an answer before the end of the session. I will reiterate that request and see if I can get it.



ELECTORAL BOUNDARIES READJUSTMENT ACT


Mr. Speaker:: It is my duty pursuant to the provisions of the Representation Act, 1985, to lay upon the Table a certified copy of a supplementary report of the Electoral Boundaries Commission of the 1987 report for the Province of Saskatchewan.



MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE

Mr. 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 Bill C-259, to extend the term of a patent relating to a certain food additive, with an amendment to which the concurrence of this House is desired.

June 29, 1987
Capital Punishment



CAPITAL PUNISHMENT


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Deputy Prime Minister and President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Hon. Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise):
That the debate on the motion in the name of the Deputy Prime Minister and President of the Privy Council (Government Business No. 5) respecting capital punishment and any amendments thereto, shall not be further adjourned.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: All those in favour will please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Speaker:: All those against will please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Speaker:: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more that five Members having risen:


Mr. Speaker:: Call in the members.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion carried.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, although I regret the closure procedure, I think, as you said this morning, it is quite within our rules. I wonder if the Government and other Members of the House would give unanimous consent to sit through lunch hour to allow some of our Members who have not spoken a chance to speak, perhaps, in that additional hour?


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the suggestion. Is there unanimous consent?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I want the record to show very clearly that even with the hour that will be given to us by sitting through lunch hour, we still would not have the opportunity to hear all those who want to be heard on this subject because of the closure motion which was just adopted.
June 29, 1987


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of my Party, I want to say as well that because of the fact that 82 Members of Parliament have yet to have an opportunity to speak on this issue, we certainly would like to at least take advantage of the one hour extension.


William Henry (Bill) Domm: Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same point of order raised by the spokesman for the Official Opposition. I would like to point out that opportunity was given to his Party when it turned down the opportunity to sit all weekend and speak.


Mr. Prud'homme:: Mr. Speaker, I am not clear whether consent was given to sit during the lunch hour or not.


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair took it that there was consent. There were some points of order following in order for Members to make their positions clear, but I took it as consent.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Thursday, June 25, 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;
Capital Punishment
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)
Rob Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, the question of capital punishment has been a very difficult one for me these past few weeks. I am, as you can see, Sir, speaking near the end of the debate. 1 followed very closely the comments made on both sides of the subject before making up my mind.
As you know, Sir, this is the first of two possible questions which will be put before Parliament. The first is whether this House will support capital punishment in principle. If the resolution is passed, the second question would ask Parliament to consider specific amendments to the Criminal Code. Both are intended to be free votes, that is, those votes on which a Member can follow his own conscience. With that I agree.
During the election campaign of 1984 I indicated to the voters of Niagara Falls that the Progressive Conservative Party was committed to a free vote in the House of Commons on this subject. 1 thought it was a good idea then and I still do. At the time I indicated to the voters of Niagara Falls that I would vote in favour of capital punishment. It was not an easy decision to make then and it certainly has become more difficult as we approach the time of vote.
I would like to say a few words about the preliminary issues concerning this topic. Something which has been discussed many times in Parliament and in the media is the responsibility of the Member of Parliament on difficult subjects such as this. There are those who say that a Member of Parliament should in most cases reflect the views of his constituents. On the other side, many would argue that a Member of Parliament should always follow his own conscience even if his views differ from those of his constituents.
1 do not believe that the role of a Member of Parliament is as clear cut as those two options would seem to indicate. I think every Member of Parliament has a duty to do whatever he can to seek out the opinions of his constituents so that he can be as fully informed on a particular subject as possible.

June 29, 1987
Capital Punishment
I have received many letters on both sides of the issue of capital punishment. I have read them all and have tried to give them all due consideration. They have been very helpful. Most public opinion polls tell us that capital punishment is supported by a majority of Canadians. I would guess that while there is still a majority, it is not as overwhelming as it was a year or so ago.
Why do I say that? Because for me and all other individuals who think carefully on this, it is very difficult subject and certainly one which tears people apart. But at the same time, it is a question society must decide. I have an obligation to inform myself as to the thoughts and opinions of my constituents. 1 must weigh them carefully, but I believe that in the end I must act in a way responsible to myself and in the best interest of the people 1 represent.
I would like to say a few words about the conduct of this debate. I said earlier that questions such as this tear people apart. That is most unfortunate. I have noted in some of the speeches on this subject an excess of rhetoric on both sides. One of the most unfortunate facets of the debate is the imputation of wrong or bad motives by one side to the other. For instance, I disagree with those retentionists who characterize abolitionists as "bleeding hearts" who would wreck the criminal justice system and let killers out on the street. That has not been helpful. On the other hand, I disagree with those abolitionists who question the sincerity of those who would support the motion. It is wrong to suggest that their decision is based on a whim or that they are just simply rubber-stamping the uninformed views of their constituents. I am sure that most Members like myself have spent many hours thinking about this subject with a view to doing what is best for our country.
For those who support the motion and for those who oppose it, the subject of deterrence is always raised. I have heard and read a plethora of statistics, all attempting to either prove or disprove on the basis of statistics that capital punishment does or does not deter individuals from murdering other individuals.
1 reject that kind of analysis. I would guess that the statistical base in Canada is too small and our history too short to prove anything one way or the other.
In addition, trying to compare American States which have capital punishment with those which do not, is like comparing apples and oranges. There are just too many factors to make the analysis simple or reliable. To prove complex human behaviour on the basis of such statistics is chancy and something I will not even attempt. At the same time, it has been widely suggested that sanctions, penalties or punishment itself is a deterrent to certain behaviour. Whether the gravity of the punishment is a deterrent is another question. I would guess that the kind of individual who is prepared to murder another individual is not going to be deterred by the threat of capital punishment, but there may be exceptions.
One of my colleagues pointed out that in the Emanuel Jacques murder in Toronto, the case of a 12 year old boy being
systematically abused and then murdered by several individuals, one of the killers indicated that if he thought he might himself be executed he would not have carried out the gruesome act. God only knows if that is true. Therefore, I must look at other arguments put forward as to why capital punishment should be returned.
One argument that I think has been made effectively is that capital punishment is necessary to restore public respect for the criminal justice system. I am sympathetic with those who believe that respect for the criminal justice system in Canada is declining. I think, as well, that the consequences of that can be devastating if people come to the conclusion that penalties for breaking the law bear no relation to the crime.
Respect for our court system is what separates us from those countries where law and order has broken down completely. The rise in vigilantism on this continent is an alarming trend. The growing belief that the criminal justice system does not protect individuals is perhaps the most serious question we face in the criminal justice field. When people decide that they will take the law into their own hands, we are heading for chaos. We must do what we can to restore respect for our system of justice and to convince people that it works on their behalf as well as on behalf of the accused.
I believe for a majority of Canadians having the option of capital punishment would help to restore their faith in the criminal justice system. But that alone would not be enough to convince me of the need for capital punishment. I argue that the protection of the public from individuals who consistently demonstrate a disregard for the life of others is the only reason upon which this issue should be decided. I will give you certain examples, Madam Speaker.
It has been said in the Elouse of Commons and elsewhere that there are 14 individuals who once having been convicted of one murder have committed another while still in prison or after their release. For those individuals who commit multiple murders capital punishment should be an option. Certainly, on balance, we owe more to prospective victims than we do to those who refuse to live by society's laws.
I am reminded of the contract killer, the individual who was described in a recent trial in St. Catharines as being ready and willing to kill anyone for the sum of $10,000. I ask the House this. How do we adequately protect ourselves against that kind of individual? It is too easy to say that rehabilitation is the answer when a person has consistently acted in a way that shows he is not prepared to live within society's laws and will continue to endanger innocent victims.
In the cases I have described we would have removed doubt as to the possibility of executing an innocent individual through the multi-layered process by which the courts review each case before sending the matter to the Cabinet and the Prime Minister for possible commutation. There is no doubt in my mind that on the narrow ground which I have described
June 29, 1987

only a guilty person would be the recipient of the ultimate penalty.
Finally, there are those who say that the state has no right to take the life of another individual. I suggest that the state has always had the right to involve us in questions of this type. Surely, when the decision was made for Canada to go to war there was always the question of life and death. On the subject of abortion, Parliament has decided that a foetus or an unborn child can be aborted. That, too, is a question of life and death.
This has been a long and difficult debate for all Members of Parliament. My decision, and I know the decision of others in this Chamber, is bound to disappoint those who take an opposite view. That is one of the realities of public life. In the end, I have to make the decision. I do so on the narrow ground upon which I have indicated. If the motion is carried, I will have to assess the committee's recommendation and again decide whether it meets those criteria upon which I base this decision.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Madam
Speaker, I must say that I rise on this very important day with little enthusiasm, recognizing that as I speak less than 19 per cent of the Members of the House of Commons have had an opportunity to speak on this issue and, at the end of closure today, the overwhelming majority of the House of Commons will not have had the opportunity to put on the record an explanation for the way they will vote on this critical issue of capital punishment.
I am less enthusiastic as well because, if this particular motion passes, the very grisly task of the committee will be to tour the country to determine the appropriate way to kill certain criminals. Once that is completed by the end of the summer we will then spend weeks and perhaps months debating the Bill that will flow out of that committee at a cost of millions and millions of dollars.
Quite frankly, I simply do not consider this to be the nation's priority. We should be spending the time of the House of Commons, our energy, our talents and our expertise- indeed, the finances of the House of Commons-on questions dealing with the unemployed, the resource industry, small business problems, problems facing the farm community, issues concerning young people, how to improve our hospitals and schools and the like. But, no, this is a priority that the Government has identified. I, quite frankly, feel it is a misplaced priority.
One thing that concerns me greatly is that Canada is recognized as a peaceful, law-abiding and non-aggressive nation. When we consider that hundreds of thousands of people attempt to enter Canada every year they do so because of the reputation that Canada has. Canada is seen throughout the world as a leader in the field of progressive rights and freedoms. By reinstating the death penalty Canada would, I believe, be taking a backward step and would be abrogating its international commitments to these standards.
Capital Punishment
Canada is a party to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Canada has incorporated the same values into its Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Section 12 of the Charter states that everyone has the right not to be subjected to any cruel and unusual treatment or punishment.
Canada also participates in the international community through the United Nations. The General Assembly reaffirmed on December 8, 1977, Resolution 3262 which states that the main objective to be pursued in the field of capital punishment is that of progressively restricting the number of offences for which the death penalty may be imposed with a view to the desirability of abolishing this form of punishment.
I do not have to remind you, Madam Speaker, since I know you are aware that Canada is also a party to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Article 6 of that Covenant states that every human being has the inherent right to life, that this right shall be protected by law, and no one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his life. Nothing in this Article shall be invoked to delay or prevent the abolition of capital punishment by any state party to the present Covenant".
For many years we have all recognized that people are known by the friends they keep. The fact is that in 1976 Canada abolished the death penalty. In doing so we joined with many very progressive nations around the world, largely western nations, among them Australia, Austria, Denmark, Finland, the Federal Republic of Germany, France, the Holy See, Ireland, Iceland, Italy, Israel, Luxembourg, New Zealand, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, the United Kingdom and many others.
If we were to vote for the reinstatement of capital punishment we would be joining only two other western nations that consider it; one is Turkey and the other being a number of states in the United States-not the entire country but a number of states. We would be joining other, if you like, communist countries, military dictatorships, tinpot dictatorships, countries such as Iran and Iraq, South Africa, the Soviet Union, Chile, Libya, and Cambodia.
Quite frankly, I think the question that Canadians must ask is this. Which set of countries do we wish to be associated with, those progressive western nations or those, as I say, which are a variety of communist and military dictatorships, with the exception of Turkey and some of the states of the U.S.? I feel that the answer to that is obvious.
I want to say that the issue of capital punishment first came into my life as a discussion way back in 1953 when the Joint Committee of the Senate and House of Commons was established to study the whole matter of capital punishment. I was only 11 years old at the time, but I remember discussing with my father this issue and seeking his views and guidance and direction on this very critical and important moral issue facing the country at that time, as it faces us today.
At the time it was just after Easter. He drew this to my attention. He explained that we had just again recognized

June 29, 1987
Capital Punishment
through our church service the fact that Jesus had been hung on the cross, the ultimate form of capital punishment, in terms of promoting suffering and pain. For days and days people hung on crosses until they expired. Jesus was also tortured while he was hanging on the cross. My father said to me at that time, "Son, what was the response of Jesus to those who were doing this to him? Father, forgive them for they know not what they do". To this day that has stuck with me. Over the years it has assisted me in maintaining my position on capital punishment, which has always been as an abolitionist.
It is not as though my constituents are surprised, because in 1980, and again in 1984, during the federal election campaigns, my position on capital punishment was made clear. It has been made clear at every public meeting at which it has been raised. Every letter, every telegram, every postcard, every phone call I have received on the subject have had an immediate response, with my position on capital punishment stated very clearly.
Given all of that, I do not believe that the electorate in my constituency are surprised that once again, after examining the pros and cons on the issue, the arguments made on the issue, I maintain my position as an abolitionist on this very critical issue.
The remark made by Edmund Burke more than two centuries ago holds true today; "Your representative owes you, not his industry only but his judgment, and he betrays instead of serving you if he sacrifices it to your opinion".
I realize that many Members of Parliament have decided to hold polls on this issue, either straw polls or commissioned polls conducted by various polling companies. In that way they gain an appreciation of the various views of their constituents, and in many cases the majority has come down on the side of the reinstatement of capital punishment.
The trouble with that line of reasoning is that it leads to government by opinion poll. Instead of electing Nelson Riis as the Member of Parliament for Kamloops-Shuswap, the voters, if they use this approach to important decision-making, might just as well use a polling firm to conduct polls on critical issues, as opposed to having a Member of Parliament apply his or her judgment to the issue.
The assumption behind this type of polling contradicts the whole theory of representative democracy. The electorate sends people to the Parliament of Canada to exercise judgment on their behalf. As Edmund Burke put it two centuries ago, Parliament is not a congress of ambassadors but a deliberative assembly of one nation whose job it is to discuss and arrive at what is good for the whole country.
One chooses a Member of Parliament, Madam Speaker, as the first area of responsibility for that individual. The Member of Parliament who uses methods such as polling, in my opinion, belittles himself or herself in substituting the
mechanical operation of a poll for individual conscience and judgment.
I know that on some occasions Members of Parliament have had to cast their ballots on the side of an issue that went contrary to the public opinion of the day. I refer to my colleagues of the New Democratic Party at the time of the imposition of the War Measures Act, and earlier than that, members of the CCF Party in respect of the relocation of the Japanese during World War II.
At the time of the imposition of the War Measures Act, the popular view in the country was that the Prime Minister was right to introduce the War Measures Act; yet, members of the New Democratic Party stood up and voted against it, against popular opinion, feeling at the time that it was wrong.
In retrospect, in hindsight, we see now that that was the appropriate position to take on the part of the New Democratic Party members; that the imposition of the War Measures Act was an inappropriate measure to take in the circumstances.
To go back to one of the more dastardly historic initiatives taken by Parliament, the decision to relocate, by force, the people of Japanese heritage from the West Coast into the interior parts of Canada, again my colleagues in the CCF voted against that measure, as popular as it was at the time. Hindsight being 20/20, we realize again that the decision to oppose was a correct one.
It is in that same mode that I shall be casting my ballot later today against the reinstatement of capital punishment.
When it comes to this issue, I think we are all agreed that there are significant changes that must be made to our judicial system, our corrections system, and our parole system. I believe that Canadians see the system not working as they perceive it should. Consequently, Canadians are looking for some way to improve the system, to bring justice back into our judicial system. People are of the opinion that, by having capital punishment on the books, this will lead to a more equitable and judicial system.
Unfortunately, such is not the case. Ample evidence exists now to prove that the reimposition of capital punishment would not fulfil some of the more obvious requirements that people ask of us. For example, when it comes to the whole matter of capital punishment, a lot of people believe that it acts as a deterrent; that the fact of having capital punishment on the books will lead to fewer murders. The facts simply disprove that.
In 1975, prior to the total abolition of capital punishment, there were 701 homicides in Canada, for a rate of 3.09 per 100,000 people. In 1980, long after the abolition of capital punishment, the number of homicides totalled 593, for a rate of 2.47 per 100,000. In 1985, there were 686 homicides, for a rate of 2.78 per 100,000; and in 1986, the most recent year for which we have statistics, there were 561 homicides, the lowest since 1973.
June 29, 1987

So, looking at the number of murders in this country, one finds that in fact the rate has decreased since capital punishment was removed as a reality in Canada. Again, seeing capital punishment as a deterrent, obviously, is inappropriate.
If all punishment has a deterrent effect, then the value of capital punishment must lie only in its marginal deterrence. The question is one of the extent to which it deters more than would a prison sentence.
Deterrence is a concept based on the assumption that crime follows the calculation of an individual's advantage. Legislators, relying on deterrence as a strategy to control crime, may increase the severity of penalties in the belief that this will increase the individual's fear of punishment, thus decreasing the incidence of crime. The question is whether sufficient knowledge is available to justify such an approach.
The validity of the literature supporting the deterrence effect of punishment has been questioned on the basis that deterrence has been used in too broad a sense to be very meaningful at all. If one looks at the facts, it is indicated very clearly that the deterrence aspect is an inappropriate justification for capital punishment.
The other issue, of course, is the risk to the innocent. Perhaps the most forceful argument against capital punishment is the danger that an innocent person may be put to death. There is no system that can ensure the infallibility of judgment. In the past, there have been cases of mistaken execution. Even with all of the safeguards in the modern context, that risk still exists.
In 1982, Donald Marshall, wrongly convicted of murder, was released from the penitentiary in New Brunswick after serving 11 years.
Aside from the possibility of false evidence in a murder trial, the crime, by its very nature, arouses emotions that carry with them the risk of incurring failures of perception in those making the decision. It has been reported, Madam Speaker, that 343 persons were wrongly convicted of murder in the United States. Again, the matter of risk is involved.
As many speakers earlier have indicated, where capital punishment is available, a jury can be very reluctant to bring in a guilty verdict, knowing that that will be the ultimate result. The fact is, where capital punishment exists, a jury will often free the accused, rather than bring in a guilty verdict which could attract the death penalty.
So, if we are interested in protecting society from dangerous criminals, from murderers, again, the evidence would indicate that capital punishment is an inappropriate approach to take.
Another reason for voting against the reinstatement of the death penalty is the inequality of justice as it is applied today. I think it is fair to say that the death penalty, in practice, is not administered with equality. Those who are executed are, for the most part, from the disadvantaged, the uneducated, or minority groups.
Capital Punishment
In the United States, where the most statistics on this issue exist, it has been found that the poor, the black, the ignorant are the most likely to be executed. Those with money or influence usually avoid the death penalty.
Incidentally, the existence of the death penalty also encourages inequality in the application of justice in the political context. There is a danger of its use under the guise of treason in the event of a dictatorship ever coming to power.
When we look at our own situation, Madam Speaker, today, while we speak, there are 12,122 people serving time in federal prisons in Canada. When one looks at the population within those prisons, one finds that 9.1 per cent are native people, who constitute only 2 per cent of the Canadian population. In other words, one in ten prison inmates is native, whereas in society they represent one in fifty.
That indicates, again, a very racial bias in our judicial system, given the significantly higher proportion of native people in our prisons than exists in our society generally.
As a New Democrat, I feel strongly that those people who will be eventually executed, if the death penalty is reinstated, are those who are poor, those who have come from a disadvantaged background and who do not have the resources to hire the best lawyers in the country. It is those who are at the mercy of the injustices of our judicial system.
I have deep concerns regarding the reinstatement of capital punishment. I want to talk about the immorality of reinstating the death penalty. The taking of human life is morally wrong for the state as well as wrong for the individual. The state should set an example by recognizing the sanctity of human life in all cases.
The international conference on the abolition of the death penalty, which concluded with the Declaration of Stockholm reaffirming that it was the duty of the state to protect the life of all persons within its jurisdiction, ought to be the rule of the day. It called upon all nations to abolish capital punishment.
The death penalty is fundamentally dehumanizing, proclaiming the worthlessness of the offender's life. It eliminates one of the three main purposes of punishment-rehabilitation. Those who choose alternatives to capital punishment support respect for all human life and make possible efforts by society to reform and rehabilitate the offenders. Philosophers such as Plato, Hobbes, and Rousseau have supported the view that virtue can be taught and punishment should be directed toward the correction of the offender. The aim should be to reform and deter criminals and to maintain public peace.
Let us consider the coalition which has come together in opposition to the initiative to reinstate capital punishment. It includes all main line churches in Canada. The Pope has indicated his position against capital punishment. The three political Leaders in Canada have indicated their abolitionist position, as have, which is interesting, the three leaders of the

June 29, 1987
Capital Punishment
youth wings of the three national political Parties. On behalf of young Progressive Conservatives, Liberals, and New Democrats, they have voted and indicated their position against the reinstatement of capital punishment, to say nothing of the respect we have for the Minister of Justice (Mr. Hnatyshyn) who has indicated that he is against the reinstatement of capital punishment, as well as the former Prime Minister, the Right Hon. Member for Yellowhead (Mr. Clark).
The Canadian Civil Liberties Association, the Criminal Lawyers Association, the Salvation Army, Elizabeth Fry, and the John Howard Society have indicated that they are against the reinstatement of capital punishment. I could refer to a very long list of organizations, associations, and groups which we respect in terms of their thoughtful and progressive views, each one of which is against the reinstatement of capital punishment in Canada.
I could also refer to such groups as the Canadian Jewish Congress, the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops, the Anglican Church, the United Church, the Baptist Convention of Ontario and Quebec, the Canadian Unitarian Council, the Evangelical Lutheran Church, the Mennonite Central Committee, the Reformed Church of America, and the Religious Society of Friends, which officially support the continued abolition of the death penalty.
One might ask why. Some capital punishment proponents argue that the death penalty is necessary to convey society's abhorrence of murder and thereby affirm life's sacredness. The religious communities recognize the tragedy of murder and reach out in sympathy to those who have been deeply hurt by criminal activity. They do not believe, however, that the death penalty effectively addresses the needs of the victims of violence or those of Canadian society as a whole.
I would like to refer to a letter which I received from the parent of a daughter who was abducted and murdered just last July. In her final paragraph, she wrote:
I do not want to be part of a society that brings up future generations with the belief that killing can be legitimized under certain circumstances. Let the message be clear and unconditional: human life is sacred; killing is always wrong.
I have another letter which I received from a person who in fact was a hangman years ago in Canada. His final paragraph reads:
I abhor murder and feel deeply for its victims. I do not, however, want the society in which I live to be so full of hate and revenge, so unimaginative in its response to violence, that it should behave collectively no better than does the murderer among us whom we condemn. Capital punishment makes premeditated murderers of us all.
In conclusion, I simply say that I will be voting against this particular motion. For the sake of Canada and for the sake of future generations of Canadians, I hope we maintain our present progressive position on the issue.


Mr. Charles Hamelin (Charlevoix):: Madam Speaker, today we address the subject of capital punishment, and to me, this debate is also about freedom and responsibility. Capital punishment, as I see it, is a matter of self-defence for the people of this country.
Madam Speaker, this evening I intend to vote in favour of reinstating capital punishment in this country. I see it as my duty to take this position, and in the next few minutes I intend to argue my case as strongly and as convincingly as I can.
First I want to deal with the need for having this debate and with the commitment made by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and this political party. I will then describe the kind of society we want for all Canadians, and finally, I will address capital punishment itself and the foundation on which it rests.
Madam Speaker, the past weeks' debate in the House of Commons on the issue of maintaining the abolition of capital punishment or reinstating the death penalty would seem to be a sign of political maturity. Actually, unlike what is being said by some so-called progressive intellectuals, the controversial issue of reinstating capital punishment is now more than ever before a question of the utmost urgency. Does wanting to review a decision that was made in 1976 with a slim majority of only five or six votes mean turning the clock back? Does it really mean the return, in force, of a group of people who are out of touch with Canadian reality? Does it mean the return of ghosts from the past, of a few dinosaurs who want to talk about the need for reinstating capital punishment in Canada?
I don't think so. I believe that it is an excellent idea to review decisions made by Parliament with such a meagre consensus. I do, because refusing to re-examine our dicisions and our behaviour from time to time is refusal to change. Today, we often refuse to be eveluated because we do not want to change.
I would like to emphasize the Prime Minister's commitment to holding a free wote on this question. I see this as a commitment by this party and this Government. I would also like to stress the excellence of the Prime Minister's speech in which he gave us his views as an abolitionist. He did so with conviction, although I do not share his position.
Madam Speaker, the issue of capital punishement challenges the innermost values of each and everyone of us. Capital punishment also confronts us with another, very basic question, which is the kind of society we want in this wonderful country of ours. I will get back to that later, Madam Speaker.
When I was younger in years though hardly in stature, in my case so in my formative years, I had parents, a father and a mother, whose behaviour was described with a great deal of humour and wit by one of our Quebec humorists, the actor Yvon Deschamps. Whenever I had been up to no good, my mother's reaction was what you would call very decisive, while my father was more apt to lecture me when I misbehaved.
June 29, 1987

In simple terms, as Yvon Deschamps would say, my mother was decisive, in other words, she gave me a good hiding, while my father, who was more the lecturing kind, would sit me down and talk to me for hours on end. He would talk to me about maturity and responsibility. My father developed with strength and relevancy such basic notions as human freedom and responsibility. He was always emphasizing the need to measure the final consequences of one's actions. My father told me about fundamental justice and reminded me that each one of us must pay the price or reap the rewards for our actions. For him, freedom and responsibility were impossible to separate. For him, these principles were the living proof of maturity. For him, freedom and responsibility were the very basis of our family unit and the cornerstone of this country. Madam Speaker, it is in fact because of these two inseparable notions of freedom and responsibility that I consider reinstatement of the death penalty essential in this country.
Naturally, Madam Speaker, I have looked carefully at the statistical arguments of the abolitionists. Some of these arguments have a certain value, and it is true that the deterrent effect of capital punishment is not a valid argument, that the threat of having their own life taken away does not prevent criminals from committing crimes. The death penalty scares only people like you and me, Madam Speaker, it scares only law-abiding citizens, not the criminals. The criminals think about it only later, not before, unlike our policemen, who have to ask questions to the criminals before, even though the answer they might receive could be a bullet in the head.
It is also true that the argument of using the death penalty as an example cannot be supported and that the bloody spectacle of hanging, electrocution or other means of execution is more an act of savagery and voyeurism than anything else. As for me, I believe that it would be too much of an honour for the criminals to give them the front page of our newspapers or a chance to appear on television. They do not deserve that much. They do not even deserve our scorn. If the motion is adopted this evening, I would be satisfied if we used a small injection or a glass of water and a pill to rid us of those who no longer deserve the right to live.
Madam Speaker, I have also listened to the argument to the effect that we must respect human life. Is is not strange, Madam Speaker, and I would like to have some statistics about this, that the most ardent abolitionists are often those who are most in favour of abortion on demand! Such incongruous contrasts can only occur in politics. On the one hand, criminals should be protected because we must respect human life, but there is no problem in promoting the killing of new life. As for me, Madame Speaker, in all conscience, I cannot accept that a murderer should go unpunished, I cannot understand that someone who would stab an 80-year-old man 50 times to rob him of $50, or someone who raped a young girl in a moment of mental aberration should go unpunished. "Sorry, Your Honour, it was a moment of mental aberration." Then, realizing what he had done in a moment of aberration, as he realized that his victim might denounce him, he killed
Capital Punishment
her. I find it incredible that we should accept such situations, even though the figures tell us that they do in fact exist. Are we going to base our justice system on statistics? Is this a society founded only on statistics?
People have always tried to establish a direct relationship between the crime committed and the penalty which should be imposed. And we would now refuse to apply the same principles to the capital crime, which this time would not deserve capital punishment! We have established in our courts of justice a code that states that for robbery X or Y, for a criminal act of such or such a type there shall be such or such a penalty. But when it comes to the capital crime, oh no! we won't apply capital punishment.
If we take the view that criminals and crime are a permanent illness in our society that absolve the authors of any responsibility, if we become supporters of Jean-Jacques Rousseau who taught that any man is good and society corrupts him, what the heck are we doing with our courts of justice? At the limit, let us empty prisons and accelerate what is now going on. At the limit, let us be consistant. Just the same, they allow self defence apparently. Even abolitionists say: In self-defence, it is absolutely normal that one defends oneself and kills one's aggressor, if it comes to that. But society as such has no right to self-defence against those who committed murders against its members? It is funny how we get ourselves an army, with instruments of death. We get ourselves an army with instruments of death to protect our sovereignty, to protect the collective vitality of Canadians on our soil. We get ourselves instruments of death and we say that in case of war it is normal to shoot at the enemy, to kill the enemy. And as Canada itself assumes the right to kill its external enemies-to kill even the enemies of its allies-and has done so in the past, when it comes to its domestic allies, its own community, it deprives itself of that right. That is utterly inconsistent in my view. You must be consistently wrong, my math teacher used to say. I had the wrong answer but was consistent in my error, but on this issue we are not consistent, and this seems illogical to me.
Therefore, Madam Speaker, it is my view that capital punishment is self-defence, defending honest citizens in this country. And there can be no claim to consistency if in the final analysis there is no possibility, in exceptional, unjustifiable circumstances, when people no longer deserve the right to live, when they are unamendable as they themselves proved it, I believe that we must at least give ourselves that possibility. I for one completely trust judges and jurys to decide in the best circumstances. This country gave itself a Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Unfortunately, and this may be a reflection on the times, not many countries gave themselves a Charter of Rights, Freedoms and Responsibilities. Apparently there is more emphasis on the rights of criminals than on the rights of victims. We couldn't care less about victims finally. It is unbelievable that mental suffering is not assessed in courts of justice. That is not recognized. It is unbelievable. Recently,

June 29, 1987
Capital Punishment
someone defended himself with a firearm against a criminal, and he had to spend eight months in court to defend himself. . .


Alex Kindy: With a lot of money!


Charles-André Hamelin: With a lot of money. That is unbelievable. It is topsy-turvidom!
Do I want a society based on statistics? Because robbery exists, robbery is normal? At the limit, let us encourage robbery. Many of those sociological considerations are mad. I often have the feeling that our society is bent on false progress. Is removing capital punishment really moving forward? Because in Canada any clot will come here to get impunity. Why not! Welcome! We do not kill, we are a civilized country. We will accomodate your fits of confusion. They also come up with the argument of miscarriages of justice. I would like to know how many times our policemen have failed to get criminals convicted through some faulty procedure in court or otherwise. How many times have crimes escaped punishment due to some faulty procedure, or the absence of a last minute witness?
And when the Parole Board makes a mistake, when it releases someone who commits another criminal act, does it not also bear a very heavy responsibility?


Alex Kindy: It is negligence!


Charles-André Hamelin: Is it not an amazing lack of courage?
Madam Speaker, I too want this society to be tolerant, to be respectful of our differences, but that tolerance must stop somewhere in the end, otherwise the whole system is going to collapse. In fact, it is already collapsing! There is a vital need to reform our whole penitentiary system, to review our justice system, to review the whole sentencing system. We should bring a lot of energy into that whole process, otherwise I think everything will collapse.
I am therefore going to vote with my heart tonight, Madam Speaker, in favour of setting up that Committee which will examine the best methods to carry out this ultimate penalty in the case of those who do not deserve the right to live and those who have used their freedom to deprive others of their own freedom forever. Of course, Madam Speaker, I could elaborate at lenght on the amazing problem of victims who no longer have the right to speak, who no longer have any right at all. And I think this country should at least keep this ultimate lever and not pretend that we are civilized people because we have lost that sense of responsibility and accountability. Such is my deep conviction, and it is widely shared by a vast majority of my fellow citizens. As a free man who loves this country, I want the citizens of this country, men and women, to respect as a whole the rules of the game, and my freedom should not entitle me to take other people's lives. However, ultimately in this society, it is my legitimate defense, my ultimate defense, and I have been denied that defense for 20 years.
I feel that something is wrong, that things are deteriorating, that this situation is inconsistent and unacceptable, and that is why I deeply feel, Madam Speaker, that we should at least avail ourselves of that tool of justice which is not an easy one to apply, which is a difficult one, but which bolsters our democratic system of responsibility and freedom.


Mr. Len Hopkins (Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke):: Madam Speaker, before I start my speech on capital punishment, I want to reply in part to the statements made by the Conservative government House Leader. He has stated that closure has been necessary because the Official Liberal Opposition and the New Democrats would not agree to the shortening of speeches and hence to a time frame. Everyone knows that 75 per cent of the Members of the House sit on government benches and only 25 per cent sit on opposition benches. This makes a farce of his excuse for bringing in closure on this debate.


Mr. Turner (Ottawa-Carleton):: That's irrelevant.


Leonard Donald Hopkins: The truth of the matter is that the Government wants to get this motion off the Order Paper-


John Barry Turner: Where was Herb Gray?


Leonard Donald Hopkins: The fact that government Members are now shouting at me for bringing out the truth of the matter indicates that it is really hitting home. People will not be surprised by this motion for closure backed up by that weak excuse because the public no longer has any faith in this Government.
It is indeed with mixed feelings that I rise to participate in this debate on the resolution to reinstate capital punishment. This will be the fifth time that I will have voted-


Mr. Hawkes:: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The Hon. Member wanted to lay the truth on the Chamber but he forgot the part about the amendments members of the Opposition were moving so that they could speak in an infinite fashion.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The question raised by the Hon. Member is not a point of order but more a point of debate.


Leonard Donald Hopkins: Madam Speaker, I hope that that nonintervention will not be deducted from my time.
As I was saying, this will be the fifth time that I will have voted on this issue since first coming to the House of Commons as the Member for the original riding of Renfrew North which has since enlarged threefold and become the riding of Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke. I have voted for retention on all four previous occasions dating back to 1966.
June 29, 1987

Such votes as these are called free votes but, in my opinion, there is nothing free about them at all. The entire onus for such decisions rests on the shoulders and the personal judgments of individual Members of Parliament. Each Member of the Etouse cannot look to Party policy as a guide in voting, nor indeed as a means of justifying the decision he or she makes. One must stand on his or her own judgment after considering and stating the merits of one's case.
There are many people who are telling us to vote for abolition. There are many people who are telling us to vote for the reinstatement of the death penalty for first-degree murder. It is my firm conviction that most of the people who are demanding the return of the death penalty are doing so because they are frustrated with the perceived or real view that the administration of justice as it pertains to first-degree murder is not being carried out to their satisfaction.
During the last debate on this issue, after which I voted for retention, we were told that a life sentence would mean 25 years without parole. That has not been the case. Many people across the country feel that prison life is too soft for the convicted and that they are out on the streets and in the countryside too soon. They are telling us that if the Government is not willing to tighten up the system and make the law mean what it says, then they want the death penalty reinstated because they see it as the only other alternative.
1 have told abolitionists time and time again that if they win this vote tonight by defeating the resolution before us, they will rejoice, but it will be an incomplete victory. It will be an incomplete victory because the Government, through this inadequate resolution which is before us, has totally failed to attack and to correct the real problem facing the administration of criminal justice in Canada, which is the need for tightening up the procedures dealing with the incarceration and administration of procedures relating to first-degree murderers. If this action is not taken it will only be a matter of time before this very same issue will once again be back before Parliament. Therefore, the onus is on every Member of this House to ensure that we take action, regardless of how the vote turns out tonight, so that the administration of justice pertaining to first degree murder is carried out and means what it says.
All it will take is another serious case of murder to start off the demand once again for the reinstatement of the death penalty. All it will take is another serious parole issue to condemn the present system further and convince people that the system is not working or protecting Canadian citizens.
If those who support the reinstatement of the death penalty win the vote tonight a 15-person committee will be set up to decide which types of first degree murder will warrant the death penalty and what the method of death will be. This may satisfy the strong capital punishment supporters, but it will not solve the problem because the system is not being repaired by
Capital Punishment
this resolution. I am certain that if the death penalty is reinstated tonight no Government will allow a death penalty to be carried out. That is the crux of this whole debate.
Let us consider that point very seriously because it is the basis of my thesis. There are three political Party Leaders in this Parliament, all of whom are very strongly confirmed abolitionists. I cannot see any one of them leading a Government which would allow a death sentence to be carried out. The Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Mulroney) and his Cabinet have the constitutional right to commute a death sentence to life imprisonment.
As I said, I have voted for retention four times since coming into this House. The first vote retained the death penalty and the next two retained the death penalty for the murder of police officers and prison guards. However, I emphasize very strongly that no one has been put to death for murder in this country since 1962. That backs up the statements I have just made.
I have voted retention on this issue every time it has come up in the last 21 years. I remember the vote to abolish capital punishment which took place in Parliament shortly after I arrived here. That Bill was defeated on a free vote. The Solicitor General of the day was the Hon. Larry Pennell. I remember how terribly disappointed he was at that time. He then introduced a Bill for the reinstatement of the death penalty in cases of murder of police officers and prison guards.
I supported that compromise measure and it was passed. I point out again, however, that no one was ever put to death under this legislation. Death sentences were commuted.
I am convinced that those who believe they will have won a victory if capital punishment is reinstated tonight will learn that they have not won a victory at all because the present Government and any future Government will commute death sentences. I will be surprised if anything different happens.
What is this debate all about then, Madam Speaker? Are we to vote for something if we believe it will never happen? I think I would be somewhat insincere if I did that. Or are we to vote against it and ensure that a life sentence means what it says, that the work ethic be upgraded in our prisons in order that first degree murderers, among others, must do useful and productive work to help pay for their expenses? If we consider it cruel for a prisoner to do an honest hard day's work in prison to pay for his or her keep, then we are being cruel to every Canadian citizen we expect to get up every morning and go to work.
1 have attempted to formulate an amendment to this Bill which would provide for a 15-member special parliamentary committee to be appointed. Such a committee would proceed with an in-depth review of the parole system, the work ethic in our prisons, the so-called rights and privileges of first degree murderers in prison, and all other procedures related thereto. Such a committee would be charged with the responsibility of making a report recommending tougher provisions for the

June 29, 1987
Capital Punishment
improvement of this particular area of the administration of criminal justice in Canada.
This must be done if we are to build respect into the criminal justice system. We need fewer bleeding hearts and more realists. I believe most retentionists and indeed most abolitionists would agree with this move. Unfortunately, the Government has not seen fit to initiate such an all-encompassing and effective review of the system, although I believe we have a parliamentary committee which is beginning to aim at that process. The Prime Minister should have made that point in his speech last week.
I want to appeal to the Government to either make a commitment or amend the present resolution accordingly before it goes to a vote. The Government still has time to make this a useful exercise, to prove to the people of Canada that the Government is prepared to repair the system.
As I have said, this is a very moving and serious speech for me in that it explains my reasons for not voting for this resolution to reinstate the death penalty in Canada because this entire debate does not attack the problem. If the death penalty is reinstated and not acted upon, this whole debate will only be looked upon as a charade. Nothing will happen. The Prime Minister will say that he brought the issue before the House and it will look as though he kept one promise. However, the fact is that it is not a serious one because, as we have seen, it is a wide open vote and the Government itself has not taken a stand on the system of justice.
The fact that this resolution puts the onus and responsibility on Parliament and the 15-member parliamentary committee which will be formed, instead of on the Government, shows how vacillating this Government really is. At the same time the Prime Minister is trying to slough off the pro-reinstatement Members on his own benches. He is, in fact, taking them for another political ride.
Some of the most hardened criminals have admitted that they would consider 25 years in prison to be tougher punishment than the death penalty. Perhaps then, for some, the death penalty is too kind. We know that child murderers and murderers of women have to be segregated in prisons because some of the other prisoners have no respect for them and their lives are in danger. These prisoners should never be let off lightly and do not deserve privileges of any kind.
A Conservative back-bench Member of Parliament asked the Solicitor General of Canada (Mr. Kelleher) a question the other day about the parole system. The Solicitor General said that he was looking into it and attempting to implement measures. We want to know precisely what the Solicitor General has done and what commitment he will make in Parliament by way of improving the procedures of handling first degree murderers.
It is important to note how attitudes and outlooks change over the years. At the time of Confederation, the death penalty was imposed in cases of murder, treason and rape. Several Bills to abolish capital punishment were introduced up to 1950, but none were successful.
In 1953, following the introduction and withdrawal of a similar Bill for abolition, a Joint Committee of the Senate and House of Commons was established to study three topics, which should be noted by the House. They were capital punishment, corporal punishment, and lotteries. Thirty-four years ago, lotteries in Canada were put in the same category as capital punishment and corporal punishment.
Imagine that today, lotteries are big business in Canada, corporal punishment has disappeared, and we are still debating capital punishment.
In 1953, the joint committee of both Houses of Parliament in Canada considered the feasibility of abolishing capital punishment. Its final report in 1956 recommended the retention of the death penalty for murder, except in the case of children under 18. It further recommended that capital punishment be reviewed periodically by Parliament, and the method of execution be changed. Various Bills continued to be discussed in Parliament right up until the present time.
According to the polls, Canadian public opinion also changed over the years from a clear majority in support of the death penalty in 1943 and 1953, to a bare majority of 51 per cent in favour in 1960. By 1975, approximately seven out of every ten Canadians favoured the death penalty. That has not changed a great deal over the years.
I am convinced that if administration procedures surrounding first degree murderers are tightened, Canadians would support that because they could visibly see sound improvements being made.
Much has been stated in this debate about those great, brave words of Edmund Burke uttered to his electors in Bristol when he said:
Your representative owes you not his industry only but his judgment; and he betrays instead of serving you if he sacrifices it to your opinion.
While these sound like great, brave words, one must also check the facts. Edmund Burke did not run for re-election after he said those words, but chose to stand down.
I find it rather cynical that Edmund Burke is used as an example in this debate because I believe that only those Members of Parliament who are willing to stand up and be counted in this debate and put their sincere views on the record, then go back to face the electorate, are the ones who have the back bone to make such decisions on the criminal justice system in Canada.
I am absolutely firm in my intention to attack the system as it now exists. I want improvements to the system. I want it tightened up in order to bring back some respect for the
June 29, 1987

criminal justice system in Canada. I want some realistic people administering that new system.
1 say to all Members of the House that if we do not take the bull by the horns and use this common sense approach, we will be back in the House in the near future debating the same topic all over again. It will be a never ending debate that will arise every time there is a murdered policeman or rape and murder.
In the meantime, a life sentence must mean a life sentence and must include no privileges for those people during those 25 years; they must do hard work during that time. The system must be tightened up to show that Parliament has the will and desire to put respect back into the criminal justice system in this country.


Mrs. Claudy Mailly (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Communications):: Madam Speaker, it is with a very heavy heart today that I stand to speak in this debate. The thought that this dreadful motion would pass and that this barbaric practice would be reinstated was so appalling to me that today, for the first time, I voted against my Government in following a procedure in the House. The reason I did so was that I did not want to do even the smallest thing to help this motion pass.
If the motion does pass, I will mourn for my sweet country. I will mourn for my young son because he will have been robbed of one of the very basic reasons why he can be proud to be a Canadian. This country has recognized that killing even by the state is unacceptable.
I ran for office because of our constitutional situation. I feared that I would hand over to my son a country divided by civil war.
He was three years old in 1970, during the October crisis in Quebec. I feared so much that this division on our constitutional question would tear my country apart and leave my child growing up in a torn country that I became involved in politics.
It was a very difficult decision. I did not like what I had seen happening in public life and did not want to be part of it. But I was so concerned that this very important question of our unity would be used for political gains, by a party that wanted to maintain itself in power by using division to do so, that I ran for office. It was a difficult election and I did not win the first time I ran. However, I won in 1984.
It was such a joy for me when Quebec finally accepted to come back into the Canadian family. However, what will all this be worth if 1 am faced with having to hand over to my son a country that will have been diminished again?

Madam Speaker, in a comment 1 made to one of my colleagues who advocates the death penalty I drew a parallel between the abolition of slavery and the reinstatement of capital punishment. My colleague responded gently but with
Capital Punishment
deep conviction that I was mixing two elements which did not have anything in common.
And yet, Madam Speaker, both have a lot in common. In April 1966, the Right Hon. John Diefenbaker stated in this House:
Canadians conceal their pride in their country. We do not boast about it. How many of us pridefully point out that it was here in Canada that slavery was abolished for the first time in all the western world in 1803? It is an amazing record. It was 40 years before it was abolished in the United Kingdom and many more years before it was abolished in the United States. The argument that slavery was divinely appointed was still used in the days of Webster, Choate, and the other giants of the 1830's and 1840's.
The Right Hon. John Diefenbaker therefore considered that our having been pioneers with respect to the abolition of slavery was one of the glorious pages of our history.
In support of the parallel I make with the death penalty I should like to put on the record the opinion of Secretary Jean-Claude Bernheim responsible for prison matters at the International Federation for the Rights of Man and coordinator of the board of inmates' rights. He says, and I quote:
In future, how will Canada be able to pride itself on being the defender of rights and freedoms before international authorities, particularly the United Nations Human Rights Commission, if it demonstrates so clearly that it could not care less about its commitments and its signature? Its credibility might easily be questioned, and its action against apartheid, among other things, will lose all its value.
Then there is an article entitled "Maintain the abolition of capital punishment. Canada must keep its credibility with respect to rights and freedoms."
He went on to say:
South Africa is already making the most of our racism concerning native people. What will Canada do after executing one of them-indeed, members of minority groups and the poor are most likely to be executed-and in turn South Africa hangs a black? Will it be in a position to voice its indignation?
Not only will the restoration of capital punishmenmt make us lose credibility with respect to rights and freedoms, but it may also signal the reinstatement of the death penalty in other countries. As a society, can we assume such a responsibility?
As the Right Hon. John Diefenbaker told us in 1966, there is a very obvious link between the abolition of slavery, a black mark against our civilization, and the death penalty.
I would also like to quote journalist Gwynne Dyer who wrote this in the Whig Standard of April 18, 1987:
Ten years ago, virtually the only countries that were still killing criminals were South Africa, most of the Communist countries and a few other nations in the Third World. But now the United States is executing people again too, and Canada will shortly decide whether it will follow suit. Yet the death penalty probably makes not the slightest difference to the murder rate.

Indeed, our colleague from Charlevoix said so a moment ago. He favours restoring the death penalty, but he emphasized that capital punishment does not deter criminals from killing other human beings.

June 29, 1987
Capital Punishment
Mr. Dyer added:

Northern Ireland had a population of about 1.5 million people, and so has the City of Detroit. In Northern Ireland, in addition to the normal quota of murders committed by frightened thieves and angry spouses, there is a terrorist war in which Catholic and Protestant gunmen murder each other, members of the police and army, and innocent civilians. And there is no death penalty.
In Detroit, where there are no terrorists and where the death penalty does exist, there were 10 times as many murders last year (646) as there were in Northern Ireland. The murder rate in a particular society seems to be determined far more by the political and cultural traditions of the people and the availability of firearms than by the presence or absence of the death penalty.

On February 18, 1960, famed criminal lawyer Arthur Maloney, then a Member of the Elouse, speaking against the reinstatement of capital punishment, against the imposition of capital punishment, quoted the words of a great writer, Anatole France. Madam Speaker, he quoted him with irony and said:
Anatole France once said that the law had a majestic equality. The law equally forbids the rich and the poor from doing the following things: from sleeping under bridges, from begging alms on the street and from stealing a loaf of bread. That may be the only thing he ever said that I will ever agree with-
-said Mr. Maloneybut it is a statement that causes one to sit back and to think. As legislators we should ponder less about the need for the penalty of death, and we should ponder more about co-operating with government to eradicate some of the roots from which crime stems; help clear up the slums in co-operation with provinces or municipalities; help build recreational centres to which underpriviliged boys and girls can come to find opportunity that they are denied at home, to find friendship and affection that they are denied at home. Those are the sorts of things we should all be doing. We should be placing emphasis on prisons; we should be encouraging a continuance of the development of the present policy to modernize and humanize those places, places in which the emphasis will be upon the reformation and the reclamation of the people w'ho live within them, places from which the graduates will leave restored to dignity and prepared to take their place in society.
My colleague, the Hon. Member for Charlevoix (Mr. Hamelin), mentioned a while ago "these unpunished crimes", the criminal who finds himself back on the street because a police officer has been unable to make a case stick and who ends up killing this same police officer. But he did not say that it was because of the flaws in the prison system. The death penalty is not going to eliminate these flaws, far from it! He mentioned also that a great many countries had not adopted a charter of rights and freedoms, and he was proud to say that we had such a Charter in Canada. But the Charter of Rights and Freedom forbids cruel and unusual punishment. I feel, therefore, that he should try to be consistent in his remarks. He mentioned finally the need to respect the rules of the game. That is why he said he was for capital punishment: A person who does not respect the rules of the game has to face capital punishment. Madam Speaker, I feel that life and death are not a game. How can anybody talk about the rules of the game when a human life is involved?
According to many newspaper clippings and articles, recent studies have shown just how discriminatory capital punishment
is against the poor and the visible minorities. That is something very serious to take into account.
In an editorial published in Le Devoir newspaper on May the 1st, Pierre Tremblay stated:
Bury this pointless debate
What is more, society has duties towards all its members, including helping those who misbehave mend their ways. Capital punishment does not rectify anything; it is a refusal to face a problem by eliminating it. It is a sign of immaturity and irresponsibility.
How strange, Madam Speaker, that Mr. Tremblay and I should reach conclusions which are exactly the opposite of those reached by the Hon. Member for Charlevoix. He insisted on the need to reinstate capital punishment to show responsibility and maturity. Yet, this is the way a great many people feel-they are not intellectuals who are anxious to find something to say, as he claimed-who, like I do, love very much this country which is doing its utmost to be civilized, who love also their children very much and want to leave them a country which is better than the one they inherited. And here is what Mr. Pierre Tremblay said in another editorial:
Popular pressure. There is no mistake about it; scientific opinion polls tell us rather bluntly that a convincing majority of Canadians are in favour of reinstating capital punishment. A "convincing majority": the phrase is appropriately used in marketing, but does it define the real mission of legislators? No. Opinion polls are anonymous; they give us a picture of the average constituent who may express his deeper feelings or, alternately, simply voice his superficial prejudices. We expect from members of Parliament a more responsible conduct.
Under the circumstances, Madam Speaker, 1 found it gruesomly fascinating to note that according to a poll on the preferred means to execute criminels if capital punishment is reinstated, the most popular method was an injection given to the criminal so that he can die peacefully without screaming or struggling as if for example he was suffering from a fatal disease and that he was merely being given a painkiller.
When we looked at that poll, it made us shudder, Madam Speaker, because here is what it said:
"Most Canadians want lethal injection to replace noose."
[ Translation]
If we consider the totals, those who were undecided were some 18 per cent. Those against the death penalty in that poll taken in March 1987 were some 20 per cent. Those who were in favour of an execution before a firing squad were about 1 per cent. Those in favour of the gas chamber were some 3 per cent. However, those who were in favour of that gentle and easy method were about 50 per cent. With that gentle injection, nobody will hear him scream and realize that he has died. There was a 19 per cent support for electrocution and less than 10 per cent for hanging. Therefore, as we are often told, the execution performed at early hours when nobody is around, is apparently what the people have in mind when they think about capital punishment. We are told why it is so.
June 29, 1987



"Why is it wrong to restore hanging" asks a Toronto Star article. As I said before, the death penalty is biased against the poor and the visible minorities.
"Whether somebody received the death penalty very often seemed to be a function of the quality of their lawyers," wrote Clifford Sloan, a former clerk at the U.S. Supreme Court... "By and large, the people who receive the death penalty are dirt poor."
The death penalty is irreversible. Since our justice system is run by human beings it is subject to human error, that is, we sometimes convict the wrong man. If we then hang him there is no turning back. Imagine if Donald Marshall, the Micmac Indian wrongfully convicted of murder in Nova Scotia, had been sentenced to death. It is bad enough that he served 11 years for a crime he did not commit.

My colleague for Charlevoix said earlier: "Let us trust our judicial system; I have every confidence in our legal system; I have confidence in the jury; we are acting like mature people by condemning someone to death for making a mistake." However, mistakes can also be made by condemning innocent people.

The death penalty is barbaric. Most western industrial nations, including even France-

-which was the country of the guillotine-

-have abolished it. The major exception is the United States, home of the Saturday night special. Other nations where it is still in practice include Iran, South Africa, and the Soviet Union, whose examples we do not normally follow.
The death penalty places an immense strain on our institutions. If it is reinstated, all death sentences will, as a matter of course, be appealed to the Supreme Court and, thence, to the Cabinet. The nine justices and 40 Ministers had better be prepared to devote extraordinary amounts of time to each and every case. If they did not, they would not be fulfilling their duties.

The advocates of the death penalty are therefore supporting a system of social values which can be termed moral order. This concept is often closely related to the reason of state, and involved as a kind of eraser for all political ills. At times, moral order is uncompromising towards those who go against its dictates. At others, it turns a blind eye to breaches of the most basic moral standards. Moral order is a part-time moralizer-
-according to lawyer Jean Fortin, of the Pepper & Associates law firm.
This is therefore a moral debate, Madam Speaker, where we have to ask ourselves these questions: What kind of country do we want to leave our children and grandchildren? What kind of country could we take pride in? What kind of country could we hold as an example to others? Finally, as parliamentarians,
Capital Punishment
at the end of this mandate, and in the expectation of being given a second one, would we be preparing a better Canada for our children if we voted to reinstate the death penalty? I firmly believe that we would not, Madam Speaker.

Mir. John Parry (Kenora-Rainy River): Madam Speaker, it is with profoundly mixed emotions that I rise to make my contribution to this debate which I think all who participate in it, whether it be for or against, must view as historic. Like the Hon. Member for Gatineau (Mrs. Mailly), I too was first elected to this place in 1984.
In facing the question of the possible reintroduction of capital punishment in Canada I feel somewhat like the pilgrim in Pilgrim's Progress. "Though with great difficulty I am got hither, yet now I do not repent me of all the trouble I have been at to arrive..." While I have that profound sense of sadness that this debate should ever be necessary in a society that proclaims itself or believes itself civilized, I have a pride and a profound sense of the personal privilege that is granted to me in allowing me to be part of this debate and allowing me to have my say against the possible reintroduction of capital punishment.
There has never been an execution in Canada in the 17 years that I have had the privilege of living in this country, and for eight years before that. The effects of demographics, of immigration, mean that over one-half of Canadians cannot claim to have the slightest personal memory of an execution ever having taken place in this country. They literally cannot remember the time that this was carried out in our country.
In entering this debate I would like to salute those who I see as the heroines and heroes of this debate, those who, like my hon. friends from Bourassa and Saint-Michel-Ahuntsic, have had the courage to change their views in the course of the debate as they listened to the arguments. I salute also those on the government side who, in the face of an overwhelming majority of their colleagues, have clung to, propounded and proclaimed their own faith that this is a measure that would be a stain on the country of Canada and a stain on the Government of which they are part.
I would like, too, to nail a lie that has been put about, that there has been discipline exercised within the New Democratic Party to have everybody oppose this resolution. That is absolutely false. There has never been the hint that it might be used. It is totally unnecessary. We are of one mind. That is a reason we are, after all, in the same Party.
Why the debate? I understand the reasons why, and I do not want to make cheap political points out of them. I understand that as part of the election campaign the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) promised a free vote. I do not judge on his now fulfilling that promise. Yet, having listened very carefully to his speech, I see a man who is torn between the promise and his principles. I can only say that I am glad that this does not

June 29, 1987
Capital Punishment
weigh upon my conscience as it must surely weigh upon the conscience of the Prime Minister.
Closure has now been introduced, depriving a large number of Members of this House the opportunity to speak their views on the question of capital punishment. As I do so I will not go the route of an extensive citation or exegesis of scripture, or I hope too extensive a quotation from other authorities.
Virtually every authority that I am familiar with has been cited already, and been cited by people who have a better knowledge, a better understanding, and a better ability to present those authorities than I do.
I should not pretend to be profoundly acquainted with the scriptures, and certainly not as profoundly as one who proclaims a Christian faith should be; nor should I claim that I am aware of the other non-Christian authorities on the subject. But, I shall hinge my argument on four quotations from scripture that speak powerfully to me in judging this question. They are, an eye for an eye, thou shalt not kill, vengeance is mine sayeth the Lord, and, behold, I give you a new law.
It is no accident, Madam Speaker, that ojo por ojo, an eye for an eye, is the name of the most dreaded death squad in El Salvador, because that is the law of vengeance.
Those who cite the New Testament in support of their argument cannot overcome the authority of the commandment "Thou shalt not kill" no matter how hard they try, because there are no qualifiers; there is nothing appended or added to that commandment. It say, and it says simply, "Thou shalt not kill."
"Vengeance is mine", sayeth the Lord, and that places in the status of blasphemer everybody who would abrogate unto themselves, or unto any organization in which they may take part, the ability to exercise vengeance.
And finally, the words of the Saviour, "Behold, I give you a new law", and indeed he did, and that law was to love.
The significance of the Bible usage and citation on the pro side of this question, I think, is unarguable. They depend far too heavily on the Old Testament over the New Testament, and they can produce only the most tangential relevance and connection between any words of the Saviour and the position that they seek to propound in this debate. They use scripture, as it was once said a drunk uses a lamp-post, not for illumination, but for support. They use scripture, citing always the authority, but not touching or yielding to the inspiration, which is after all the central difference between Christian scriptures and the scriptures of other religions. The significant difference is that the Bible is not merely a codification of the rules under which we should live, but an inspiration above all; it is a source of inspiration for those who believe, and the aspect of authority is, I believe, undeniably secondary.
Some people have said, Madam Speaker, that elected representatives are duty-bound to support measures such as the reintroduction of state killing because the majority of Canadians appears to favour it. To me, it is not the role of the Member of Parliament to become merely a mechanical device for producing, regurgitating, and onward transmission of the views of constituents. I know, and I know full well, that such a system would repel and would deter three-quarters of the Hon. Members of this House from taking up a duty under conditions which they could not exercise the moral judgment that they possess as free beings.
I believe, of course, that it is my duty to seriously consider the representations of all of my constituents, but they must be honoured in a way that reflects not only their need to be heard but the fact that they elected me to judge, to apply my own conscience, to weigh in the balance the arguments, and to make decisions.
Our country is a representative democracy. It is not a direct democracy like an early New England village or ancient Greek town, where, of course, slaves and women were excluded from consideration. While the ordinary citizen in a representative democracy may in some way feel disenfranchised on some issues, in a direct democracy they are completely at the mercy of those who put the question. Plebiscites and referenda are the traditional tools of the demagogue, the tyrant, and the skilled authoritarian, and they have no place in our parliamentary system.
In the 1979, 1980 and 1984 election campaigns, I-and the same is true of the gentleman I replaced-consistently stated my opposition to capital punishment. Even though some of my constituents may disagree with my stand on this issue, I believe they expect, above all, that I will be true to the positions I adopted during those election campaigns.
The power of this debate is such, Madam Speaker, that during its course, and before it got started, we have seen a gradual shift, not only in the mood of the Members of this House, but in the country. We have seen support for capital punishment slipping away. The surveys, one after the other, of Members of Parliament have consistently shown an increase in the forces of support for abolition and a decrease in those who seek to kill.
Capital punishment, as an act of revenge, is morally unjustifiable. All of Canada's major churches have spoken out against it. Theologians, who after all are the most expert interpreters of scriptural authorities, are almost unanimously against it.
Our justice system cannot be based on a simple retributive equity, measure for measure. We do not steal from thieves; we do not rape rapists. I do not believe that vengeance can play any part in a civilized system of criminal justice. The compassion of those who have seen their own relatives victimized by murder and who yet speak out against capital punishment cries out to be honoured in the record of this nation.
June 29, 1987

Capital punishment can never restore the life lost; it can only degrade us as a nation. It is not a deterrent. Surely the comparative experience in the United States proves that. Surely the views of the former President of the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police should be considered. He said:
-it is futile to base an argument on reinstatement of capital punishment on the grounds of deterrence.
Surely that view should be listened to, as should the words of the Hon. Minister of Justice (Mr. Hnatyshyn) who said:
Where you have a penalty it should be demonstrated to be a deterrent with respect to the activity for which it is a penalty.
Because I learned history in the United Kingdom, Madam Speaker, I think of the experience there. I think of how, back in the 17th and 18th centuries, a whole panoply, a gamut of crimes were punishable by the ultimate sentence, and how gradually penal reform reduced that number and how there was in fact a reduction in crime that went hand in hand with that reform.
We are no longer in the age of Dickens, when a person could be hanged for picking a pocket. And we know that even for that trivial crime, capital punishment was not a deterrent. We have more than one authority citing the fact of the widespread pick-pocketing that took place at public executions. That is an antithesis that the "pro" forces are incapable of resolving.
Far from reducing violent crime, the facts support the view that the death penalty is part of the cycle of violence and does not address the public's need for protection.
Depending upon the base year and depending upon the use of statistics, it is very easily possible to show that murder in Canada has fallen since the death penalty was abolished.
The death penalty means that even the innocent can be executed. Miscarriages of justice have been documented in this society, in the United States, and in Great Britain. It has been reported that 343 persons have been wrongly convicted of capital offences in the past 200 years in the United States.
The death penalty is discriminatory. Those who die are, overwhelmingly, the poor, the illiterate, the uneducated, the native people, identifiable racial minorities.
The Assembly of First Nations has petitioned this Government, based on a study entitled "The Quality of Mercy", to block the reinstatement of capita! punishment on the ground that if it were reintroduced, it would again fall upon members of the groups which it represents.
As the late Supreme Court Justice of the United States, Justice William O. Douglas, noted: "One searches our chronicles in vain for the execution of any member of the affluent strata of society."
May I call it two o'clock, Mr. Speaker.



STATEMENTS PURSUANT TO S. O. 21


Mr. Roland de Corneille (Eglinton-Lawrence):: Mr. Speaker, today is a day of infamy. The Tories have once again broken their promise, this time about a matter of life and death.
Today the Government has shocked and outraged Members of the House by invoking closure in the capital punishment debate. I believe that most Members of the House, regardless of party affiliation, shared the views of the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Mazankowski) when he stated in the House on February 13, 1987:
The Government wishes to have a frank debate, a full debate, and a constructive debate.
Given this statement, it is indeed hard to understand why the Government is in such a hurry to curtail debate on this serious issue before all Members of the House have been able to voice their views.
I want to point out-and I hope the Speaker will take note as well-that this debate is different from all other debates. This is not a debate between Parties. It is a debate where each Member of Parliament has views to present, and the Speaker must consider that in this circumstance each of us has an equal right to be heard-


Mr. Speaker:: I regret that the Hon. Member's time has expired.



OATH OF ALLEGIANCE


Mr. Reginald Stackhouse (Scarborough West):: Mr. Speaker, recently the constituency of Scarborough West was honoured to host the largest citizenship court ever convened when 400 Canadians of Greek origin became citizens of this, their chosen country.
It was an inspiration to witness these people, in the presence of the Secretary of State (Mr. Crombie) and Citizenship Judge Suzanne Warren, take their oath of allegiance to Her Majesty The Queen of Canada as this country's head of state.
Afterwards the judicial character of the evening was happily replaced by a party spirit when ethnic dancing and singing took over the proceedings.

June 29, 1987
It was thus a visible demonstration of today's and tomorrow's Canada-many cultural traditions united around one national allegiance.



CANADA POST CORPORATION


Mr. Cyril Keeper (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, we welcome the appointment of a mediator in the postal dispute, and we hope this means a change of heart on the part of the Government to a policy of negotiation rather than confrontation.
However, I have received a disturbing report from Montreal that in fact the Post Office is continuing to use strike-breakers for security in the delivery of mail.
We call upon the Government and the Post Office to live up to their commitment that they would withdraw all strikebreakers during the period of mediation.
The annual report of the Post Office has shown that the deficit is well in hand. It has dropped over the last year by $81 million. This excuse for confrontation with the postal unions is simply that-an excuse. The conciliator's report pointed out that the impasse in the negotiations was caused by the Government's post office plan and by its short deadline to reach financial self-sufficiency. We hope-


Mr. Speaker:: I regret the Hon. Member's time has expired.



CAPITAL PUNISHMENT


William Henry (Bill) Domm: Mr. Speaker, I rise to give notice to the House of a number of petitions I have received in my office over the past few days and weeks. As you know, representation through petitions has culminated in over 39,000 people across Canada expressing their views in support of a return to capital punishment.
Also I would like to advise the House that, in addition to these 39,256 names, I have also received another 5,827 signatures which, for technical reasons, do not conform to House rules for presentation of petitions. When included, these signatures now total over 45,000 Canadians.
Let me express my sincere thanks to groups such as CRY, Citizens Responding to You; Citizens United for Safety and
Justice; Citizens for Capital Punishment and Justice; Victims of Violence; Army, Air Force and Navy Veterans; New Brunswick Police Chiefs Association; RCMP Divisional Staff Representatives; Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police; Canadian Police Association, and the Ontario Provincial Police Association. These groups worked very hard in circulating these petitions and deserve the thanks of many Members of the House.
I would also like to point out that the Ontario youth wing of the PC Party totally endorses and supports a return to capital punishment.



ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS


Mr. Gilles Grondin (Saint-Maurice):: Mr. Speaker, my statement today concerns the problems caused by log drives on the longest river used for that purpose in Canada, the Saint-Maurice. As you know, the river runs through vast tracts of land in the Mauricie region, from La Tuque to Trois-Rivieres.
The log drive has for many years caused serious problems, both for residents on the banks of the Saint-Maurice and for the rest of the population in this region. The pollution caused by the drive has reached alarming levels, according to a brochure published by the Quebec Department of the Environment, under the title: La Saint-Maurice, une riviere en danger. The brochure says, on page 17: "The log drives carried out for many years on this waterway have had a harmful impact on aquatic life and water quality. The floating logs, with the bark and the logs that sink and accumulate on the river bottom, release harmful substances, some at levels that are toxic to aquatic life". And a little further: "The floating logs continue to have a devastating impact as far as the St. Lawrence River."
This is a complex problem, since stopping the log drive would cost considerable economic problems in the region owing to the high cost of shipping the logs over land.
In April 1986, an agreement in principle to control log drives was reached. However, it seems the anticipated results have yet to materialize.
That is why I ask that all parties involved, including the federal Department of the Environment, the companies concerned, and other federal, provincial and municipal authorities, meet as soon as possible in order to find a feasible solution to this very serious problem in short order.
June 29, 1987



TOURISM


Mr. Walter Van  De Walle@Pembina: Mr. Speaker, tourism is a $22 billion industry in Canada-a vital part of our economy. Some 600,000 Canadians in over 60,000 businesses, many independently owned, owe their livelihood to our tourist industry. In the Province of Alberta the annual value from tourism is $2.5 billion. Who can resist the breathtaking beauty of the Canadian Rockies and our national parks?
This year the County of Strathcona in my riding of Pembina is hosting the Alberta Summer Games, to be held August 5, 6, 7, and 8. Some 4,000 athletes will gather in Strathcona to compete in 30 sporting events, complemented by a major cultural festival. More than 3,000 volunteers have devoted their time.
I extend a warm invitation to everyone to come to Pembina for the Alberta Summer Games. I can assure them of a hearty western welcome.
As we say in Alberta, "Smile, you're a tourist attraction".
* *
*



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


Mr. Guy St. Julien (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, Val d'Or is preparing for the Twenty-third annual Quebec Games, from August 7 to 16, a commitment it intends to meet out with its usual flair. The people of Val d'Or have adopted the slogan: A Heart of Gold, and they intend to live up to their legendary reputation for hospitality when they receive Quebec's young people this summer.
On this occasion, more than 4,000 participants, including athletes, group leaders and officials from eighteen sports-loving regions in Quebec, as well as thousands of local volunteers and thousands of spectators and visitors, will experience the excitement of this unique event. Twelve sports disciplines are slated for the 23rd annual Games. Competitive activities will be divided into two blocks of four days each. From August 8 to August 11, there will be track and field, bicycle racing, diving, softball, sailing and water-polo, and from August 12 to 15, baseball, swimming, petanque, waterskiing, soccer and tennis. More than just a sports event, the Quebec annual Games at Val d'Or are a unique opportunity for Quebecers to make friends, celebrate, and discover and share new experiences. Mr. Speaker, the Twenty-third annual Quebec Games at Val d'Or will be the amateur sports event in Quebec par excellence.


Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg-Birds Hill):: Mr. Speaker, rumours are abounding again about CN's plans to centralize its corporate structure, and CN President Lawless has been quick to deny any plan to close its regional headquarter offices in western Canada. At least, he has not confirmed the rumours.
However, we in Winnipeg are familiar with the process. We remember the denials of 1985, that the prairie region headquarters was not going to disappear, and along with it all kinds of senior jobs to Edmonton, and all the while it was actually happening. That was eventually stopped, but I am told that the jobs continue to bleed away to Edmonton in a much less controversial fashion.
I call upon Manitoba Tory Members of Parliament and all western Tories to defend western Canada, both Winnipeg and Edmonton, against any possible centralization of this sort.
While I am at it, I call upon the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp) to make good on the work he is doing to bring the new centre for viral disease control to Winnipeg as a complement to the excellent health sciences sector which already exists in Winnipeg. If Winnipeg were to get this very worth-while project, it would certainly go some way toward alleviating the sting of the CF-18.



OFFICIAL LANGUAGES


Mr. Robert Toupin (Terrebonne):: Mr. Speaker, I was dismayed to learn about the resolution adopted by the majority of the Conservative Members of a committee of the Alberta Legislative Assembly censoring Alberta NDP Member Leo Piquette for asking a question in French, and blaming the daily Edmonton Journal for supporting the NDP Member and the French fact in Alberta.
This attitude on the part of the Conservative Members attests to their political immaturity, and constitutes an insult to and an unacceptable intolerance of Alberta francophones. The attitude of these Conservative Members shows disrespect for the freedom of the press.
On behalf of my Party and of all Quebecers, again I extend my support to the NDP Member, Leo Piquette, for his display of courage and to all Alberta francophones.

June 29, 1987



TAX REFORM


Mr. Raymond Garneau (Laval-des-Rapides):: Mr. Speaker, each passing days sheds more light on the tax reform announced by the Conservative Government. The conclusion is that Canadian families stand to lose as a result of this exercise.
Mr. Speaker, my interpretation of the documents which were tabled is that there will no longer be an exemption for dependent children over 18 who are still attending school.
Second, a woman who is divorced, separated or widowed and whose child of 18 or more is still attending school will not be allowed either to benefit from a dependent child exemption nor to consider such child as a spouse for income tax purposes.
Third, in the case of an average income family, say $30,000, the $65 child tax credit for children under 18 does not replace the tax value of the exemption which was $710 in 1986. In fact this family will lose $120.
Finally, two families with a similar income, say $25,000, one with two children 18 or more and still attending school, the other childless, will pay the same amount of taxes.
I think that is unfair, and the President of the National Action Committee on the Status of Women was quite right to describe this reform as being scandalous.



MUNICIPAL AFFAIRS


Mary Collins: Mr. Speaker, on Wednesday Canadians celebrate the one hundred and twentieth anniversary of Canada. Out on the West Coast we celebrate the seventy-fifth anniversary of the Municipality of West Vancouver in the constituency of Capilano.
Members of the House have heard me extol the virtues of West Vancouver before. Certainly its physical beauty of snowcapped mountains and spectacular ocean vistas is unsurpassed anywhere in the country. But it is the people who have made this community truly outstanding.
The early pioneers included sawmill operators who established their businesses along the northern shores of Burrard Inlet, and community leaders such as John Lawson.
They were followed by the summer cottagers, and then with the construction of the Lions Gate Bridge in the late 1930s by growing numbers of permanent residents who gave rise to the development of the gracious homes, parks and community facilities which we enjoy today. Communities such as Horseshoe Bay, Caulfeild, Dundarave, Ambleside and Park Royal all contribute their own unique ambience to West Vancouver.
So in this time of celebration, to a community of beauty and sanctuary, a community of truly committed citizens, a community which I am proud to represent, may I send my best wishes for a happy seventy-fifth, West Vancouver.




Mr. Aurele Gervais (Timmins-Chapleau):: Mr. Speaker, I stand today to invite all my fellow Members of the House of Commons, members of the Senate, and their constituents to visit the City of Timmins during the remainder of 1987 because we are celebrating our seventy-fifth anniversary. In particular, I would like to see them come to Timmins during the period of July 23 to August 5.
Two event-filled weeks await both residents and visitors alike, from culture lovers to sports fans plus all of the folks who just want to be happy and have fun. Visitors will be able to choose from many pieces of our birthday cake.
More than 12 ethnic groups have contributed with fine traditions and hard work to make our community a better place in which to live.

Mr. Speaker, it should be noted that Timmins is made up of some 47 per cent of francophones. The other 53 per cent is made up of anglophones and 12 English-speaking ethnic groups so that Timmins is an exemplary town.

Since the discovery of gold in 1909, Timmins has grown to become the largest gold mining municipality in the world. A community with a modern airport and a heart of gold, Timmins is a blend of the past and present, the old and new, and it wants everyone to share the special spirit which has made it world famous.
The theme for our seventy-fifth anniversary is precious memories and, Mr. Speaker, I personally guarantee wonderful memories to anyone who visits Timmins.


Mr. Speaker:: I regret that the Hon. Member's time has expired.
June 29, 1987



CANADA POST CORPORATION


Mr. Alfonso Gagliano (Saint-Leonard-Anjou):: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister said last week that he would not cross picket lines. It is easy to say so. The Prime Minister may not cross picket lines himself, but he does worse, he pays people to do it for him.

The man who hires a paid assassin can be charged with murder. The Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) hires people to cross picket lines. Elow does he expect not to be guilty of crossing those same picket lines?

The NDP members find that their conscience is troubling them. They hesitate. They do not dare to blame the government. Mr. Speaker, it is time to understand that the Conservative party and the NDP change their mind with the weather. The hiring of strike-breakers by a Crown Corporation is unacceptable today.



AGRICULTURE


Mr. Gordon Taylor (Bow River):: Mr. Speaker, producer cars were once entrenched in the Canada Grains Act and there were no limits on the number of producer cars. But this right of farmers has been eroded until last year when farmers were only permitted 10 per cent of the cars allotted for non-board grains. That was bad enough, but now that amount is being reduced to 5 per cent. If this reduction keeps on, we will soon have no cars and that will please the big grain companies that want to hog it all.
If there are difficulties at the ports, or if the problem arises because three bodies allocate cars, then deal with the items causing the problem, but certainly do not do it by reducing the number of producer cars. Producer cars are a free enterprise technique and it induces efficiency.
The Government wants our farmers to be efficient, and here we have a commission placing a roadblock that prevents an efficient operation. The use of producer cars is efficient and enables farmers to use the futures market and avoid the elevator system.
I urge the Government to insist on retaining at least the 10 per cent of cars in effect last year.



LABOUR RELATIONS


Hon. Bob Kaplan (York Centre):: Mr. Speaker, last week 4,100 production, technical and clerical workers went on strike at the de Havilland aircraft plant which is located in my riding of York Centre. The workers rejected the latest offer from de Havilland, which is owned by Boeing Corporation of Seattle, Washington, and walked off the job just 10 hours after their contract expired. There are a number of issues relating to job security about which the workers are concerned.
Unfortunately, a long and painful strike is being predicted, one which will damage the aerospace industry in Canada. The union is accusing Boeing of trying to impose U.S.-style labour relations on the Canadian plant, and Boeing claims that its contract offer is a result of the need to make the plant more efficient.
The strike must be resolved, Mr. Speaker. De Havilland has a long and proud history in the aerospace industry. Its expertise is admired and respected throughout the world, and the Dash-8 commuter plane is world market leader.
A strike is a very stressful time for management, workers, their families, and the affected communities. I urge both sides to get together to try to resolve this strike.



WAR CRIMINALS


Mr. Bill Attewell (Don Valley East):: Mr. Speaker, while it was late, 40 years late, our Government had the moral courage and the political will to present enabling legislation to prosecute war criminals caught here in Canada.
After a thorough and sensitive study by a commission chaired by Mr. Justice Deschenes, the Government responded to the recommendations with a made-in-Canada solution. One of the obstacles was the need to amend the Criminal Code. However, the necessary legislation was tabled in this House last week.
The legislation will permit federal authorities to prosecute persons who have committed war crimes outside Canada against non-Canadians. The legislation also prevents anyone reasonably believed to have committed war crimes from seeking a safe haven here in Canada.
From the initiating of the Deschenes Commission by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) to the drafting and the tabling of the required legislation by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Hnatyshyn), this has been a very difficult process, due in large part to the acute risk of divisiveness within communities. I want to commend the Minister of Justice for his sensitivity and understanding of this most delicate issue.

June 29, 1987
Oral Questions
I urge the Government and both opposition Parties to deal with Bill C-71 as expeditiously as possible.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Raymond Garneau: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Finance I will direct my question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. It concerns tax reform which, in reality, is turning out to be just another Tory tax grab from middle-income families.
Last week the Tory chairman of the Finance Committee warned Canadians that the middle class would be hit hard by this Tory tax reform package. We learned over the weekend that even the Minister of National Health and Welfare had to speak to the Minister about this unfair attack on more than one million Canadian families caused by cuts in the child tax benefits. Why is the Tory tax reform so unfair? Why did the Minister not look after his own affairs and advise the Minister of Finance on the unjust decision he made affecting Canadian families?


Hon. Tom Hockin (Minister of State (Finance)):: Mr. Speaker, most of those allegations turn on the question of the child tax credit. The Hon. Members know that below the threshold of $24,500 families with children are ahead as a result of the changes we have made. Right above the tax threshold there is a slight change, but if that is put together with the reduction in taxes because of lower marginal rates, families with children are ahead and the Hon. Member knows that.


ELIMINATION OF $1,420 EXEMPTION FOR STUDENTS 18 YEARS AND OLDER-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Raymond Garneau: If I choose to return to this injustice, Mr. Speaker, it is because I feel the Minister has failed to understand the importance of this issue, and I urge him to read the documents carefully. Because this reform he has introduced will affect over a million families who will lose in whole or in part the fiscal value of the dependent child exemption which they could claim before.
I ask the Minister: Does he feel it is fair to cut this $1,420 exemption which families could claim in respect of students who are 18 years of age or over? That is the age where children cost the most. At a time when the birth rate is dropping in Canada, does the Minister feel it is fair to eliminate this $1,420 exemption in respect of children over 18 years of age who are still attending school without replacing it with a tax credit?


Thomas Hockin: Mr. Speaker, I am concerned that the Hon. Member has not read the total tax reform document. If he had read it, he would know that the tuition tax credit is now transferable. Under previous Governments, the deduction for tuition always had to be taken by the student who had a very low income which was rarely ever taxable. Now that is transferable to a parent or a grandparent. That is an important advance not only for students but, I would suggest, for post-secondary education as well.


QUERY WHETHER TAX CREDIT WILL COMPENSATE FOR FINANCIAL LOSS
Raymond Garneau: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of State (Finance) refuses to recognize the fact that there will be no exemption for dependent children 18 years of age or over, that there will be no tax credit and that, also, a woman who is separated, divorced or widowed who has a dependent child 18 years of age or over still attending school will not be able to claim this child as a spouse for tax purposes. Therefore, I ask the Minister: Does his Government intend to change the relevant provision to reinstate the exemption for dependent children 18 years of age or over who are still attending school, or at least to include a tax credit to compensate for the significant tax loss middle income families will experience?


Thomas Hockin: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member can get himself stirred up by looking at two parts of the over-all package. If he were to look at the over-all package, he would find that the taxpayer he describes is way ahead. There are lower marginal rates at all levels. That plus the tuition credits to which I have referred add up to a much better situation in the specific example he just described.


TELECOMMUNICATIONS TAX
Mrs. Sheila Finestone (Mount Royal):: Mr. Speaker, when it comes to imposing taxes on Canadians, the Government does not care whom it taxes or where it goes to get the taxes. First, children's snack food, and paint, and wallpaper, and now a 10 per cent tax on long-distance phone calls and cable TV. The Government twisted the Bell telephone ad. It now reads: "Reach out and tax someone".
My question is for the Minister of State for Finance. For millions of rural Canadians there is no difference between a local and a long-distance telephone call. Is it not true that the Government will tax all Canadians for every call made to their doctors, their dentists, and their children? Is this what is called fairhandedness?


Thomas Hockin: Mr. Speaker, the tax on telecommunications was very carefully
June 29, 1987

crafted to make sure that the first telephone in a home and local calls will be exempt. This is an extension of the Government's view that the average Canadian deserves that exemption, and he will have it after tax reform.


MINISTER'S POSITION
Sheila Finestone: Mr. Speaker, this is not tax reform, this is a tax disgrace. The Minister's new 10 per cent telecommunications tax will bring $1 billion into his coffers, a cost of $ 1 billion to the Canadian who has a second phone in his home and who wants to phone his mother, his cousin, his friend overseas, people next door, his doctor or his dentist. How can the Minister justify this new tax which is nothing more than a tax on talking?


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Thomas Hockin: After listening to the Hon. Member, perhaps we should consider a tax on talking.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Thomas Hockin: The Hon. Member knows, and I will repeat again, that the poor, the elderly and the disadvantaged Canadians in society will be insulated from the tax on longdistance rates by the increase in the sales tax credit. That is the basis of this reform. It is to ensure that the disadvantaged do not suffer from this tax.


WHITE PAPER-EFFECT ON CHILD BENEFITS
Hon. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Finance I would like to address my question to the Prime Minister who himself is a family man with four children. Would the Prime Minister confirm that, as a result of the changes proposed in the Minister of Finance's White Paper, a $30,000 per year family with two children will actually get $430 less in child benefits than it would have if the Government had left the system alone?


Thomas Hockin: Mr. Speaker, that calculation, like calculations that were raised in the House last week, can be disputed depending upon the specific case that is being made. The Hon. Member knows that he has to look at all deductions and all clarifications. The key part of the example he gives is that the over-all rate of tax is much lower so the taxpayer is still further ahead.


GOVERNMENT POLICY
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, Canadians know that the over-all changes the Government has introduced punish Canadian families and the Minister knows that.
Considering that the current tax system punishes people who smoke cigarettes and drink alcoholic beverages, why has the Government felt obliged to put children in the same category under the tax system?
Oral Questions


Thomas Hockin: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member knows that that is just sheer empty hyperbole. He knows that almost nine out of 10 Canadians over the age of 65 will benefit from tax reform.
As far as families go, eight out of 10 Canadian households will benefit from tax reform. Even more important, for eight out of 10 taxpayers with incomes between $30,000 and $50,000 per year, personal taxes will fall by an average of $460. That is in the documents and is not disputed.
Finally, it is so important for the Hon. Member to realize that federal personal income tax will be reduced to zero for
860.000	Canadians.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


EFFECT ON FAMILY BENEFITS
John Edward Broadbent: And, Mr. Speaker, Canadians know that since the Government came to office,
850.000	people have been added to the tax rolls and increased-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Philip Derek Lewis: They got a job.


John Edward Broadbent: Joe is having trouble again.


Mr. Clark (Yellowhead):: Try to be honest, Ed.


John Edward Broadbent: Taxes on the average family have been increased by some $1,300. That is what Canadians know.
Will the Minister agree that, as a result of the changes the Government has introduced, a $30,000 per year family with two children will be getting $430 less in family benefits from the Government than it would if the system had been left alone? That is the question.


Thomas Hockin: Mr. Speaker, the reason 840,000 more people paid tax in the past year than before is because we found jobs for them.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Nonsense.


Thomas Hockin: Not only that, but eight out of ten Canadian households benefit from tax reform including all families with two children and so on. There may be a few exceptions, but generally eight out of ten families benefit.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: A few million exceptions.


SALES TAX-EFFECT ON LOW-INCOME TAXPAYERS
Aideen Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance whose so-called tax reform includes yet more sales tax increases before any attempt at

June 29, 1987
Oral Questions
reform of the sales tax which the Minister himself has called "inefficient" and "a silent job killer".
The Government has raised sales taxes and broadened the sales tax base four times thus far, with new increases on food coming into effect July 1.
Will the Minister tell the House why the Government continues to depend so heavily on a form of tax which directly attacks low and middle-income Canadians with young children?


Thomas Hockin: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member knows that it is through the federal sales tax credit that the Government is ensuring that the average Canadian is not hurt by increases in sales tax. This is never mentioned by the hon. lady. That is a very important part of the whole federal sales tax reform. When we bring in sales tax reform we will extend the credit still further.


MINISTER'S POSITION
Aideen Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance broke his promise of comprehensive tax reform when he backed away from dealing with the sales tax system. Until the Government makes its intentions clear, it should be qualifying its statements about the merits of the partial package it brought forward.
The sales tax credit, which the Minister referred to, is not indexed. It will lose value as inflation increases, thereby pushing low and middle-income families further down the income ladder. Does the Minister not realize this?


Thomas Hockin: Mr. Speaker, I do not know what the hon. lady wants. Does she want a federal sales tax credit or not? In her first question she took one position and in the second she took another.


Rob Nicholson: Index it.


Mr. de Jong:: Tom, tell us about indexing.


Thomas Hockin: It is very clear in the White Paper on tax reform that the broader the base the lower the rate can be, the more exemptions the lower the credit. Those are the questions we wanted to put before the Canadian people. We also wanted to discuss it with the provinces to find out whether we could have a national approach.
The previous Government would probably have unilaterally decided on how to do this without consultation. Our approach is to consult ordinary Canadians as well as the provinces.


FREE TRADE NEGOTIATIONS-PRIME MINISTER'S POSITION
Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. The Minister of International Trade blamed Ambassador Reisman for wanting to give too much to the Americans in the free trade negotiations. Who enjoys the Prime Minister's confidence, the Minister of Trade or Mr. Reisman?


Right Hon. Brian Mulroney (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I find it amazing that a Member of the Socialist Party would raise those concerns regarding alleged attacks against Ambassador Reisman. You have done nothing but attack him non stop for a year now, without any explanation, and now the socialists are defending Ambassador Reisman. When I call him to tell him that, he certainly will be relieved.
As far as the Minister's comments are concerned, she expressed a view on an aspect of a matter that is very complex. The Ambassador, the head negotiator, retains all the Government's and my confidence, as does the Minister.


REQUEST THAT MINISTER AND AMBASSADOR BE DISMISSED
Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, the Minister's criticism is quite severe. She said that she has had to keep the Ambassador reined in "so he doesn't give away the bath water before we've even had a chance to sip it".
How is it possible for the country to trust who speaks for the Government on U.S. trade issues when there is this kind of public disagreement and criticism? Is it not time for both the Minister and Mr. Reisman to be fired?


Nelson Andrew Riis: Joe, have you been drinking the bath water again?


Mr. Blackburn (Brant):: Let them drink champagne.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, we have now heard from the populist Party, the New Democrats. They want the Government to drink champagne.


Nelson Andrew Riis: It's better than bath water. That's the problem.


Mr. Axworthy:: Actually hemlock is what was suggested.


Charles Joseph Clark: I want to make the point on behalf of the Niagara Peninsula that it is Canadian bath water.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, the serious point about this exchange is that it has become clear since the beginning of the negotiations and the discussions on the negotiations that the New Democratic Party was prepared to resort to any tactic and any argument it could to try to subvert the possibility of Canada improving our trade situation in the
June 29, 1987

world through successful trade negotiations with the United States. We do not accept the idea that we should not be entering into negotiations to try to improve the lot of Canadian workers and the Canadian economy.


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS
Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Transport I will direct my question to the Prime Minister. Over the weekend it was confirmed that at the last board meeting of the CNR a major plan of reorganization was considered which would result in substantially reducing senior management personnel responsibilities in the cities of Winnipeg and Edmonton.
As 70 per cent of CN's operations take place in western Canada, this would be another major blow to a part of the country which is already frustrated by the actions of the Government.
Can the Prime Minister give assurances that CN will not be allowed to switch any senior personnel under its reorganization plans, or downgrade or downsize the management responsibilities which are presently located in western Canada?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, CN has in fact denied such speculative reports. A press release was issued which states:
Ron Lawless, the company's president and chief executive officer, said that regional offices in Moncton, Montreal, Toronto, Winnipeg and Edmonton will remain.
It continues:
Nor will there be any relocation of company personnel, including senior officers, from the regions to corporate headquarters in Montreal," he said.
"On the contrary, CN will maintain-and in some respects likely enhance-its regional presence, particularly in Western Canada where 70 per cent of our business is generated"-


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I remind the Deputy Prime Minister that the speculative report came from a member of his own caucus, the Member for Edmonton South.


Charles Joseph Clark: That's not true.


CORPORATION'S REORGANIZATION PLAN
Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, the fact of the matter is that western Canadians have experienced two and a half years of broken promises by the CN.
Can we get an assurance that before any final decisions are made the proposed reorganization plan will be made public and that Members of Parliament from both the Alberta and
Oral Questions
Manitoba regions, plus the mayors of the cities there and the Premiers of those provinces, will be given the opportunity to look at that plan, comment upon it, and determine whether the impact will be what Mr. Lawless says it will be or what we have seen in the last two and a half years, that is, CN withdrawing from western Canada?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure what the Hon. Member wants. The speculation was escalated by a Liberal mayor who found it convenient to seize upon the opportunity. No decision of such a nature has been made and 1 simply quote the president, Ron Lawless, who was very clear and categorical. There is no need for me to reinforce that assurance. Clearly, the release speaks for itself.


ABORIGINAL RIGHTS
Mr. John Parry (Kenora-Rainy River):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Right Hon. Prime Minister. After the First Ministers' Conference I asked the Prime Minister what the Government would do to ease the burden of failure upon Canada's first peoples. Since then the Prime Minister has taken credit for the Meech Lake Accord which, despite its qualities, ignores and therefore insults aboriginal people. Will the Prime Minister at least tell the House when he will propose a schedule for continuing constitutional discussions aimed at entrenching the aboriginal peoples' right to self-government in the Constitution of Canada?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I did not take any credit for the Meech Lake Accord. The Leader of the New Democratic Party was kind enough to give a little to me, and I thank him for that. It was not a partisan gesture, nor is it being construed across the country in that regard.
Inasmuch as my hon. friend raises the question of aboriginal rights and concerns, I am sure he would be well acquainted with the vigorous effort of the Government of Canada and myself in trying to bring about a degree of justice in favour of the aboriginal peoples of Canada at the two aboriginal conferences which I had the honour of chairing. We were unsuccessful for reasons that are well known to my hon. friend.
I indicated at that time that once we got through the important negotiations which turned out to be successful in regard to the Province of Quebec, the Parliament of Canada and the Government of Canada ought vigorously to turn their attention again to securing a degree of justice for native peoples of Canada and that is what this Government proposes to do.

June 29, 1987
Oral Questions
federal funding of constitutional research


John Edmund Parry: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister knows that constitutional research financing for the national aboriginal groups expires tomorrow. He also knows that without such funding they will have to break up their teams of constitutional experts.
As a sign of the Government's commitment to ongoing constitutional participation by the national aboriginal organizations, will the Prime Minister authorize supplementary funding so they are able to keep up their efforts?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, may I say, in fairness to the Government and predecessor Governments, that no one would accuse a Parliament of Canada of having lacked in generosity in regard to the funding of constitutional research and preparation required by native groups, which is the way it ought to be. Quite properly, substantial amounts of public funds have been allocated to this purpose over the last number of years.
I would be happy to review the point raised by my hon. friend because it would be quite important and consistent that native groups have the necessary funds to make their case effectively and well.


TAX REFORM
Mr. George Baker (Gander-Twillingate):: Mr. Speaker, the Acting Minister of Finance said a few moments ago that there would be a lump sum payment given by the Government to the working poor and those people on fixed incomes, to make up for the huge sales tax increases to be implemented by the Government. Upon examination, we find that the lump sum payment is not even enough to buy a good lumpfish in Newfoundland.
Does he not realize that the new sales tax increases are going to add an additional burden on these people throughout the year ? How does he expect them to live under new sales taxes when they cannot even make it today? They are used to getting hammered and nailed by the Government, but this is a sledgehammer, and they are getting the shaft.


Thomas Hockin: Mr. Speaker, it is easy to tell the Hon. Member how I expect that to occur. First, the federal sales tax credit which will be generous, the child tax credit, and the lower rate of tax throughout our White Paper reforms will produce far more income at that level than presently exists.


GOVERNMENT POLICY
George Baker: Mr. Speaker, the sneaky summer snack attack starts in two days. There is a
tax on potato chips, popcorn, and popsicles. On January 1 everything will be taxed in the household, including the kitchen sink. We hear the phrase: "Reach out and touch someone". The Minister is reaching out already and has his hands in everyone's pocket. Why does the Government want to worry the people further by saying it may now tax their food in the grocery store, the clothing on their backs, their heating fuel and their electricity?
The Minister of Finance said that all of this is to replace "this crazy quilt of taxation". Does the Minister not realize that the crazy quilt will now be replaced by a crazy carpet? The Government is on it, and they are both headed downhill.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Thomas Hockin: Mr. Speaker, the reason we are bringing in the federal sales tax reduction is to lower the cost of sales tax charges on the truck that delivers his popsicles, to lower the level of tax on the fuel that goes into the truck that delivers his popsicles, and to lower the federal sales tax which right now is between 11 per cent and 12 per cent on kitchen sinks.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



Howard Douglas McCurdy: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the so-called youth spokesperson, the Minister of State for Youth, and it is very simple. Where is his program, his youth policy he promised on a number of occasions since he was appointed a year ago?


Hon. Jean J. Charest (Minister of State (Youth)):: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for Windsor-Walkerville is no doubt aware that for approximately a year, the Minister of State (Youth) has been operating within the Department of Employment and Immigration, that since that time the Canadian Government has been using 25 per cent of its Youth Innovation Program-that a $10 million initiative was announced with Canada's YMCA's, $4 million for Youth Employment Skills of Canada, that approximately half of the total Job Strategy budget-something like over $700 million are going to youth, and that moreover, youth unemployment in Canada declined 4.3 per cent since we came to power.


COMPREHENSIVE PROGRAM QUERY
Howard Douglas McCurdy: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Prime Minister. All of that sounds kind of sweet, but it does not answer the question. On March 3, March 11, and March 26,
June 29, 1987

1986, the Prime Minister promised a comprehensive program for youth in that fiscal year. Is this to be another of the Prime Minister's typical promises, one which will lose the Government yet more credibility?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I know that my hon. friend is having difficulty absorbing the reality just set out that since September 17, 1984, youth unemployment has dropped by 4.3 per cent or 4.4 per cent; that some 840,000 new jobs have been created-


Howard Douglas McCurdy: Where is the program?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Hundreds of millions of dollars are being expended specifically on programs devised by the Minister. There is hope, progress, and prosperity returning for the first time. Consider that there is more than a 4 per cent reduction in unemployment. The Hon. Member ought to be very proud of that on the one hand, and congratulating a remarkable young Minister of Youth on the other.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
* *
*


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Bill Attewell: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Last week the Hon. Member for Parkdale-High Park and I met with Mr. Tadeusz Mlynczak, Deputy Chairman of the Polish People's Republic. We discussed such subjects as how cultural ties could be strengthened between Canadians of Polish heritage and the citizens of Poland. The main subject discussed was the problem of exit visas and family reunification.
The Secretary of State was in Warsaw last month. How can relations between Canada and Poland be improved while, at the same time, bringing some pressure on the Polish Government to grant exit visas more quickly so that families can be reunited here in Canada?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Member for his question and for his interest in family reunification. I discussed that matter when I was in Warsaw. There are officials of the Government of Canada now in Poland discussing the conclusion of a consular agreement that would allow us to make more regular progress on family reunification questions. That is a priority of the Government which I know is shared by Members of the House.
Oral Questions


CANADIAN SECURITY INTELLIGENCE SERVICE
Mr. John Nunziata (York South-Weston):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Solicitor General. It concerns the annual report of the Security Intelligence Review Committee which was tabled today and which was extremely critical of the Security Intelligence Service and, in particular, the Counter-Subversion Branch.
The report states that too many Canadians are targeted for investigation by the Counter-Subversion Branch. The Security Intelligence Service has over 600,000 files on Canadians, over
30,000	in the counter-subversion area alone.
The report states that personal freedoms and privacy are seriously threatened. Rather than taking immediate action to protect the rights of innocent Canadians, the Minister is now proposing that another review to review the work of the review committee be implemented.
Would the Minister tell us whether he is prepared to take immediate action to adopt the recommendations of the report of the Security Intelligence Review Committee immediately in order to ensure that the rights and freedoms of individual Canadians are maintained?


Hon. James Kelleher (Solicitor General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, it is quite obvious I agree with the recommendations of the SIRC report. I think they have done an excellent job for myself and for all Canadians. That is why I announced this morning the establishment of an independent review team to take a look at the recommendations contained in the SIRC report, and CSIS management and policies, with particular emphasis on the civilianization and counter-subversion concerns raised in that report.


John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, we do not need another review. We need action by this particular Minister.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Right.


John V. Nunziata: It is obvious that this particular Minister is afraid to take action. He appears to be Ted Finn's puppet.


MINISTER'S POSITION
John V. Nunziata: The report states, and I quote from page 37:
-CSIS is expending money and effort on too many counter-subversion targets and it is intruding on the lives and activities of too many Canadians-
It is intruding on the lives and activities of too many Canadians.


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


John V. Nunziata: That is the report. The review committee makes recommendations.

June 29, 1987
Oral Questions


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


John V. Nunziata: In view of the serious nature of the problem and in view of the excellent nature of the recommendations of the review committee, rather than again reviewing that particular area will the Solicitor General take immediate action to implement the recommendations of the review committee? I should add-


Some Hon. Members:: Order.


John V. Nunziata: -that the review committee took over a year to review the counter-subversion area of the Security Intelligence Service.


James Francis Kelleher: Mr. Speaker, it is quite obvious I have taken action, and very speedy action, by announcing the formation of this team to implement the recommendations contained in the report. If I may quote from the report itself, on page 3 the SIRC committee stated that CSIS:
-is an important national institution worthy of continued public support.
The dedication and professionalism of CSIS employees is impressed upon us anew at every contact we have with them from one end of the country to the other.
And I agree with them.


MANDATE OF INTELLIGENCE SERVICE
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also directed to the Solicitor General. The report of the Security Intelligence Review Committee tabled today states that CSIS has found that a non-violent attack on U.S. foreign policy is a threat to the security of Canada. Does the Minister not recognize that the report by SIRC constitutes a very serious and damning criticism of CSIS's operations, of its failure to distinguish between subversion and dissent?
Will the Minister immediately instruct Ted Finn, the Director of CSIS, to stop spying on law-abiding Canadians who happen to disagree with United States foreign policy? Will the Minister tell him to stick to the mandate of CSIS?


James Francis Kelleher: Mr. Speaker, with the greatest respect, there is no evidence whatsoever in the report that we are spying on people outside the mandate of CSIS. I can assure the Hon. Member and all Members of the House that CSIS acts within its mandate as contained in Section 2 of the Act. Mr. Atkey, the chairman of SIRC, in response to a question this morning, said he found no evidence whatsoever of any warrants being issued with respect to subversive activities contrary to its mandate.


Mr. Shields:: Don't let that stop you, Svend.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Perhaps the Minister should understand that you don't even need a warrant to spy on the kinds of agencies about which SIRC expressed concern. The Minister should be aware of that.


INFILTRATION OF UNION MOVEMENT
Svend Johannes Robinson: My supplementary is this, Mr. Speaker. Can the Minister confirm whether a certain Marc Boivin, of the CSIS, has infiltrated the union movement in Quebec, more specifically the CSN, and in the affirmative, how can the Minister justify such an attack against a democratic organization in Quebec? How can he justify such an unacceptable attack in a free society?


James Francis Kelleher: Mr. Speaker, as the Hon. Member well knows, CSIS, for security reasons, never identifies publicly who its sources are. But I can assure the Hon. Member that CSIS would not target a labour union because it is a labour union. That would be improper and illegal under Section 2 of the Act. It is not within its mandate and there is no evidence it has acted outside its mandate.


COINAGE
Mary Collins: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Supply and Services. On November 16, 1984, I asked the Minister's predecessor in the House if the Government would proceed with plans to produce a new Canadian one dollar coin. My request was granted and tomorrow that Canadian one dollar coin is being introduced.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An Hon. Member:: That's how it works, you guys.


Mary Collins: That's right. Considering the problems which
have-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An Hon. Member:: Take your time, Mary.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member will put her question.


Mary Collins: Considering the problems which have plagued the introduction of such coins in the United Kingdom and the United States, can the Minister assure the House and advise us that she is making adequate plans to ensure a successful launch of the new coin and that it will be well accepted by all Canadians?


Hon. Monique Vezina (Minister of Supply and Services):: Mr. Speaker, the media publicized the decision concerning this new coin extensively. Canadians have welcomed this initiative
June 29, 1987

of our Government. Most of them are impatient for this very beautiful coin to become generally available.
We have prepared a promotion campaign in cooperation with the financial institutions and this coin will be put in circulation as early as tomorrow.
I am convinced that all the Hon. Members will applaud this Government initiative.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of the Environment my question is directed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. The Minister of the Environment last Friday introduced with great fanfare the new Environment Protection Bill. But if one looks at the money the Government has allocated to the Bill, one finds only $37 million divided amongst three Departments over a period of five years. Why so little money? Why not give teeth to this very important measure?


Hon. Jake Epp (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, the Environmental Protection Act is an Act which the Hon. Member has encouraged the Minister of the Environment to bring forward. He has done that with the cooperation of the Cabinet. The Prime Minister had environmental protection in the Throne Speech. I would think the Hon. Member would have wanted to commend the Minister of the Environment for an Act which the Hon. Member, as the former Minister, was unable to get through his own Government.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Davenport, a short supplementary, please.


Mr. Caccia:: I would do that if this were not a form of window-dressing.


REDUCTION IN PERSON-YEARS WITHIN DEPARTMENTS
Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: In order to be enforced this Bill needs teeth. In order to have teeth it needs funds. Does the Minister not realize that his own Department is losing 22 person-years in the Health Protection Branch this year and the Minister of the Environment is losing 103 person-years this year? How can the Department charge and collect the fines this Bill is supposed to impose on the polluters?


Mr. Guilbault (Saint-Jacques):: It is just window-dressing.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member says that it is window-
Oral Questions
dressing. He was not even given any building materials when he was Minister.
This Government has brought forward the Environmental Protection Act. We know that within the three Departments we can handle the Act. We also know that on the legislative basis in the Act we will go after polluters.
The question now is whether the Hon. Member will be true to his words of the past when he said that he would support the type of legislation that has been introduce. Or will he simply be against it? He always seems to have this type of knee-jerk reaction. If this Government brings in good legislation he has to be against it because it was this Government that brought it in in the first place.


BANKS AND BANKING
Mr. Vic Althouse (Humboldt-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State for Finance who on March 20 assured me that he was conducting an inquiry into possible interest overcharges on farm accounts by the banks. He assured the Hon. Member for Algoma on June 8 that he would table a report or have a report that week. What has happened to this report? Does the great length of time that seems to have elapsed since the study by the Inspector General indicate that the overcharges were even greater than we had first feared?


Thomas Hockin: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have this question from the Hon. Member. The report was submitted to me last week. I have examined it. It is clear from the number of instances that this particular matter is best handled by the courts.
We have had one case in which the banks were found out of step. We have found three cases before the courts where the banks were found to be correct in what they did. Therefore each particular case seems to be individual and distinct. It seems to me best that this matter be handled by the courts.


REQUEST THAT MINISTER INTERVENE
Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Mr. Speaker, will the Minister tell us whether he expects to change that stance given the fact that there seems to be several hundreds cases now being prepared to be put before the courts? Rather than tie the courts up, will he not change his stance and perhaps intervene if it appears that the courts are beginning to rule with more consistency down the line?


Thomas Hockin: Mr. Speaker, I do not know how one could change one's stance. One simply lets these cases, as serious as they are, proceed

June 29, 1987
Oral Questions
before the courts. If there were a consistent pattern of judgments in favour, for example, of farmers against the banks, then it seems to me that that would strengthen their case against the banks, and government intervention would be unnecessary. 1 do not see how government intervention would help at all in this instance.


THE COMMONWEALTH
John Barry Turner: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. As a member of the Commonwealth of Nations Canada continues to play a vital leadership role in that august body. A member of that body, the Fiji Islands, recently underwent significant turmoil.
Will the Minister advise the House of developments in Fiji subsequent to the May 14 coup? Does he believe it is safe for Canadians to travel to the Fiji Islands on business or pleasure?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I had the opportunity last week to meet with a representative of the Governor General of Fiji who outlined to me the plans being undertaken by the Governor General to restore both a sense of national reconciliation and functioning parliamentary democracy in Fiji. In our judgment those plans have a good prospect of success. I am pleased to take this opportunity to indicate the full support of Canada for those plans by the Governor General.
With regard to the safety of Canadians, I have looked into the matter. I see no reason at all for any Canadian to have any concern about travelling to Fiji.


Mr. Speaker:: The last question will be by the Hon. Member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine East.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine
East): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. On June 1 I asked the Minister to protest the attack by the U.S.-backed Contras on the Canadian Farmers for Peace project in Nicaragua and to facilitate a resolution in the House demanding a stop to attacks on civilian development projects. Now that the Minister has met with
U.S. Secretary Shultz on this matter is he willing to introduce the appropriate resolution today or tomorrow?
Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated I would in response to questions in the House, I raised that matter specifically with Mr. Shultz when we met in Reykjavik. I have asked for and have not yet seen details which the Secretary of State of the United States undertook to give me with respect to information as they have it regarding that particular attack.
I will not be in a position to accede to the Hon. Member's request today or tomorrow, and at least not before I have had an opportunity to see for myself the evidence that is promised to be forthcoming.


ATTACKS ON AGRICULTURAL CO-OPERATIVES
[Stage Direction]
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine
East): Mr. Speaker, as the Minister knows, the situation has not improved in Nicaragua. Last week two more agricultural co-ops were attacked. The peace talks proposed by President Arias of Costa Rica were cancelled due to pressure from the United States. Cannot the Government and this Parliament do more to stop the shameful and cruel interventions in that little country?
Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, it is true that the next step in the Arias proposals has at least been delayed. I do not think the cause of that delay is as clear as the Hon. Member suggests.
My view has been, and remains, that it is important for us as the Government of Canada to focus upon actual things that we can do rather than loud protests that we might raise. That is why we have worked as hard as we have through the Con-tadora process.
However, I must say that I was shocked by the attack upon a Canadian aid project that involved, among other things, the loss of life of children. There should be no doubt in the minds of the United States Government about the abhorrence on the part of Canadians of actions of that kind.


Mr. Waddell:: Short supplementary, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: I am sorry, the time for Question Period has expired.
I wish to advise the House that I have received a notice of a question of privilege from the Hon. Member for Skeena which I will hear. The Hon. Member for Hamilton East will be raising a point of order following that. I will then be giving a ruling on a matter that arose several weeks ago.
June 29, 1987


PRIVILEGE
James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, my question of privilege arises out of a motion passed by the Standing Committee on Environment and Forestry on January 22 of this year. Evidence was given more than a year ago by the Nishga Tribal Council. There was an interdepartmental subcommittee struck involving a number of Ministers in the House and their deputies. A number of recommendations came from that.
On January 22 of this year the Nishga Tribal Council appeared again as requested as witnesses before the Standing Committee on Environment and Forestry. As a result of the evidence the committee unanimously passed the following motion:
On motion of Jim Fulton, it was agreed-That the Standing Committee on Environment and Forestry have established a committee at the Deputy Minister level to report no later than June 15, 1987 with the specific objective of obtaining funds for the Nisga'a people to purchase, develop and operate a tree farm license tenure in the Nass Valley; and that letters be sent from this Committee to the Minister of State for Forestry and the Ministers of Indian Affairs, Fisheries and Oceans, Regional Industrial Expansion, the Environment and Employment and Immigration to direct their Deputies to achieve these objectives.
On motion of John MacDougall, it was agreed-That in relation to this Deputy Ministerial Committee's investigation, Bob Brisco and Jim Fulton be offered the opportunity to accompany officials to the Nass Valley.
1 finally got the letters that I required from the Clerk of the Standing Committee on Friday, which was June 26, some 11 days after the committee had directed that the interdepartmental committee report back to the committee. But June 15 came and went without a report from such a committee.
The Hon. Benoit Bouchard wrote to the committee and said:
I would be most happy to appoint Mr. Gaetan Lussier to set up a departmental sub-committee.
The Hon. Tom Siddon, on May 29, 1987, wrote:
I am of the opinion that my Department should not participate in the review.
The Hon. Michel Cote wrote, and again I will quote-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think it would be more appropriate were the Hon. Member to refer to the Ministers by their Ministry.


James Ross Fulton: Yes, Mr. Speaker. The Hon. Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion (Mr. Cote) wrote:
Regarding your Standing Committee's proposal to set up a new subcommittee, I would be happy to assign representatives from my Department.
The Minister for the Environment (Mr. McMillan) wrote, on June 18:

"As you know, the former Interdepartmental Sub-Committee was presided by a representative from the Ministry of Forestry and Mines. These last few months, officials from this department have taken part in the discussions between the
Privilege-Mr. Fulton
Tribal Council and the Department of Forests of British Columbia. It seems that progress has been made in meeting the claims of the Council.
I have asked the Environment Canada officials responsible for this matter to monitor the situation closely and to be available for sitting on the new committee if it is established."

The Minister of Forestry (Mr. Merrithew) wrote:
I would like to suggest to the Standing Committee that, given these developments, it would be premature to reconvene the inter-departmental group.
And I attach the full letter.
The Minister for Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. McKnight) never even bothered to write back to the committee, after five months.
When a standing committee takes a vote, Mr. Speaker- which, in this case, was unanimous, with all Parties represented-on a motion, surely there is some parliamentary value to it.
In this case, not a single Minister, not a single Deputy Minister in five months, bothered to convene the requested interdepartmental committee. In the case of the Minister of Indian Affairs, he contemptuously refused to even respond to the committee.
In this situation, I feel that my ability to carry on my duties as a Member of Parliament have been thwarted, and my constituents in this case have been treated, at best, undemocratically.
This matter surely should be directed to the Standing Committee on Elections, Privileges and Procedure, where Ministers and bureaucrats can be held to task for such a blatant abuse of MPs of all Parties.
The final point, Mr. Speaker, I wish to raise is that the Nishga Tribal Council waited for one full year for the first interdepartmental deputy minister task force report. That report was incomplete. The committee then unanimously passed a vote requesting the restructuring of this subcommittee. During this period of time, the Nishga Tribal Council travelled to Montreal, where they met with Mr. George Pettie, the Chief Executive Officer of the Repap. As well, they have had meetings in Victoria, with the provincial Minister of Forests, and a whole variety of meetings related to financing the acquisition of the Nass Valley portion of Tree Farm Licence No. 1.
To be slapped in the face in this way, by five Ministries and by the Deputy Ministers involved, clearly constitutes a question of privilege. It is the kind of matter that should be referred to the Standing Committee on Elections, Privileges and Procedure, so that we can hear from the Ministers or the Deputy Ministers, who do not even reply to the correspondence and the unanimous vote of the standing committee. I think it constitutes a very serious threat to the reforms of this House

June 29, 1987
Privilege-Mr. Fulton
and to the ability of any Member to carry out work on behalf of his or her constituents.


Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I will make a very short procedural argument only. I refer the Chair, as we have on many occasions, to Beauchesne, Article 76, where we have the following:
Breaches of privileges in committee may be dealt with only by the House itself on report from the committee.
I refer you to the decision, on December 4, 1973, of Mr. Speaker Lamoureux. The issue in that particular case was, can the conduct of committee chairman be referred to the Standing Committee on Elections, Privileges and Procedure as a question of privilege? The answer was that it could not. I quote from the reasons:
It is well-established practice that committee proceedings cannot be brought into consideration or debate in the House except by way of a report from the committee... Finally, there are doubts as to the advisability of having proceedings of one committee investigated by another committee of the House.
I also refer you to the decision of Mr. Speaker Lamoureux of May 10, 1972. I am looking at the reasons given by the Speaker for finding that there was not a question of privilege in relation to the issue then raised. He said:
There is a long-established rule, and it is a tradition of the House, that matters before a committee are dealt with by that committee, and if any difficulty arises during the course of the proceedings of any hearings held by the committee, this should be indicated either in the committee's report or in the course of the debate in the House on the report submitted.
My first point, Mr. Speaker, is that there has been no report from the committee to the House which could have been concurred in by the House of Commons.
The second point upon which the Hon. Member's question of privilege fails is the matter of whether or not the Standing Committee on Elections, Privileges and Procedure should sit in judgment of what has been done, or not done, in another committee.
I refer you to the decision of Mr. Speaker Lamoureux on May 8, 1974. The issue in this case was, can the proceedings of a committee be the subject-matter of a question of privilege? Can the conduct of a witness before a committee be examined by the House as a question of privilege?
Again, it was decided in the negative. I quote from the reasons given:
-it might be very unwise for the House to decide that proceedings in one committee be investigated by another committee. It is not procedurally acceptable to raise a proceeding of a standing committee in the House under the heading of privilege except as a report.
And on May 26, 1975-and I believe this was a ruling by Mr. Speaker Jerome-we had yet another question of privilege in relation to proceedings in a committee turned down. Again,
I quote from the reasons:
There is a well-established practice that the Chair ought not to sit as a court of appeal in respect to the proceedings in a standing committee ... In that case the procedure would be to either appeal the chairman's ruling to the committee as a
whole, or to raise a debate on a motion of censure by a Member. The Committee on Privileges and Elections should not be allowed to become a court of appeal for the proceedings of other standing committees.
While I may sympathize with my colleague in his frustration in not being able to get the committee to act, I submit his question of privilege fails on the grounds that, number one, there has not been a report submitted by that committee to the House; and number two, even if that were to happen, we still have the issue as to whether or not the Standing Committee on Elections, Privileges and Procedure should sit in judgment of the proceedings, or non-proceedings, of another committee.


James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, I know my hon. friend was trying to be helpful, but all three of the rulings he cited, the two by Mr. Speaker Lamoureux and the one by Mr. Speaker Jerome, were on matters related to the proceedings in a committee.
If the point being raised were in relation to that, I would agree. I looked at Beauchesne and at some of the previous rulings. The point I am raising is that the committee conducted two years of intensive hearings. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of State for Forestry and Mines (Mr. Greenaway) is here. He knows that we investigated the matter of the tree farm licence more carefully than it has ever been investigated by this House or by a committee of this House. As well, it has been investigated by the ombudsman, by lawyers- it has been investigated to death.
What I am saying, Mr. Speaker, is that the committee, quite properly, had a Deputy Ministers' group from five different departments struck 18 months ago, which group conducted a process which was found to be incomplete by members of the committee and by the Nishga Tribal Council. We recalled the witnesses from British Columbia. They came before the committee and gave another day's evidence. At the end of the evidence, we then voted unanimously that those five Ministries instruct the Deputy Ministers to reconstitute the committee and, between January 22 and June 15, re-evaluate the Tree Farm Licence No. 1 proposal and come up with a funding proposal to allow the project to proceed.
What in fact has happened is that one Minister chose not to even respond; one on May 29, decided that he did not want to participate; and-


Mr. Speaker:: I might be able to save the Hon. Member some time. 1 think the Hon. Member made his point extremely well in his original intervention. I have the distinction that the Hon. Member is putting forward, and I will consider it.
I am always reluctant to close off interventions on an important matter, as this obviously is, but I am mindful of the other debate that is going on in this place, and I am wondering whether Hon. Members can accept that I have the point, and I will bring it back to the Chamber before we adjourn tomorrow.
The Hon. Member for Hamilton East (Ms. Copps), on a point of order.
June 29, 1987


POINT OF ORDER
Ms. Sheila Copps (Hamilton East):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday I was in the great riding of Niagara Falls where I had the pleasure of enjoying some beautiful Canadian champagne. Imagine, Mr. Speaker, my surprise when today, in response to a question, I heard the Hon. Member for Yellowhead (Mr. Clark) referring to Canadian wine from the Niagara Peninsula as "Canadian bath water".
1 believe it is an indication of the Government's attitude. I am not surprised that the Minister, after having been lobbied vigorously by the Niagara Grape Growers Action Committee to at start at least getting Canadian wine into Canadian embassies, has failed to do so. Quite obviously his elitist Gucci taste does not include drinking the great wine of the Niagara Peninsula.
I see that the Minister is back in his place. I would like to hear him respond. I hope silent members on the Conservative side representing the Niagara Peninsula will also add their voices in concern to set the Minister straight on the beautiful nature of Canadian champagne.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, this is not a point of order, as you will undoubtedly rule, but let me take the opportunity to indicate that the use by the Department of External Affairs at home and abroad of Canadian wine has increased dramatically since the election of the Progressive Conservative Government. Its use is considerably more extensive than it was when the country was unfortunately in the hands of the Liberal Government with its Gucci and French wine tastes.


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair can completely understand why any Hon. Member who comes from a wine producing part of the country would seek zealously to affirm the fine reputation of Canadian wines.
The Right Hon. Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) has indeed indicated in his response that the fine reputation of Canadian wines is accepted by his own Department and that Canadian wines are being used to a greater extent than at some other time.
I think the Right Hon. Secretary of State for External Affairs and the Hon. Member for Hamilton East (Ms. Copps) would both agree that this is an interesting matter of information for Members and of debate, but not a point of order.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, I rise very briefly on a separate point of order.
I accept Your Honour's ruling that this is not a point of order, but you will understand that this debate will be fermenting for many months to come.
Privilege-Mr. Rodriguez


Mr. Speaker:: I might indicate that the Chair has already had a taste of it.


PRIVILEGE
Mr. Speaker:: I have a ruling of interest to the Hon. Member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez) and some other Hon. Members.

I am now ready to rule on the question of privilege raised on May 26 by the Hon. Member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez) about the Government's response to a committee report. This is not the first such complaint, and while it does not come under the heading of privilege itself, I thought it appropriate to have this matter fully aired. The Hon. Member for Nickel Belt was not alone in feeling injured and the taking of firm positions on this matter was not restricted to a single party, as shown by the intervention of the Hon. Member for La Prairie (Mr. Jourdenais).

The issue, while it cannot be classed as one of privilege, constitutes a valid point of order as it calls for an interpretation of a standing order. Standing Order 99(2) reads:
Within 150 days of the presentation of a report from a standing or special committee, the government shall, upon the request of the committee, table a comprehensive response thereto.
The Hon. Member for Nickel Belt claimed that the Government had failed to provide a comprehensive response to the report concerned, and his case appeared to hinge on the interpretation of the word "comprehensive", which he described as the operative word.

I mentioned the statement made by the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Bouchard) on May 15. We concluded in these terms, and I quote:
Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to thank each member of the Standing Committee on Labour, Employment and Immigration for their work on the Unemployment Insurance Program.
Their report was most helpful in our consideration of not only the current program but the other proposals for reform we received. The committee suggested we consider its recommendations as a package and we have done so.
I am tabling today a letter to the Chairman of the Standing Committee reflecting the contents of my statement which will serve as the Government s response to the Report in accordance with the Standing Orders.
It seems that those paragraphs and the letter tabled in this House were the response of the Government to the Committee report.

June 29, 1987
Point of Order-Mr. Penner

This is the point at which the Chair finds itself in some difficulty. It is not for the Chair to determine what constitutes a comprehensive response as this would be tantamount to judging the acceptability of the response. Clearly the Chair could not examine every committee report and every government response in order to make this determination. The nature of the response must be left to the discretion of the Government and, if Hon. Members are dissatisfied, there are avenues available through which they can pursue the matter.
A similar point of order was raised on April 18, 1986, and Mr. Speaker Bosley, in his ruling of April 22, indicated as I have just done, "that the Chair would be in a very difficult position were it called upon to rule on the quality of government responses".

After having simply expressed their dissatisfaction, the Hon. Members for Nickel Belt and La Prairie may very possibly still feel that their grievance is well-founded. It is certainly possible for them, thanks to the parliamentary reform which has extended the powers of the standing committees, to raise this issue at the Standing Committee on Employment and Immigration, which is empowered to examine such a grievance.

Members are entitled to express dissatisfaction with government responses to committee reports, as with ministerial answers to questions, but such complaints can only be pursued through the political process. They should definitely not be raised as questions of privilege and, even when raised as points of order, there is little that the Chair can do except allow the matter to be brought to the attention of the House. This has been done, the complaint has been aired with considerable eloquence, and it could be further pursued by the committee should it see fit.
Having said that, I would point out that obviously the rule must have had some meaning. When Hon. Members feel that that meaning has not been met, then I point out that time is taken in this place because Hon. Members may feel that they have no other place to go but to air their grievance before the Chair.
As I have indicated, the committee has other ways to pursue this, but I also point out that there ought to be in my view every effort made to try to follow the plain meaning of the wording of a rule.


POINT OF ORDER
Mr. Speaker:: I shall now deal with the point of order raised on June 26 by the Hon. Member for Cochrane-Superior (Mr. Penner), since it concerns a related although not identical matter. He argued that the report to Parliament tabled by the Hon. Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. McKnight) on the implementation of the 1985 changes to the Indian Act failed to meet the requirements of the statute on two counts. He claimed that it did not provide the complete response required by the statute and that the standing committee of this House to which the report was referred is not the appropriate committee.
I will deal with the second point first. The Act refers to a committee of Parliament, and the Hon. Member contends that this can only mean a special joint committee of both House appointed ad hoc to consider the report.
While the interpretation of statutes is not a function of the Chair, I think it can be said that any committee of this House or of the other place, or a joint committee, must be a committee of Parliament. Therefore I can find no procedural violation in the reference of the report to the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development pursuant to Standing Order 67(4).
I would suggest, however, that the committee has a clear duty to examine the report to enable the Hon. Member for Cochrane-Superior and other members of the committee to express any concerns they may have in the light of the report.
As to the adequacy or inadequacy of the response provided by the report, I can only repeat what I said earlier in ruling on the question of privilege of the Hon. Member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez). The Chair cannot pass judgment on the contents of any document tabled in this House. It cannot determine the adequacy of a report tabled pursuant to an Act of Parliament any more than it can determine whether or not a government response to a report of a parliamentary committee is comprehensive. Such complaints can only be pursued through the political process. Nevertheless, as I think I have indicated earlier in this judgment, I recognize that it is very important that they should be pursued, and in this case the appropriate forum in which to do so is the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development to which the report stands deferred.
I think I can add this, that rules have to have some meaning. While it is certainly true and procedurally correct, it is not the place for the Chair to interpret all the words in every rule that we have. It would be very helpful for the business of this place if all Hon. Members try to put as reasonable an interpretation on those words as is possible.
1 thank Hon. Members for their interventions.
June 29, 1987



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
ESTABLISHMENT OF SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON REINSTATEMENT 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)
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: At two o'clock two minutes were left in the time allowed for the speech of the Hon. Member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Parry). The Hon. Member.
Capital Punishment


John Edmund Parry: Madam Speaker, the death penalty makes it harder to convict murderers. Capital punishment will make the streets more dangerous because juries are reluctant to convict if death is the penalty.
A Department of the Solicitor General Saskatchewan Government study showed that from 1960 to 1974, when capital punishment was still on the books, the over-all rate of conviction was 10 per cent. From 1976 to 1982 that rate rose to 20 per cent.
Carrying out the death penalty will cost the taxpayers more than keeping a murderer in prison because when capital punishment is enforced the legal appeal process is exhausted to the limit, all the costs are borne by the taxpayer and the costs of social disruption is borne by all of us.
Some people feel that the death penalty is needed to protect police and prison guards, but more police were killed on duty in Canada when capital punishment existed. It is important to note that other occupations are at a far greater risk of death, including construction, fishing, forestry-at 50 times the risk- and mining. Instead of adopting the death penalty we should have adopted as a collective and personal responsibility of all individuals and society as a whole, the safety of all workers, including police and prison guards.
Countries with the death penalty have the worst human rights violations. Iran, Iraq, Chile, China, South Africa and the Soviet Union all resort to capital punishment. The rate in the United States, the only western country with the death penalty, is eight times that of England, six times that of New Zealand and triple that of Canada. In capital punishment countries other violence, a cycle of violence, is the order of the day. We find the profound barbarism, enforced abortions, public executions, the horrors of the Gulag, executions for holding the Baha'i faith, torture, imprisonment of children, death squads, amputations of limbs for theft offences, Saturday night specials, lynch mobs and the Ku Klux Klan. By executing murderers we do not say that "life is not cheap here", we identify Canada with the countries where life truly is cheap.
The campaign for the death penalty, Madam Speaker, ignores the real problems. It ignores the inequities, the inconsistencies and the loopholes in the criminal justice, the parole and penal systems. The death penalty ignores serious action against violent crime, the roots of which can be found in the vicious cycles of poverty and alienation. As a society, we must devote far more of our resources to education, treatment and direct attack on the cause rather than the results. We must improve treatment facilities, emphasize and promote faith as the basis for life, support crime prevention weeks and crime prevention measures, interpret and use the studies of criminogenesis which we have. We must campaign against crime not only as a problem but as a symptom.

June 29, 1987
Capital Punishment
Capital punishment is an anecdotal, cathartic, irrational, institutionalized response to a systemic, institutionalized malaise. The death penalty is a profoundly defective instrument, as either punishment or sanction. It is irrevocable, irrecompensible and is biased. It is socially divisive and it is ultimately self defeating in that it equates the punisher with the punished. The issue is not whether the cold-blooded murderer deserves to die; it is not that the punishment should fit the crime. The issue is that the treatment must respond to the problem, and the major question is, of course, should the state kill? By killing deliberately the state proclaims itself inerrant, but it degrades itself to the offender's level. It denies the possibility of rehabilitation. It commits itself to divide itself against itself. It raises itself above the moral law. It sends its servants to kill deliberately; minutely, systematically, planning to commit the very crime it pretends to rebuke.
[ Translation]
Madam Speaker, capital punishment is not a path leading to the future but a detour to an atavistic past without hope. The fact that we have yet to achieve civilization should never be an excuse for reverting to barbarism.


Mr. Bob Pennock (Etobicoke North):: Madam Speaker, this is a debate in which I would prefer not to participate; I wish there weren't a need, but there is a need. I have a social responsibility, a responsibility to my constituents and a responsibility to myself to speak out on this very important issue. Briefly I will be covering the following: why I have solicited the views of my constituents, my personal opinion on this subject, the question of deterrence, the concern about our judicial system, the area of innocent victims and the ambiguity of religious arguments.
It is rather ironic that we might not be here debating this subject if, in fact, the last vote which was held in 1976 had been truly a free vote. This brings me to outline why I have elected to vote on this issue according to the wishes of my constituents. Frankly, they felt cheated in 1976 because the Bill passed by only a mere six votes. Had there not been the pressure on government Members to vote according to their leader, then in all probability the Bill would have been defeated, and today it would have been the abolitionists pushing to debate this important issue.
As I indicated a few moments ago, I will be voting according to the wishes of my constituents. I do not consider this abdicating my responsibility as a Member of Parliament.
Prior to the election the feeling about which I have just spoken surfaced. Many of my constituents approached me and wanted to know how I would vote on the issue. During the election campaign I made a promise to both the abolitionists and the retentionists that, regardless of my own personal feelings on the subject of capital punishment, I would vote according to their wishes. Frankly, this is an election promise I intend to fulfil without reservation.
I have had numerous personal conversations, have conducted two surveys, had live phone-in shows and town hall meetings on the subject, and there is no question that by far the largest majority of the constituents in my riding of Etobicoke North, from youth to seniors, want this Parliament to re-examine the reinstatement of capital punishment. I can honestly say that at no time did I get the feeling from these people that they were revengeful, rather they are citizens concerned about our justice system. They were concerned about the potential innocent victim of the serial killer or the terrorist.
Before the election I made my views known to both the abolitionists and retentionists that I favoured the reinstatement of capital punishment for some specific crimes. Although I intend to honour my election promise, I have, as a concerned citizen and as a Member of Parliament, listened to the arguments with an open mind. I must state now that I still hold to my original view. My personal position is clear. It is taken out of a concern for the sons and daughters of those who might become victims of serial killers, out of a conviction that I personally feel that when someone elects to take a life, the punishment should fit the crime.
I clearly support the reinstatement of capital punishment for a certain specified and narrow range of crimes. These include the most heinous type of first-degree murder, such as serial killing, contract killing, rape-killing and murdering in cold blood during a terrorist act. I am not, and I repeat not, in support of capital punishment for murder resulting from emotional situations like domestic quarrels known as crimes of passion. Nor am I in favour of capital punishment for those who are convicted on circumstantial evidence only. I will touch on this a little later.
A number of abolitionists attempted to focus on and draw a parallel between the debate we are having here and the recent debate carried out in the British Parliament. One thing which has not been clearly brought to the attention of the Canadian public is that the British vote was on the reinstatement of capital punishment for murder, period. I consider that to be too broad and would have had difficulty supporting it.
I now wish to address the issue of deterrence. I will not dwell on it but I would like to make a couple of comments. It has been clearly brought forth in this debate that each side can support its argument pro or con, depending on the time frame selected to draw figures from. Therefore, I honestly do not think that there is a definitive answer for the question of whether or not capital punishment is a deterrent. I will not waste my time in a statistical battle because, quite frankly, I doubt that even if capital punishment were to be proven to be a deterrent, any of the abolitionists would change their views.
Earlier I spoke of being in favour of capital punishment for serial killers and I spoke of potential innocent victims. I would, however, like to stress that capital punishment would certainly have been a deterrent to Allan Sweeney in the killing of Celia
June 29, 1987

Ruygrok. It would have been the ultimate deterrent, not only in this case but in the eight other recent cases of repeat killers.
My colleague, the Eton. Member for Simcoe South (Mr. Stewart), sent a questionnaire to 1,231 individuals serving life terms for murder in federal penitentiaries. Of the 303 responses he received on the question of whether capital punishment would have acted as a deterrent, 37 said yes. That means that 37 people would be alive today if there was capital punishment.
I would like to read a letter from one of my constituents dealing with brutal murderers like Sweeney and Olson. He wrote:
With every right goes an obligation. It's society's preoccupation with "rights" divorced from "obligations" that is giving us a warped view of justice. The Government has a clear duty to govern and keep society safe from those who take life for their own ends rather than defend life and the right to life of all-
I would like now to turn for a moment to the concerns I have heard expressed during this debate about our justice system. In my view, and in the view of most Canadians, our system is in need of serious reform and certainly needs a bit more common sense. A life sentence of 25 years does not mean that any longer.
During this debate, I have heard a number of Hon. Members address the specific subject of justice reform. However, these same Hon. Members were with the Government that brought us mandatory supervision, something which this Government had to return last summer to toughen up. These Hon. Members were with the Government that gave us the Young Offenders Act, another piece of legislation that had to be toughened by this Government. These were pieces of legislation which made our justice system more lenient for the convicted.
The reason for my reservation is that I genuinely do not know at this point in time whether or not the view expressed on this subject by those Hon. Members who are mainly abolitionists is a commitment today because of a belief or rather because of convenience. I sincerely hope it is the former, particularly if this motion should be defeated.
Earlier I indicated I would address the matter of the innocent victim, but I consider this matter to be twofold. There is the possibility of the innocent being convicted and as well there are the innocent relatives of the murdered who are left with grief for the rest of their lives. If I personally were to pick anything to which I have given the greatest profound thought, it would be this subject.
We cannot be certain that the system will not at some point allow an innocent person to be convicted. To minimize the possibility of this, I do not support capital punishment for those who are convicted purely on circumstantial evidence. As well, I support the idea of a double jury vote. The jury would vote once to determine guilt or innocence and a second time to determine whether or not to recommend a capital sentence.
Capital Punishment
Earlier I referred to eight victims of serial killers. Frankly, I would not want to trade the lives of these eight innocent victims on the chance that one day our justice system might make one mistake.
I want to turn for a moment to the tragic side of this issue that we all too often hastily dismiss and that is the situation of the families of victims of murder. They are truly victims because they live with their grief for the rest of their lives.
A great deal of attention has been paid to the letter written by the mother of Alison Parrot, but I would like to read a letter I received from Mr. Donald Sullivan of Ajax whose daughter was brutally murdered. He said:
It has been said that execution will not help the victim, well my family are victims also. When my daughter's killer himself was killed we felt not joy, not satisfaction, but relief. Why relief? We sat in court in Whitby, Ontario and heard doctors say that Shannon is the type of killer who, once he kills will kill again given the chance. We now know this will not happen to another young girl in the future. For this reason we felt relief.
The final topic I want to discuss is that of religion. This is somewhat like the deterrence debate, because each side can use biblical quotations to support their cases. The question I have had to answer personally is why am I at odds with my own church.
I do not necessarily think that the belief in God of the leaders of my church or of any other church, synagogue or temple is necessarily any stronger than mine or than that of any other Member of the House. 1 do not think that their being leaders of a church gives them a particular divine guidance on this moral issue, and I think that many church leaders are finding themselves at odds with the vast majority of their thoughtful and religious members.
I would like to take a moment to read a letter written by a member of the Second Christian Reform Church in Etobicoke. The letter reads:
The average person does not have the money to produce slick brochures nor the chance to wrap their personal opinions with the names of committees and church agencies, but I would urge you to listen, please, to the voice of the long-suffering Canadian public, the majority of whom want capital punishment restored. We have confidence that the courts and Government will act with utmost restraint in this matter to ensure that justice is done by meting out capital punishment with due care.
As a member of the United Church, I have a great deal of difficulty reconciling the church's stand on the abortion issue with its stand on the capital punishment issue. This was brought to the forefront when I received a letter from the Reverend Robin Smith on May 8 in which the United Church's stand on the abortion issue was outlined. He wrote:
While life is sacred, it is not as many of our national policies and practices illustrate, of absolute value.
It seems to me that my church is saying that the life of an innocent unborn baby is not of absolute value whereas the life of a convicted murderer, rapist, or serial killer is. To me this is unacceptable.

June 29, 1987
Capital Punishment
Maybe some day our justice system for murderers will mean incarceration for life, maybe our prisons will become escape-proof, maybe medical science will be able to guarantee rehabilitation of the hardened killer. Then, and only then, will I probably become an abolitionist. Until then I will think of the innocent victims; I will think of those young girls brutally raped and murdered. Until then, I think the punishment should fit the crime.
For those and other reasons, Madam Speaker, I intend to vote for the motion.
[ Translation]


Gilles Grondin: Madam Speaker, I welcome this opportunity today to take part in this very important debate.
To me, it is a debate that will have far-reaching consequences, and 1 think the Canadian people have a right to expect the same attitude of all Members of this House.
1 hope that each and everyone of us is conscious of the major impact the outcome of this debate will have on our country's judicial system.
There is no room for uncertainty in this debate. We must decide whether the State shall or shall not end the lives of those who are convicted of murdering an individual. This is not just another measure that can be reversed even after our decision has been made. Once that decision has been made by us all, and once judges and juries decide in favour of an execution sentence, and when finally, the murderers are executed, the decision is final and irreversible.
Today, a tremendous responsibility is put on our shoulders. This is more than just another legislative measure. It challenges the whole philosophy of our judiciary system. It is also a study of the moral values that we, as parliamentarians, should convey to all Canadians and especially to Canadian youth.
In Canada, capital punishment has been the subject of more or less heated debate for the past seventy years. And I imagine the question will be reviewed regularly in this House for many more years, whatever the outcome of the present debate may
be.
This realization, however, should not minimize the importance we should give today to this issue. We are a society in constant evolution. Step by step, most of the time forward but sometimes also backward, we are constantly moving towards higher ideals. Our decision concerning capital punishment is part of this slow process. This time, are we going to take a step forward towards a legal system stamped with justice and concerned as much about respecting the right to live as protecting individuals? A legal system which through research and new experiences will compensate for the flaws which exist in the current system?
That is what I hope for very strongly and from the bottom of my heart, Madam Speaker.
I, for one, am far from having lost all hope of finding a human, yet practical, solution to this vital problem. For this reason, I will vote against reinstating capital punishment.
Our society is quite justified in wondering about the causes and effects of crime, as well as the ways to remedy them. It has every reason to consider that 630 murders a year warrant the improvement of prevention, protection, and compensation measures.
But for anyone to brandish capital punishment as the sole remedy to all our ills is immoral, useless and demagogic. On the moral level, it is not less justifiable for the state to take life than it is for individual citizens. To give the state the mandate to take away life is the same thing as killing somebody for personal vengeance. Some people have a tendency to forget this and find comfortable solace in the thought that a legislation exists to that effect.
Let us make no mistake about it-capital punishment is legal murder, nothing less!
Whatever the terms used by speakers to socially justify capital punishment, the outcome is the same. They are after the blood of those who killed.
It is not surprising then that more and more Canadians are wondering if capital punishment is indeed a solution or rather a pretence to turn attention away from the inefficiency of the correctional system in rehabilitating violent inmates.
I would be curious to know how far supporters of reinstating capital punishment would go to defend their choice.
Will you be a volunteer to serve as hangman? To introduce the poison syringe into a vein? To turn on the power to the neuron burning electric chair?
Before taking a position, this is what we should be ready to ask ourselves.
In another line of thought, we cannot accept that Canadian society meet violence with violence. The State should set an example by recognizing the sanctity of human life in all cases. Meeting violence with violence is only legitimizing the latter.
Capital punishment is still viewed by some as an effective deterrent to prevent crime and maintain law and order.
But the experience in western countries shows the best bulwark against violence is social and economic progress and the development of human rights.
As far as capital punishment is concerned, it only adds to individual violence another kind of violence-state violence.
We all feel a sense of horror and repulsion about the taking of human life. Some foul crimes are particularly more repugnant to us. That is why we want justice to be done and the authors of such crimes to be punished.
However, we must not forget that one of the main objectives of justice if to rehabilitate rather than eliminate a person. The
June 29, 1987

hope of rehabilitation is not to have pity, but rather to respect human life.
The death penalty does not get to the causes, the roots of human misery, only its effects. It liberates people with good conscience from the obligation of pursuing further research and action for the improvement of the quality of life for all citizens.
Many of those who use violence had and unhappy childhood which prevented them from becoming responsible citizens.
The first thing is to try to understand, even though it is sometimes difficult.
As many other members, I received a letter in which Mrs. Lesley G. Parrot, of Summerhill Avenue, in Toronto, urged us to take her deep conviction into consideration and refuse reinstatement of capital punishment.
If it is painful for each of us to learn through the newspapers or television about the murder of a child, older people or a police officer, try to imagine what must be the reaction of a parent, a brother, a sister or a friend of the victim.
We would find it easy to understand at first if a desire for revenge lingered against the murderer.
That is why it is so touching and so convincing when you receive a message from the mother of a murdered 11-year-old girl rejecting categorically the reinstatement of capital punishment.
Like my colleague for Saint-Michel-Ahuntsic (Mrs. Killens), I would like to quote Mrs. Parrott:
I do not want to be part of a society that brings up future generations with the belief that killing can be legitimized under certain circumstances. Let the message be clear and unconditional: human life is sacred; killing is always wrong.
I wish to thank sincerely Mrs. Parrott for enlightening us with her testimony.
I was saying that when a murder is committed, the first thing to do is to try and understand, even if it is difficult at times.
Very often violence comes out of emotional wounds, psychiatric troubles or inadequate moral development.
Once we have understood, we can first try to prevent and then to protect, by ensuring that the person involved does not do it again, by acting on the causes at the root of the problem.
This is how, ultimately, we will perfect our prison system and avoid the use of a punishment as cruel as the death penalty which, in the end, does not prevent in any way the perpetration of violent crimes.
On the contrary, capital punishment favors spontaneous reaction and fuels the most primitive expression, the principle of an eye for eye, to the exclusion of some reflection on the
Capital Punishment
causes of this violence, on preventative and social protection measures, and on reform of the prison system.
Remember these words from the famous Soviet dissident, Andrei Sakharov, a man in a good position to know about human suffering: "I view the death penalty as a barbaric and immoral institution which undermines the conscience and the legal foundations of a society. I reject the contention that the death penalty has a deterrent effect on potential murderers. In fact, I strongly contend that the opposite is true and that brutality only leads to more brutality".
On a different perspective, it is important to know that public opinion widely overestimates the phenomenon of violence within our society. According to a Gallup poll taken in 1982, some 75 per cent of the respondents believed that more than 50 per cent of crimes imply violent actions, whereas violent crime only represents 8 per cent of all known crimes.
Two thirds of the people believe that the number of murderers has increased since 1976, while it has in fact remained relatively stable.
The more uncommon an act is, as in the case of a murder, the greater its visibility when it happens.
It is therefore no surprise that for want of adequate information, people try to relieve their feeling of insecurity by calling for harsher penalties including the reinstatement of death penalty.
People are also very misinformed on the circumstances of murders and on their authors. Few people know that about three victims out of four are killed by someone they know; instead of that, people tend to think that it happens between people who are total strangers.
On the other hand, it should be noted that 61,8 per cent of murderers are serving a first jail term.
When those people who are found guilty are paroled, very few of them commit a second crime: there have been less than six such cases since 1963. In short, the murderer who kills just anyone for no special reason is an exception, contrary to popular belief.
As public opinion is so distorted, I find it difficult to understand how some Members of this House can, with a clear conscience, use surveys carried out in their own constituency to justify their position about capital punishment.
A Member of this House recently expressed his views in these terms in a Montreal area newspaper: "I believe that my first duty is to express the will of those who have elected me as their representative in Parliament and to give a voice to their opinions."
While I respect the views of this Member and of all those who have used this argument in the House, I find it would be much too easy to invoke public opinion to avoid taking a stand ourselves and analyzing carefully all the arguments in our own minds.

June 29, 1987
Capital Punishment
We have not been elected to this Elouse to act as puppets, but because the people of our constituencies trusted us to make decisions on their behalf.
Naturally, the opinion of those we represent is very important and constitutes a major argument in this debate, but it must not be the basis of a decision which we must make following our own conscience.
Another argument which is often used by the advocates of the death penalty is that justice should be done and that murderers should receive a punishment commensurate with their crime.
In 1962, when we had the last execution in Canada, two men were hanged in the Don prison in Toronto.
However, that same year, 40 people had been officially condemned to the death penalty. Two out of these 40 were executed. Why do you think these two individuals were executed, but not the other 38 who were on death row? The answer is obvious: our judiciary system is such that the various social classes make individual inequalities even more apparent. The poor and the destitute are definitely at a disadvantage when they seek to defend themselves before our courts. Such flaws in our judiciary system take awesome proportions when a human life is at stake.
How can we, in the name of justice, claim a murderer's life when knowing full well there is blatant discrimination against the poor and the destitute? Similar injustices are sometimes done at other levels, true enough, but let us not lose sight of the fact that we are talking about the death penalty, which is both discriminatory and irrevocable. The possibility of error is undeniable. How would we react were we to discover that an innocent man, one of our fellow citizens, has been unjustly murdered by the state we represent? There are no two ways about this, it is bound to happen sooner or later if we restore capital punishment. We would all be somewhat responsible for this. Let us reflect seriously before seeking justice through shed blood. Violence begets nothing but violence.
In a recent article published in La Presse the President of Quebec's Association professionnelle des criminologues made a statement on capital punishment in the name of his association. Here are is concluding remarks:
To reinstate the death penalty in Canada would, to us, mean that society would be abdicating its responsibility to deal with crime and criminals. In our view, the death penalty is the easy way out from the thorough soul-searching we should engage in whith respect to the phenomen of crime, it is too easy to let a few scapegoats take the blame for all our social ills. Quite frankly, our cirme rates reflect the kink of society we are and show how far we are still removed a better world.
I believe that coming from an organization with its level of expertise, this is a very important statement and reflects a great sense of moral duty.
Today, in all countries in Western Europe, the death penalty no longer exists. Other countries such as Nicaragua, Argentina, Brazil and Uruguay have recently abolished the death penalty.
Personally, I would rather not think what the impact of reinstating the death penalty in Canada would be on the international community, at a time when other countries are abolishing the death penalty in far more dramatic circumstances. All these decisions to abolish the death penalty are part of a general movement towards a new judicial policy that makes the State responsible for protecting the individual and guaranteeing the human values recognized by the community of civilized nations.
There may still be some fluctuation, but the end result of this movement is not in doubts, and all enlightened individuals have a duty to encourage this development by speaking out against the reinstatement of this unjust, crual and useless punishment.


Mr. Jean-Luc Joncas (Matapedia-Matane):: Madam Speaker, because of my profound respect for human life, whatever the circumstances, I am radically and fundamentally opposed to the motion before the House today for reinstatement of capital punishment in Canada. My motives for a toal rejection of the death penalty are probably the same as those of many people who, in arguing their case, try to make a distinction between the concepts of right to life, right to justice, right to retribution, and so forth. There are no cut and dried truths or absolute dictates on a subject as sensitive and serious as capital punishment.
Madam Speaker, my philosophy is as follows: If no one has the right to voluntarily kill someone, can we, in the name of justice, and with a clear conscience, afford to execute someone as though we had some divine right to do so?
At a time of general concern about human rights, the question arises whether the right to life should not be considered as sacred and as a right to be respected by the legislator. In that case, it should be proclaimed that the State shall not have the right of life and death over its citizens and that society shall not have the right to dispose of the lives of its members.
Whatever people may say, the purpose of the death penalty is basically to do away with a human being. In fact, the State should set an example by recognizing that human life is sacred and that killing is wrong. By doing away with a citizen, the State does not get rid of crime, it merely perpetuates it.
Madam Speaker, in most countries where the death penalty exists, the primacy of the State over the individual is practically a dogma. By denying some of their citizens their absolute right to the respect for human life, these countries are implicitly setting a very relative value on the individual. Implicitly, they give society, or rather to State, the supreme right to dispose of human life.
Madam Speaker, increasing fear owing to crime, hostage takings and political terrorism, is not conducive to a more considerate relationship between the individual and the State.
June 29, 1987

On the contrary, fear generates a desire for revenge, a desire to kill, and increasingly we are seeing a kind of vigilantism trying to replace the authority of the State.
Madam Speaker, the death penalty is essentially degrading for the individual, since it brands the life of the guilty party as useless. It also exlcudes one of the main purposes of punishment which is rehabilitation. People who opt for alternatives to capital punishment are those who have a respect for all human life and urge society to rehabilitate and reform the offender. Therefore, any civilized society has a duty to impose sanctions that encourage rehabilitation.
We should ask ourselves the following question. Can we, in the guise of meeting out justice, take an attitude that is strangely similar to the desire for revenge? I think this attitude is indefensible and absurd. A death sentence might be useful if it would bring the victime back to life, but I don't think we have reached that stage yet.
The anger of the victims' families is, of course, legitimate and their desire for retribution may be understandable, but suffering does not necessarily give wise counsel. In my opinion, resorting to capital punishment is merely a confession of weakness and perhaps even of society's cowardly reluctance to deal with a problem that should be approached with imagination and intelligence.
Madam Speaker, what about the risk of executing an innocent man? Unlike other sanctions, capital punishement is irrepairable, of course. Judicial errors may not abound, but they do occur, and this alone says it all. No matter what guarantees our contemporary court system may provide, there is always an element of risk. The case of Donald Marshall springs to mind, wrongly convicted of murder as he was, and then released after spending 11 years in a New Brunswick penitentiary. There is no other conclusive evidence that somebody was erroneously executed in Canada, but it did happen in Great Britain, France and the United States.
Though the death penalty is punishment meted out to the criminal, it also has an impact on the relatives: all members of his family have to live with the stigma of infamy. The parents of the condemned man have to face the reality of an ordeal which punishes them beyond any kind of retribution. In addition, in certain cases justice may be thwarted when jurors envision the death penalty. For example, faced with the seriousness of capital punishment, jurors entertaining the slightest doubt may very well be tempted to bring in a not-guilty verdict. With full knowledge they may indeed prefer risking the release of a criminal rather than send an innocent man to the gallows.
From a social perspective, Madam Speaker, death penalty restoration advocates affirm that it is a effective means of intimidating or dissuading, hence a way to protect society against criminals. As it happens, there is no absolute proof that capital punishment has a deterrent effect on potential murderers.
Capital Punishment
Most of the studies which have been carried out conclude that capital punishment is not a deterrent when it comes to committing murder, or that there is no direct link between the death penalty and the murder rate. These studies seem to indicate that at best punitive verdicts play only a very secondary role in mechanisms which lead to criminal or non-criminal behaviour. It would be a lot more logical to suggest, for instance, that such factors as religious beliefs, upbringing, parental education and the influence of a given neighbourhood are much more likely to prevent or encourage someone to commit murder. Capital punishment does not prevent crime. Most murders are committed in a moment of passion or excessive fright. Some would even say in a moment of aberration.
Even if those responsible for these murders were aware of the probable consequences of their actions, these consequences would undoubtedly have only a secondary importance compared with psychological and sociological factors. Generally speaking, the criminal does not think about the penalty he might have to pay. He focuses on how to commit his crime without being caught. The famous writer Albert Camus, winner of the 1957 Nobel Prize, said the following:
If, indeed, the fear of death is a certain fact, another certain fact is that, however great this fear might be, it has never been enough to discourage human passions. Man's instincts, which are always in conflict, are not, as our laws would have it, constant forces in a state of balance. They are everchanging forces which rise and fall successively and whose ups and downs feed the life of the spirit.
This is why, Madam Speaker, the risks taken by criminals, of whatever type, do not prevent them from committing a crime. We have the case of hardened criminals who consider the risks and come to the conclusion that their crimes have a very good chance of going unpunished. Capital punishment would not change their minds. Death does not scare criminals. For them, it is mostly a matter of their ability not to get caught, and the most cunning killers plan their murders. It is by examining the crime itself that it becomes possible to differentiate between the clumsy murderer, who leaves traces of his actions, and the cunning murderer, who eliminates all the clues. The first risks being executed as premeditation can be proven, while the second, more cunning killer could easily avoid execution.
In addition, Madam Speaker, many comparative scientific studies have shown that abolition of the death penalty does not result in an increase in the number of homicides. On the contrary, most of these studies show that, in countries where the death penalty has been abolished, abolition has frequently been followed by a decrease in the number of homicides. In Canada, for instance, criminologist Ezzat Abdel Fattah published about 15 years ago a study on the deterrent effect of capital punishment, which clearly concluded that there was no cause and effect relationship between the increase in the number of murders and the abolition of the death penalty in this country.
His study also showed that the increase in the murder rate between 1962 and 1970 was simply a component of the general

June 29, 1987
Capital Punishment
increase in the rate of violent crimes, which increase was due to a whole series of social, cultural and economic factors, and not to the partial abolition of the death penalty. Nevertheless, the statistics show that the rate of first and second degree murders has varied very little in the last 25 years in Canada, going from 1.01 per 100,000 of population in 1961 to 2. per
100,000	of population in 1986. What has significantly increased is the number of criminal offences with violence, such as hold-ups, assaults, and so on.
Madam Speaker, if society wants to protect itself, it has to prevent crime by making the necessary socio-economic adjustments.
Even if it wanted to avoid the cost of making such an adjustment, it could not do so at the same time as ensuring adequate protection as its sanctions and penalties do not have the intimidating effect it might wish. In a sense, this is true for all penalties imposed, and not only for capital punishment.
Madam Speaker, we must now be creative and imaginative if we want to fight effectively against crime, and we must rid ourselves of our old ideas and methods for dealing with those we view as criminals. To fight against murder, we must not simply apply to murderers their own methods or moral standards.
Madam Speaker, in the name of which infallible principles or imperatives should we bring back the death penalty? Is it just because some of us want to give in to the basic instinct of revenge? Is it the only way of seeing justice done with any certainty?
Madam Speaker, is there no other means for those who seek justice and are trying to obtain redress?
Personally I think there is, Madame Speaker. There is admittedly no easy and ready made formula. However, I am sincerely convinced that through a sustained effort, a common will using the strength and imagination of man, it is surely possible to do justice in our society by resorting to means primasily based on a sacrosanct principle, the inviolability of the human being.
Before concluding, Madam Speaker, I should like to quote the comments of a French cardinal, cardinal Marty who said the following:
If a man does no longer act like a man, the community must refrain from following him. Each time a human being is treated as a non human being, the entire human being is threatened. Any individual who commits an act of violence against another individual is degrading mankind. If we want to safeguard the concept of human being now threatened, we must resist the temptation of retributive anger.
I end with a double question that is worth pondering:
Can man, that imperfect being, be expected to render perfect justice? In that respect, could capital punishment give a notion of perfection to the justice of human beings?
The answer belongs to us.


Mr. Albert Cooper (Peace River):: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity to participate in this debate which is so important to our constituents and certainly to each of us as Members of Parliament.
As I enter into the debate today I would like to express my thoughts by looking at six different areas which I think come into play with respect to this particular subject. The first area which I want to talk about is in terms of the issue we are debating today. Second, I wish to talk about the role of the state. Third, I wish to consider the reasons for having the vote which we will have this evening. Fourth, I wish to consider the responsibility of a Member of Parliament on an issue such as this. Fifth, I want to look at the reasons for my own vote and how I will vote this evening. Finally, I want to look briefly at what I see as some of the results of the return to capital punishment in Canada.
I wish to begin by looking first at the type of issue that we are dealing with here in the House of Commons this afternoon. This is clearly an issue of conscience. It is clearly a moral decision. As with any moral decision, it makes for difficult debate and difficult decision-making. It is a difficult question for us all.
This is an issue which reflects very much on the view that we have of mankind, of the people with whom we share this country. As well, it reflects on our view of right and of wrong. It reflects on the way that we view the responsibilities of the state in a country such as Canada with the system of democracy and Parliament such as we have.
I now wish to move to the second area of my comments which deals with the role of the state. I believe very strongly that in a democracy, in a parliamentary tradition such as we have in Canada, individuals collectively take their rights and give a certain amount of those rights to the state. They give those rights to the state to do things that they as individuals cannot do. This includes the area of delivering programs that would be impossible for us as individuals to accomplish. For example, we take individual concerns and pass them on to the state.
Of course, the alternative to that is twofold. The first is to have absolute anarchy wherein every individual citizen of a country does as he or she pleases with respect to any given issue. Of course, what would then flow out of that is the whole concept of vigilante-ism. We are already beginning to see some of that demonstrated in Canada. We have seen individuals starting to act on their own, which creates difficult problems for our country. Recently, in Calgary, a man took justice into his own hands and shot someone who was attempting to rob his store. We saw a much publicized story in the United States of a man who took justice into his own hands and attacked four young men in the subway of his city.
June 29, 1987

That is one alternative of how to handle justice in society. But the reality is that in a democracy and in a parliamentary system such as we have we do not advocate that individuals take on those responsibilities and act out their own forms of justice. Instead, as individuals, collectively, we take those responsibilities and give them to the state. We ask the state to act on our behalf. This process can only work when society is satisfied that the state is acting out the kind of wishes, desires and needs that those individuals feel they want to see demonstrated in the method of handling justice. That is why I wish to move on to my third point.
The third point I have is with respect to the reasoning behind why we should have a vote this evening. I have talked about what I see as being the role of the state, which is that collectivity it comes from individuals asking the state to behave or to act in a certain way.
What is happening in Canada today very much brings us to a point where we, as Members of Parliament, must vote on an issue as the one we are facing today. What I am seeing out there on the streets is that Canadian society is restless, it is angry, it is frustrated. There is a sense that criminals have more rights than their victims; there is a sense that someone can commit a terrible crime and not be afraid of the punishment. The punishment does not match the crime in this country.
There is a fear among Canadians that there is an apparent increase in violence in our country.
As a result of each of these things, we find within Canada, I think, a growing sense of fear among the Canadian population: a fear that they are not being protected; a fear that the laws of the land are not delivering the kind of security and the kind of protection that the Canadian public believes it has the right to expect. Canadians, as a result of this fear, are demanding that this particular vote be taken by the House of Commons.
It is not a question of whether the Government, headed by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney), chooses to proceed with this vote; it is not a question of whether we, collectively, as Members of Parliament, want to see this vote proceeded with. It is very much a response to the Canadian public asking that this question be opened up and that this question be addressed in the House of Commons.
I would argue that, in view of my attitude as to what the state is in terms of collective/individual rights, that those people who make up that collective group have every right to demand that we as Members of Parliament take that vote.
The state, I believe, in these circumstances, must be responsive. It must respond to those needs of the Canadian people.
I also believe that any attempt to filibuster with the goal of preventing a decision, preventing this issue from coming to a vote, is wrong. We, as Members of Parliament, do not have the
Capital Punishment
right to say that the issue cannot be decided; we have the right only to decide and to reflect our specific viewpoints on that particular issue.
I know there has been criticism here in the House of Commons because we have had to invoke closure on this motion, rather than to have it naturally flow towards a decision and a vote. The reality, Madam Speaker, as you know, and as Members of the House will know, is that there have been several attempts to come to an agreement that would have allowed week-end sittings, extended hours. There have been any number of options considered to allow all Members of Parliament to get their voices on the record in respect of this question, always bearing in mind that the question had to come to a conclusion.
The only conclusion I can come to, after all of those options were presented and still refused, is that there are those in this House who would prefer that the vote never be taken.
I would argue that that is wrong. That is not what we have a responsibility to do. I believe that Canadian society has the right to demand that vote, and I would say that all Members of Parliament are well aware of the desire on the part of the Canadian public to see this issue addressed in this institution.
If one looks only at the polls, one will see a very clear indication that Canadians want this issue addressed. If we look at our mail, we will know that Canadians want to see this issue addressed. Just going by the conversations one has with the various people one runs into in the streets of our respective constituencies, we know that Canadians want to see this issue addressed.
The fourth area I wish to touch upon is that of the role of a Member of Parliament when he or she is faced with a vote of conscience, a vote that is difficult, and a vote that really is based on moral considerations.
I would guess, Madam Speaker, after my earlier comments, that you would expect that I would argue that the responsibility of a Member of Parliament is simply to reflect the viewpoints of his or her constituents. That is not the case. I am with Burke. I firmly believe that we, as Members of Parliament, owe to our constituents, not only the ability to reflect the concerns that they have on any number of issues, to try to reflect the kinds of desires and aspirations that they have, but also to provide leadership.
When we get into an issue such as the one we are debating today, an issue of conscience which calls for a vote of conscience, we, as Members of Parliament, are very much obligated to vote as our conscience dictates that we vote.
If we were to fail to do so on such a serious issue as this, an issue that is moral in nature, an issue that really goes to the nub of what we believe, think and feel, it would mean that we should allow this country to be run by Gallup poll. All Members of Parliament should be sent home. It would be cheaper and more efficient-and, as everybody can well attest, it would be easier on Members of Parliament. But the reality,

June 29, 1987
Capital Punishment
Madam Speaker, is that that is not what we have been elected to do. We do have a responsibility as individuals to vote our conscience on issues such as this.
Our responsibility as Members of Parliament can be embodied in four points, four things that we have to do. First, we have to lay out our reasons for our particular position on an issue of conscience.
We can do that in a variety of ways. I am engaged in one at the moment by speaking here in the Elouse of Commons on this issue.
Another is one that all of us have used, and that is the sending of letters to our constituents. As well, we have our conversations over the telephone and on talk-line shows. There is any number of ways that are available to us as Members of Parliament to permit us to lay out our positions, our concerns, and where we want to go with this particular issue.
The second point is that it is very important that we as Members of Parliament do not hide from issues such as this. To hide from this issue would be the ultimate form of cowardice, in my opinion. It would demonstrate absolute irresponsibility, and certainly it would not be demonstrating leadership, which is what I think we are called upon to provide when we are elected to this House of Commons.
Flowing out of that, the third thing we have to do is to vote, and we have to vote our principles and our own beliefs.
The fourth and final point that I think we as Members of Parliament have in terms of our obligations is to be accountable for that vote. In other words, when Albert Cooper stands in this Chamber and votes as his conscience dictates, he must be prepared to accept the consequences of that vote. If my people at home are not satisfied with the way in which I vote, they have every right to reject me at the next opportunity, and I accept their right to do that.
I wish to touch briefly on my own reasons for my vote this evening. I shall be voting this evening in favour of capital punishment, and in favour of the motion before us.
I think each of us, in coming to grips with an issue such as this, set out for ourselves a set of standards, some sort of moral guidelines that we feel are essential and which we use in coming to a decision or conclusion.
For me, the standard of values that I have used is the Bible.
I am not about to go into a great theological sermon-first of all because I am not qualified; and secondly, I do not think anybody would be particularly interested in what I might say. But I do want to make a couple of points that I think reflect why I have come to the conclusion that I have in supporting this motion.
First of all, I think the Old Testament is very clear. It calls for, and condones, capital punishment. I do not think there would be much dispute among Members of Parliament on that particular issue. Where the dispute would arise is when we start to look at the New Testament, because there, of course, it
is not so specific. But I believe that the New Testament is consistent with the Old; therefore, what is condoned in the Old Testament is also considered acceptable in the New Testament.
I have often found it intriguing that Jesus Christ who knew that one day he would be a victim of capital punishment never took it upon himself to talk about the state's right to inflict that punishment. I wanted to place those two brief arguments before the House.
Also I want to say that I reject, as part of my decisionmaking process, the arguments of deterrence and revenge. Even though they may well be justification for capital punishment, they are not reasons upon which one can base his or her decision to reinstate capital punishment.
I believe we need a system of justice, a system where the punishment fits the crime. I believe that we as individuals are responsible and accountable for our own actions. If we take a specific action, we must be prepared to pay the price of that activity. I also believe that the state has a right to go to war to protect its soil and its citizens and that when the state goes to war it has the right to kill if necessary to provide protection of its people. I further believe that the state has the right to take life as punishment for a crime should the state decide that it would be proper punishment.
I support capital punishment for professional killers, for multiple murderers, for those involved in sex and torture murders, for the killers of prison guards and police officers, and for terrorists. I support capital punishment where there is no doubt of the crime. If after the due process of law an individual is found guilty of the crime, I believe the state has the right to give him or her the ultimate penalty of capital punishment.
The sixth point upon which I wanted to touch very briefly is what will happen as a result of the potential return of capital punishment in Canada. I have heard the argument made by many legal friends that more juries will acquit rather than convict someone and that as a result more murderers would get off from their crimes. I would say so be it, that does not bother me particularly, because one of the beauties of our process of law is that in terms of a crime, such as one which calls for capital punishment, the individual faced with the charges has the right to a process that calls for a jury or judgment by his or her peers. It is that group which has the option, when the crime is considered horrendous enough, to require the ultimate punishment.
I see that my time has almost expired. In conclusion let me say that the last few weeks have been very difficult for a number of my colleagues. I mention this because it is important for the Canadian public to understand. It is difficult for my colleagues and friends who do not support the majority opinion of their constituents. It has been difficult because they
June 29, 1987

have had to stand and be counted on this issue. For many of them it has been a difficult, frustrating, and tense time.
I admire my friends who have stood in the House knowing full well that their constituents and many other people in the country would not support them. I see them as men and women of leadership and courage. Many of them will be facing constituents who are angry and frustrated with them. I would ask those constituents to keep in mind the fact that the very people who had the courage to stand in the House and make speeches which were not in the majority opinion are the kind of people we should have in the House of Commons.
The next time we face a moral issue I may well not be in the majority position. However, I hope I have the same kind of courage as many of my friends have had.


David Charles Dingwall: Madam Speaker, I begin by saying that I am not in favour of capital punishment and that I will not be supporting the resolution brought forth by the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Mazankowski) and seconded by his Parliamentary Secretary.
At the outset I want to say that this debate is important to all Canadians from coast to coast and to various interest groups with varying opinions on the subject matter. However, it is somewhat sad that we as parliamentarians, who happen to represent Canadians in the highest court in the land, will not have sufficient or additional time to debate the substance of the reinstatement of capital punishment.
A few Members have spoken and a few more will speak in the remaining hours, but it goes without saying that a majority of Members would like to participate, but the Government's closure motion precludes a free and open debate on a very important subject matter.
I have profound respect for Hon. Members opposite who have an opposing view to mine because they have been true to their convictions, as has the Hon. Member who has just spoken. I would not at any time want to question, nor to put in doubt, his integrity or judgment on the subject matter. Equally important, I hope Hon. Members opposite who share a different view on this important matter will not question my integrity or my convictions with regard to the reinstatement of capital punishment.
I begin this debate by going back to the comments of Edmund Burke who has been referred to many times in this great Chamber by members of all political Parties. To paraphrase Edmund Burke, he said that we owe our judgment to our constituents. It is my view that the majority in my constituency is perhaps in favour of reinstating capital punishment. However, I was not elected to the Parliament of Canada to be a rubber stamp. I was sent here by my constituents for a variety of reasons, one of which I believe in deeply and profoundly, that is, that I was sent here to exercise my judgment on their behalf.
Capital Punishment
Intellectually, I cannot morally accept the arguments in favour of reinstating capital punishment. Politically, it may not be feasible to be against the reinstatement of capital punishment. 1 say to those across the land who want to use this issue for political purposes to defeat Members of Parliament who are against the reinstatement of capital punishment that I am prepared for the fight, no matter what is the fight.
This is a debate which ought to occupy the minds of all Canadians and all Members of Parliament. In order to exercise our judgment, it only seems appropriate, logical, and inevitable that the governing Party would want to give ample opportunity to all parliamentarians to address the substance of the reinstatement of capital punishment.
What have the experts said? What have we heard in this great Chamber with regard to the pros and cons of the reinstatement of capital punishment? I want to talk about those experts, Madam Speaker. I will conclude my remarks about a real life situation in my constituency, in my province, affecting constituents and Canadians in that region of Canada. What of the experts? I go back some years ago when I had an opportunity as a student of law to hear some great orators. One of the best was the former President of the Conservative Party of Canada who came to Dalhousie Law School. I was the chairman of the speaker's committee. Arthur Maloney gave a speech before a body of young men and women who had differing views regarding the reinstatement of capital punishment. He said, as only Arthur Maloney could say, "Have you ever walked with a client to the gallows? Have you ever held the hand of a man or a woman who has been sentenced to have their life done away with?" That ought to go to the moral fibre of every Member of Parliament in this House.
It is one thing to say in the halls of Parliament or in the coffee shop that intellectually, yes, there are probably some reasons for which we ought to favour the reinstatement of capital punishment. But the question must remain. With the reinstatement of capital punishment, will it achieve the objectives of the previous Hon. Member in deterring homicides in Canada? Will it achieve the objectives of the Hon. Member who is leading the charge in this House for the reinstatement of capital punishment to prevent crimes against victims? The answer, and I say it with great respect to those Members, is no.
What of the experts, Madam Speaker? In the June edition of Psychology Today, Dan Archer, who has studied the subject matter of capital punishment and its effects for some 14 years and has surveyed in excess of 80 different nations, asked: "Does the death penalty deter potential killers?" In his judgment the answer is no, it does not. The death penalty does not deter homicidal criminals. When a nation does violence to human beings by conducting wars and executing criminals, it incites citizens to more criminal violence than they would otherwise commit, so the state can make violence the coin of its realm.

June 29, 1987
Capital Punishment
It is interesting to note that in examining the surveys conducted in the United States and of the various states in the United States only one that I can come across, only one, would hold a differing view. I wish to read into the record Isaac Ehrlich, a professor of economics at the State University of New York at Buffalo, who has claimed to have found evidence that the death penalty deters killers. That is the only one, Madam Speaker. Archer goes on to say in his article, and I point out for Members opposite:
-not one of the other 50 odd U.S. studies of the deterrence hypothesis has produced evidence that the death penalty deters murderers. "In a mature social science you don't draw conclusions from a single study because that study could be fatally flawed for any one of a host of reasons. Instead you should draw your conclusions from the preponderance of evidence. And in my view, the overwhelming pattern in deterrence research shows that the death penalty has no effect on the homicide rate".
That is the view of an expert on a study done in the international community on capital punishment with 14 years of research, not three days and three nights, but 14 years with untold hundreds of thousands of dollars spent.
I do not want to go into the litany of information that is available to all Members of Parliament with regard to what happened in that particular state and how the death rate has gone up. I do not want to get into those arguments because I think we miss the principle when we start getting into small, isolated statistics. But they are important nevertheless, both intellectually and from a practical perspective.
The arguments of the experts that I have had an opportunity to read and peruse have all come down on the side that the death penalty or the reinstatement of the death penalty does not deter homicide. I have failed to find in my research and I have asked law professors, students of law, sociologists and others, to provide me with opposing arguments. Perhaps that shows a flaw in my character or, indeed, in my legal training, that of trying to come to my conclusion by obtaining facts and information on both sides of the argument. I have not been able to find those.
In this empty Chamber today, and I wish those in favour of the reinstatement of capital punishment were here in larger numbers because I want to relate for their benefit a true but yet an ever sad story of the Canadian justice system.
In the early 1970s in a community just outside of Sydney, my home, a young man by the name of Sandy Seale was murdered in a park. Sandy Seal lived several miles from my home. He was a young coloured man, an athlete. I remember this just as though it were yesterday. The tensions in that community, the rumblings and the rumours were rampant. As a young Canadian I was scared, scared of what was going to happen. If you only knew the geography of that area of Canada, Madam Speaker, you would understand why. But they found someone to lay a charge against. He was not the son of a prominent doctor, he was not the son of a prominent lawyer. He was a native, and I am speaking of Donald Marshall. An elderly man was subsequently charged with the death of Sandy Seale, some 11 or 12 years later. As young
people, we used to go to the rink and pass this elderly gentleman all the time. But because in 1971 the criminal justice system was flawed, a young Canadian had to spend not one, not two, not three but 11 years of his life behind bars. Do you know what it is like, Madam Speaker, to spend even three hours behind bars?
We hear Hon. Members in this Chamber say with conviction and sincerity: "Well, you know, got to have it, never mind the fact that it does not deter anyone, but we still got to have it". I say that that is one living example of why this great Parliament ought not to reinstate capital punishment.
One would be surprised by the number of Canadians who have been charged and convicted for crimes they have not committed, not because our police officers, our judges or our prosecutors are bad but because of the theory of innocent mistake. There have been many theories about why the Donald Marshall case happened as it did, but let the fact remain clear to each and every Member of the House that an innocent man spent 11 years of his life behind bars, institutionalized for a crime he did not commit.
I cannot in good conscience vote for this motion. I cannot intellectually accept or consent to having someone die at the hands of the state. Some will say that there are other cases where guilt is clear-cut. Is it really clear-cut? Is that the kind of society we as Canadians wish to have, a society that kills, that commits homicide. Because that is what it is. Hon. Members can play with the etymology of words to say that it is not really homicide, it is revenge. However, it is homicide and we ought to remember that.
I would urge the House to look at the facts. There is no deterrence attached to the reinstatement of capital punishment. Yes, there are numerous cases, far too many to mention, of the state making a mistake by convicting an innocent man for a very serious crime.
I will conclude by again referring to the Donald Marshall case. What a tragedy it has been for him and for his family, but also what a tragedy it has been for our criminal justice system! An innocent Canadian was behind bars for 11 years of his life for a crime he did not commit.
Finally, I would paraphrase the words of Edmund Burke. For evil to prevail, all that is required is that good men do nothing. I would hope that good men and good women will vote against the reinstatement of capital punishment.


Mr. Bill Tupper (Nepean-Carleton):: Madam Speaker, I value the opportunity to rise to share with you some thoughts on why I find myself unable to support the motion before the House. I have given this matter a great deal of thought. I cannot recall exactly when I became an abolitionist, exactly when I felt that capital punishment should not be a part of Canadian society, but I have been one for a long time.
June 29, 1987

This matter was raised seriously with me when I was seeking the candidacy for my Party in Nepean-Carleton. There were candidates who presented themselves for nomination who supported capital punishment. Members of my Party decided on balance on a candidate who had other views, all the while knowing where I stood on the issue.
At every turn during the 1984 election campaign, at every all candidates' meeting and at hundreds and hundreds of doors at which I presented myself, I was asked where I stand on capital punishment. With all the truthfulness I could muster, I shared the fact that I was not a supporter of capital punishment.
I want to share with you as well, Madam Speaker, the fact that my community is no different from any other community. From the enormous amount of correspondence, telephone calls and times it has been raised in town hall meetings, I suspect that the feelings of the residents of Nepean-Carleton are no different on balance than the feelings of those from other places in Canada.
Superimposed upon that, of course, is the fact that my community has lost one police officer in the last five years and saw two others seriously wounded in the line of duty. That of course tends to deepen and, I think, magnify the concern over capital punishment.
I need to share with my colleagues the fact that I have probably spent more time researching this issue, the aspects of deterrence and vengeance, than I have on any other issue since I became a parliamentarian. When I talk to people who are either supportive of capital punishment or opposed to it, 1 find that the roots of their feelings run deep, that there are philosophical differences that are complex and sometimes contradictory and at other times difficult to understand. However, regardless of which side of the argument they are on, when I talk to people, I find that they have common concerns. They are deeply concerned about violence in our community. They are deeply concerned about the judicial system. They are deeply concerned about the parole system. They are deeply concerned about a tax on police officers.
So we all agree, I believe, on the cause. What we disagree on is the solution.
Looking across Canada to see who commits murders or homicides, we find that 40 per cent of all murders occur within family units and with people being intimately known to one another. Between 70 per cent and 80 per cent of all homicides are committed by people who are acquainted with their victims. These acts of violence are sometimes acts of persons who are emotionally disturbed. Sometimes they occur during an emotional outbreak, a family quarrel of one sort or another. Sometimes they are carefully planned by professional criminals who probably have no fear of getting caught. Other times they may be an act of panic during another crime.
Capital Punishment
If you look at them carefully you will see that many of them relate to people who grew up in situations of poverty. They involve young people who are among the disadvantaged in our communities, the underprivileged. Some of them may relate to alcoholism and drug abuse. However, none are happy situations.
I would like to share with you something which happened when I was a young person growing up in Nova Scotia. Through the press I followed the case history of a murder which occurred in a small community there. A person was ultimately charged with the crime and the trial was reported in great detail in the local press. Every person in that community seemed to become a member of the jury. In that public jury there was no unanimous conclusion. One could walk the streets of small towns in that vicinity or go into any dance hall or beer parlour and find divided opinions. Yet, the jury of the day convicted that person.
I recall the appeals that were launched. I recall the plea for leniency that went out. I recall the community waiting for a message from the Prime Minister of the day that the sentence be commuted. That message never came. There was no joy in the community, there were only sobs.
I have spent a considerable amount of time talking to as many cabinet Ministers as possible who were involved in the last public hangings in Canada, those being two in 1962. Of course, I was unable to speak with all the cabinet Ministers who were involved in the process. However, I asked those to whom I was able to speak what kind of discussions went on within the cabinet chamber. I asked what kind of dialogue went on among the Ministers and the Prime Minister. Colleagues, my feeling is that that situation left a mark on the conscience of every one of those persons with whom I chatted. Every one of them recalled those moments in 1962 with a great deal of clarity and a great deal of concern.
As a result of those discussions I have reached the conclusion that I do not want my Prime Minister ever to be put in such a position. I do not want my colleagues in the Cabinet ever to be put in such a position. I do not want future Prime Ministers or future cabinet Ministers to be put in such a position either, a position in which they must decide between life and death, between right and wrong. I do not want to be part of a Parliament which endorses the restoration of capital punishment.
We are really talking about something far deeper than capital punishment. We are talking about the kind of society we want to have in Canada, the kind of environment we want our young people to grow up in and our grandchildren to be part of. Do we want a violent society? Do we want to reward and counteract violence with more violence? I do not want to build that kind of Canada and I do not want to be part of a Parliament which does that. I do not want Canada to be associated with countries such as Iran, South Africa, Saudi Arabia or the U.S.S.R., and I could list many others. I want to

June 29, 1987
Capital Punishment
build a society which is warm and generous. I want people from outside of Canada to look upon us in a certain light.
In any discussion about capital punishment there is always the aspect of deterrence. We can never discuss this issue without talking about deterrence. On both logical and statistical grounds the argument is difficult to support. Studies in Canada, the United States, Great Britain, Holland and 30 or 40 other jurisdictions around the world, done by people from different political systems and different religions and races, inescapably conclude that capital punishment has no apparent influence on the homicide rate.
In Canada, for instance, homicide rates have decreased since the abolition of the death penalty. In 1975, there were 3.09 homicides per 100,000 of population. In 1985, the rate was 2.6 per 100,000, and in 1986 the rate was 2.1 per 100,000. The rates have actually fallen over the last ten years.
Those who advocate the return of capital punishment have an enormous responsibility on their shoulders. I will return to that in a moment. However, very few supporters of capital punishment believe any longer that it is a deterrent. They now raise their arguments on other issues.
Colleagues, there is the aspect of vengeance. Most active homicides are too terrible to describe and too terrible to tolerate. I understand that. One can understand how, in the moments of grief which follow such gruesome situations, families and friends can experience vengefulness, a rage, or ill will toward an individual or society. However, revenge does not right a wrong, it does not break the cycle, it does not heal the basic hurt, and it does not solve the problem.
In addition to the aspect of deterrence and revenge one must also ask oneself about equality in our justice system. How fair is it? How consistent is it? I have talked to many lawyers about this. They tell me that some Crown attorneys and some defence lawyers are better than others, that juries are not always predictable, and that more convictions involve the poor and the underprivileged. There are fewer convictions of the rich. Furthermore, the attitudes of trial judges differ a great deal across Canada.
Trial lawyers point out that it is impossible to guarantee consistency. It is impossible to have a system that is infallible. If you come to the conclusion that it is impossible to have an infallible system, the responsibility of those who want a return to capital punishment is enormous because the act of capital punishment, the death penalty, is so final and irreversible. How do we respond if we make a mistake?
In this century, 343 people in the United States have been wrongly convicted of crimes punishable by death. Twenty-five of them have actually been executed. Can we afford that? I suggest that we cannot.
Of all the parameters in this debate about which I have been anguished the most, it is probably that relating to police
officers and prison guards, particularly in relation to my community. They are the front line individuals in the defence of our society. They are the enforcers of our values. If there is one group in our community that is to be given any benefit of the doubt, I suggest it is they.
Professor Waller of the University of Ottawa points out that a policeman's job in comparative terms is not particularly risky. There are jobs such as those involving miners, loggers, and oil rig workers which are ten times more dangerous. However, that is not the point. Policemen and prison guards lay their lives on the line for the safety of you and me every day and every night. Police officers received calls at unknown and unpredictable times to go into unpredictable situations in which their lives may have been in danger. I have witnessed such situations personally.
Let us look carefully at the analysis of police homicides in Canada over the last 24 years, from 1962 to 1986, the last year for which we have available statistics. Apart from some small aberrations, the homicide rate among police officers has been fairly constant at a time when the population has been growing dramatically and when violence and drug and alcohol abuse in Canada have been growing as well. There is no evidence in those statistics that can lead one to the conclusion that capital punishment provides safety for the life of police officers or acts as a deterrent in those particular cases.
Perhaps there are a number of alternatives that should be considered. Clearly, we can take steps to improve our judicial system to make sure that sentencing is more consistent and relates more equally to the crime involved.
I have absolutely no doubt that the parole system in Canada can be strengthened. It is appalling to read in the newspapers about someone who has been convicted of the type of crime with which we are concerned being told in the same breath that this person will be eligible for parole in just seven years, as so many are.
We can probably do much more in the area of gun control. Professor Waller of the University of Ottawa contends that the gun control legislation we enacted in 1976, ten years ago, has saved some 500 lives in Canada in that period. Gun control legislation is one vehicle by which we can help protect the lives of police officers and ordinary citizens.
We must also be concerned with the whole area of family violence. It is one situation in which many homicides occur. There are many things we can do to reduce and control family violence. One solution is to find the causes of family violence and unhappiness. A family disturbance is one of the situations most feared by police officers.
The crime rates across Canada reveal that many of those involved in crime are young people. I believe we can do much to help them by improving our education system, providing better recreational facilities, helping them to develop careers and helping to solve the problem of school drop-outs.
June 29, 1987

In closing, I repeat that I am unable to support the motion before us today. I do not want to be part of a House of Commons that supports capital punishment. I want to build a better society for Canada because life is precious and sacred. I want to be part of a community which cares infinitely for each individual.
In the course of the weeks and months that lie ahead, I will use whatever strength and skill I have to improve our judicial system, our penal system, all those things associated with the criminal justice system.
I want to leave the House with this final thought from Jeremy Bentham who said:
The state affects the conduct and actions of its own citizens more by the standard of its own behaviour than by the penalty it inflicts on others.


Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina West):: Madam Speaker, I believe this is the fourth occasion since 1968 that I have risen in the House of Commons to speak to this subject. It is a subject that none of us relish but one with which either society has demanded or Members of Parliament have decided we must deal.
I am indebted to my colleague and friend, the Member for St. Catharines (Mr. Reid), who sent a letter he received to Members of Parliament. It is dated May 11 and states:
Mr. Reid, I am a resident of your riding, I am a police officer with the Ontario Provincial Police, and I am also against the restoration of the death penalty.
Those people that speak on behalf of the law enforcement community concerning the death penalty, do not speak for the silent majority of police officers.
We are also indebted to my colleague, the Member for Prince Albert (Mr. Hovdebo), who sent all Members of this place a letter from a man who is now a resident of Saskatoon. He said on April 9:
In April, 1965, I was the Chief Keeper (Director) of Saskatchewan's only prison with a gallows. In that prison was a man who had been convicted of murder and sentenced to die by hanging. My job was, among other things, to ensure the condemned man was kept in good health and did not take his own life. It seemed society was not so much interested in his death as it was in killing him.
I was, in fact, a paid employee of the state, required by law to participate in the ritual killing of a human being.
I believe that what we do is what we are. The test of civilization in any society is how it treats its sick and poor, its disadvantaged, and yes, even its offenders, both civil and criminal.
This motion fulfils a commitment by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) to a free vote on the issue of the death penalty. He made that commitment during the 1984 election campaign. I fully appreciate that it is a commitment he is honouring, but I submit that it is a commitment that was, at that time, designed to pacify and satisfy the large element in his Party and among the public who understandably wanted to lash out for an ultimate solution to the worst offenders of all, those who murdered.
Capital Punishment
Surely the Prime Minister must know by now that the attempt to be all things to all people sadly weakened his own stand and that of many others, including those of the churches. He should know by now that the matter is not just political, but moral. His excellent speech on this matter illustrated that. But he has allowed his Government to function in a manner which sadly belies and denigrates the excellent case he made against the death penalty.
If my memory serves me correctly, he implied that all Members should have a chance to speak and vote on the death penalty. His Government's action in cutting off debate just denigrates the arguments he so ably put forth, because only about 100 out of 279 Members will have an opportunity to speak on either side of the argument.
I do not relish singling out the Prime Minister on this matter. In fact, I congratulated him on his speech. But if, as the Leader of our country, he really believes what he says, and I think he does, he should not have allowed the procedural process outlined by his Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Mazan-kowski), to have taken place.
As my colleague, the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill (Mr. Blaikie), put it so aptly, in Canada we are not a violent people. I was saddened to hear two or three Hon. Members in this House, two Members to my left and one Member to my right, speak up when my colleague, the Hon. Member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom), called for volunteers to be the executioners. Two or three government Members readily volunteered. I invite those hon. gentlemen to apply for the executioner's job in a place like Russia, Chile or any other totalitarian nation where, I am sure, they would be welcome.
The motion itself, and the way in which it was presented under the rules of this House, makes it a palpable farce since the Leaders of the three Parties are all opposed to capital punishment. But because the Leader of the government Party proposed a free vote, we are now faced with this farce. If it passes, a committee will be established to travel about the country on a ghoulish investigation into which way is the best way to put someone to death, and for what reasons. No matter what the committee comes up with in three months or six months from now, I doubt very much whether its report will ever see the light of day in this Parliament or in the next one, no matter who is governing.
While this country has a million people unemployed, hundreds of thousands going to food banks, which is a nice word for soup kitchens, when we need housing and a host of things to reduce the causes of crime, we must deal with this matter. I think that it does not speak well for the priorities of this Parliament and the Hon. Members in it.
Crime rises in direct proportion to the number of unemployed, to the increased numbers in poverty to an increase of those who are functionally illiterate, to the number of those

June 29, 1987
Capital Punishment
who have been short-changed by our society because they are poor, natives or are of some minor ethnic origin. These people do not happen to fit in with the mores and practices of a western, white, Anglo-Saxon, Protestant society. Those who did not receive an equal opportunity for an education, those who grew up in a violent home and those who have been so short-changed by society, know not what they do. There is no sure cure unless we do more, much more to destroy the causes of crime of all kinds.
It does not matter whether we pass or defeat this motion, murders will still occur in lesser numbers, the same number or larger numbers. Surely this Parliament should be directing its attention to reducing the causes of crime. We fail to provide conditions to reduce crime and murders. Our police forces are under-manned and under-financed. I speak as one who represents the home of the RCMP. We used to train 400 excellent officers. Two years ago we were down to 40. We are now starting to climb back up. But the Royal Canadian Mounted Police have a lot of catching up to do and they are forced to do that in the name of reducing a deficit, in the name of cutting back on government expenditures. The police forces of our provinces and municipalities are held back. Their capability to do a better job is reduced because of cut-backs, restraint, and the elimination of funding for churches, for volunteer organizations, for parole officers, and for education and training, all in the name of restraint. The same applies to how families live. Our schools and universities could do better with each student. The system breeds the vigilante syndrome, the Texas cowboy practice of the immediate and irrevocable penalty, hanging. As the former Prime Minister, the Right Hon. Member for Prince Albert, said: "They have not hanged a rich man yet".
While we discuss the death penalty in this Parliament, hundreds of thousands line up at food banks, the modern day version of soup kitchens. We have a million more Canadians living below the poverty line than we did just a few years ago. Tens of thousands are either homeless, jobless or otherwise disadvantaged. We have driven them to the last resort. We have driven them to desperation. Some murders are committed by those who are mentally deranged, but most crimes are committed by those who were not born that way but were brought up in an environment which took them down that path. Those who turn to crime are those who have been shortchanged in a society which puts a priority on greed and selfishness: "What is in it for me? And the hell with everybody else. It is a state of mind which flies in the face of everything that is decent in each and every one of us. The clamour for the death penalty is nothing more than an appeal to the worst in all of us. And all of us have some bad in us. For Christians, it flies in the face of the teachings of Christ.
We create criminals and murderers, they were not born that way. This motion is before us because of that crass appeal to so-called initiative, self-reliance and to apply the same
standards to people who are left out of conditions and opportunities to grow, prosper and exercise their initiatives and their self-reliance in an egalitarian society.
I wish to say to my friend, the Hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr. Domm), that a Member of Parliament has to be more than a one or two-issue MP. Is all he has to talk about death and metric?
If the Hon. Member can no more than subscribe to whatever is the majority view of his constituents, or what he perceives to be the majority view, on a couple of his own pet peeves, it seems to me that that kind of representation in Parliament is one of those basic appeals to the worst in all of us-greed, selfishness and revenge. It is the urge to feel better if someone gets hung. It is some sort of vicarious and puerile peeping Tom satisfaction when some murderer goes to what they call their "just desserts"-death.
I will not be party to that, no matter what, no matter which way the majority of my constituents feel. If it is logical to take a poll of constituents on capital punishment, and every Member of Parliament votes exactly that way, then it is equally logical that we take a poll on every issue that confronts the Government and this Parliament.
In that event, it follows, quite logically, that MPs would then vote according to those wishes of a given day in any given year on any given issue according to the views of the majority of their constituents. If we are to do that, then what do we need Members of Parliament for? With our technological capacity today we can specially equip every telephone and television set in Canada and let the voters have their say from one day to the next on one issue to the next. Then you, Madam Speaker, and the Clerks at the Table and the Governor General could tally up the results and sign new laws.
Surely, in the evolution of society Members from all Parties now oppose the death penalty. Some 10, 15, 20 years ago that was unthinkable, just as many other matters that we now have in place in society were unthinkable. Now, more and more Canadians want a society that is more tolerant, more compassionate and more understanding of the causes of crime. There is more determination and commitment to eliminate those causes, eliminate those conditions which drive people to do the terrible things which they do.
I would rather that a thousand proven murderers spent the rest of their lives in jail than to run the possibility, no matter how remote, of any one innocent person being put to death. We are not from the bygone ages of the Old Testament, or even from the ages of the New Testament. Those were the Scriptures of those times. Men and women-civilization-has grown. We are of a new age, of a new testament, a new testament to decency, humanity and civilized behaviour. We must oppose even the countenancing of the death penalty in our society.
I pray that our children and our children's children will perpetuate that and enhance the condition of all our citizens so
June 29, 1987

that the things that cause crime and criminal behaviour will be substantially eliminated.


Mr. Bob Horner (Mississauga North):: Madam Speaker, 1 rise to speak on the motion to reinstate capital punishment. There is no joy in having to vote on this issue. I respect the opinions and the way every Member of this House will vote. However, 1 made a commitment during the last election, when asked on approximately 600 occasions, that I would vote for the return of capital punishment when the free vote was held.
I really wish that our country had grown, that our society had grown to the point at which we did not need to have this vote. However, I feel it is now absolutely essential.
I can tell Hon. Members that 31 years ago as a young policeman I spent six years with the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. Three Members of this House, the Hon. Member for Bourassa (Mr. Rossi), the Hon. Member for Mission-Port Moody (Mr. St. Germain) and myself are all former policemen. Some 31 years ago in northern New Brunswick I was called out in the middle of the night to search for a 14-year old girl who was missing. I found that girl, raped and murdered. I did not sleep that night, nor did I sleep the next night. I firmly believe that capital punishment is a deterrent to murder.
I do not believe it is a dereliction of my duty to have conducted a survey. Some time ago I conducted a survey within the riding of Mississauga North. I received 9,000 replies. Of those 9,000 replies 81.3 per cent of the respondents told me that they were in favour of the return of capital punishment as an option. I believe that figure may have changed slightly. There may now be a lessening of that number. We are told that 68 per cent to 74 per cent of the people across Canada want the protection of capital punishment on the books to be used with discretion. I believe that we need to have this.
I have had meetings with priests and ministers in my area. I have talked and told them my reasoning. I have been on openline shows for two and a half hours at a time. On these shows 74 per cent of the callers were in favour of the reinstatement of capital punishment. I have met with Amnesty International. Believe me, I can listen to their arguments. I have listened to the arguments of the Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin) who spoke a few moments ago. He stated that the poor and the disadvantaged would be the ones who would be most affected.
I refer Hon. Members to a black Senator from Missouri who in 1971 when he was asked to vote for a moratorium against the death penalty said: "I realize that most of the people executed will be poor and black and helpless. But I also realize that the victims are poor and black and dead". He was speaking the truth, Madam Speaker. We have to protect our society.
Capital Punishment
Next, let me deal with the deterrence aspect. Is capital punishment a deterrent? We can use statistics any way we want. Statistics can show that the murder rate in Florida is higher than the murder rate in Wisconsin. It does not mean very much. There has been a steady growth in murders over the years.
From the year 1867 to 1949, there were 1,100 convicted murderers in Canada, 55 per cent of whom were executed. From 1949 on, there was a gradual decline, with the percentage executed going down to 30 per cent, to 20 per cent, and to 10 per cent. In 1962, we had the last execution in Canada.
In 1976, on July 14, this House voted to abolish capital punishment; but its gradual decline had been going on for a long time. From 1914 to 1976, a period of 62 years, there were five votes, with the country ultimately deciding to abolish capital punishment in 1976. But we have had some brutal murders in this country since then.
People talked about the possibility of erroneous execution. Frankly, that frightens me. But I have enough faith in our criminal justice system to overcome that. I believe that the appeals process will provide every opportunity to the person being tried to prove his innocence. I do not believe much chance is given to the victim.
I have with me a list of premeditated murders that I would consider might be included in any Bill that might come forward calling for the reinstatement of capital punishment in this country, and they are: serial murders, contract killings, hostage killings, kidnap victim killings, and the killings of police officers and prison guards. We must protect our peace officers.
Capital punishment is not punishment but justice; it is not vengeance but protection-and the people demand protection.
On the subject of protection, we are not adequately protected under our present system. The killer who is jailed for life has one option to prison, and that is to escape. He has nothing to lose in killing again. Anyone who comes into his path during an escape attempt is vulnerable.
And even if that inmate is not interested in escape, what does he have to lose if he kills a guard or another inmate?
If policemen are expected to be in the front line, they must be given all of the protection society can offer. They say we are failing to protect them. I have a brief here from the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police. It is a brief that solidly supports the reinstatement of capital punishment. It is a very informative brief, and it is one that I have read three times. I hope other Members have read it.
To quote Mr. Paul Walter, President of the Metro Toronto Police Association, the recent killings of law enforcement officers "reinforces what we've been telling the public and the legislators for a very long time: the criminal element has little

June 29, 1987
Shipping Conferences Exemption Act
respect for anything, but he does have a natural instinct to survive".
It is imperative that we address the subject of capital punishment in detail as a possible option of protection for society. We owe it to our citizens and the law enforcement people who are responsible for protecting them.
I should like to say a few words on the sanctity of life, Madam Speaker. Great discussions have taken place in this House on this subject.
Capital punishment puts the ultimate value on human life. Because each citizen's life is precious, the state puts the ultimate premium on it. A country that puts murderers to death is telling the world that life is not cheap in that country.
If the penalty for rape were lowered, clearly it would signal a lessened regard for the victim's suffering and personal integrity. It would cheapen their horrible experience.
Consequently, when we lower the penalty for cold-blooded murder, it signals a lessened regard for the value of the victim's life.
It is by exacting the highest penalty for the taking of a human life that we affirm the highest value of human life.
I said at the outset, Madam Speaker, that there was no joy in having to vote for the reinstatement of capital punishment; but I believe that after this vote is taken, we will have come to the realization that we must do something with our criminal justice system.
If the motion calling for the reinstatement of capital punishment, in principle, passes, then a parliamentary committee will consider the types of murder for which one may be subject to execution, and the method of execution.
While that may be ghoulish, it is something that the citizens of this country demand.
If the motion is defeated, it will be the duty of the Standing Committee on Justice and Solicitor General to study our criminal justice system, with a view to ensuring that those who give up their right to live in our society by virtue of their behaviour should be held properly accountable.
During the spring break I had brought to my attention the fact that an individual who, in 1974, had raped and murdered two young girls, and who had been sentenced to three 20-year terms, was out on unescorted day passes 11 years later.
When this type of thing can happen, there is something wrong. The protection of the people is of paramount importance.
I think the lines are clearly drawn for tonight's vote. I do not expect that anyone will be swayed by listening to anything I might have to say, any more than they were swayed by the statements of the former speaker. But I want to go on record as stating that we must protect the public, and I believe that this is one way in which we can make a clear statement to the
Canadian people that this Government stands for justice, and justice is what counts.
Tonight I will be voting in favour of the return of capital punishment, Madam Speaker, as an option.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Will the House allow me to call it six o'clock?


Some Hon. Members:: Six o'clock.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The Hon. Member for Egmont (Mr. Henderson) will be the first to be recognized once we resume the debate on this motion.

It being 6 o'clock p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 13(5), the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred divisions on the motions for third reading of Bills C-21 and C-42.


SHIPPING CONFERENCES EXEMPTION ACT, 1986 MEASURE TO ENACT
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Friday, June 26, consideration of the motion of Mr. Crosbie (St. John's West) that Bill C-21, an Act to exempt certian 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, be read the third time and passed.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Call in the Members.


FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS AND DEPOSIT INSURANCE SYSTEM AMENDMENT ACT
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Friday, June 26, consideration of the motion of Mr. Hockin that Bill C-42, an Act respecting financial institutions and the deposit insurance system, be read the third time and passed.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Call in the Members.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: I declare the motion carried.
Bill read the third time and passed.
Epp
(Provencher)
Fennell
Ferland
Finestone
Fontaine
Forrestall
Foster
Fraleigh
Kelleher
Kempling
Killens
Kindy
King
Ladouceur
Landry
Lanthier
Lapierre
Lawrence
Layton
Leblanc
Lesick
Lewis
Lopez
Mailly
Malepart
Malone
Mantha
Marchi
Marin
Martin
Mazankowski
Cadieux	(Windsor West)	McCainCaldwell	Greenaway	McCrossanC ha rest	Grise	McCuishChartrand	Grondin	McDermidClark	Guilbault	MclnnesNAYS	(Brandon-Souris)	(Saint-Jacques)	McKenzieClinch	Gustafson	McKinnonCochrane	Halliday	MinakerCollins	Hamilton	MitgesComeau	Hardey	NicholsonCook	Hawkes	(Trinity)Cooper	Henderson	NicholsonCopps	Hicks	(NiagaraMembers	Corbett	Hnatyshyn	NickersonCossitt	Holtmann	NowlanCrofton	Horner	NunziataAlthouse	Fulton	Parry	Crosby	Howie	OberleAngus	Heap	Riis	(Halifax West)	Hudon	O'NeilBenjamin	Jewett	Robinson	Darling	Isabelle	OostromBlackburn	Keeper	Rodriguez	Daubney	James	Ouellet(Brant)	Langdon	Skelly	de Corneille	Jardine	PennerBlaikie	McCurdy	Waddell	Desjardins	Jelinek	Pennockde Jong	Mitchell	Young-24	Domm	Jepson	PepinEpp	Murphy	Dorin	Johnston	Peterson(Thunder Bay-	Nystrom	Duguay	(Saint-Henri-	PietzNipigon)	Orlikow	Edwards	Westmount)	PlamondonEllis	Jourdenais	Plourde
Porter
Price
Prud'homme
Ravis
Redway
Reimer
Ricard
Rossi
St. Germain

June 29, 1987
Softwood Lumber Tax
St-Julien	Tardif	VankoughnetScott	(Charlesbourg)	Vezina(Victoria-Haliburton)	Taylor	VincentScott	Thacker	Wenman(Hamilton-Wentworth)	Towers	WhiteScowen	Tremblay	WilsonShields	(Quebec-Est)	(Swift CurrSparrow	Tupper	-Maple CiStackhouse	Turner	WinegardStevens	(Ottawa-Carleton)	WiseStewart	Van De Walle	Witer-167NAYS	Members	Althouse	Fulton	ParryAngus	Heap	RiisBenjamin	Jewett	RobinsonBlackburn	Keeper	Rodriguez(Brant)	Langdon	SkellyBlaikie	McCurdy	Waddelldc Jong	Mitchell	Young-24Epp	Murphy	(Thunder Bay-	Nystrom	Nipigon)	Orlikow


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: 1 declare the motion carried.
Motion agreed to and Bill read the third time and passed.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne: Pursuant to order made Friday, June 12, 1987, the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Madam
Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Order, order! The Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis) has risen on a point of order. The Chair would appreciate hearing what he has to say.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Thank you, Madam Speaker. Last week when we had a vote which infringed on the hour set aside for Private Members' Business there was unanimous consent of the House not to see the clock and to consider Private Members' Business for a full hour. I wonder if you would seek the unanimous consent of the House to do the same on this important Private Members' Business?


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Is there unanimous consent that Private Members' Business should be considered for a full hour?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


An Hon. Member:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: I do not have unanimous consent.


Mr. Bob Corbett (Fundy-Royal):: Madam Speaker, I appreciate the efforts of my hon. colleague across the way. As it is my motion which is before the House, I appreciate his assistance and the initiative he has taken in asking that this very important matter be given the full consideration which it deserves. I, therefore, support my hon. friend's suggestion that we seek unanimous consent to consider Private Members' Business for a full hour.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: It has been done.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: In all justice, the Chair will ask the question once more. The first time I did not receive unanimous consent. It may be that after hearing the interventions of the Hon. Member some Members may wish to change their opinion on the subject. Is there unanimous consent that Private Members' Business be considered for a full hour?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Boyer:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: 1 do not have unanimous consent.



PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS-MOTIONS   TRADE

[Stage Direction]
ADVISABILITY OF ELIMINATING SOFTWOOD LUMBER TAX Mr. Bob Corbett (Fundy-Royal) moved:
That, in the opinion of this Flouse, the government should consider the advisability of instating an exclusion from the 15% export duty on softwood lumber for all Maritime-produced lumber exported to the United States, and of effecting an increase in the stumpage fees charged by British Columbia, Alberta, Ontario and Quebec thereby eliminating the need for the 15% export tax on softwood lumber.
He said: Madam Speaker, may I inquire whether there was unanimous consent for the-
Some Hon. Members:: No.


Robert Alfred Corbett: I think it is indeed unfortunate, Madam Speaker, that there are some Members of the House of Commons who do not consider this motion, which seriously affects the softwood lumber industry in the maritime provinces so significantly, to be of sufficient importance to merit debate for a full hour. I am absolutely amazed that there are some Members who do not appreciate the very dire circumstances which this issue could cause in the maritime region.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Madam Speaker, since the House has decided in its wisdom not to set aside the full hour, and recognizing that the Standing Orders provide the Hon. Member with 20
June 29, 1987

minutes in which to make his presentation, I wonder if we could at least have the understanding of the Elon. Member to take less than 20 minutes in order to allow some time for opposition Parties to lend their support to the Hon. Member's initiative. I know there are others who would like to support him in his initiative.


Robert Alfred Corbett: Madam Speaker, I will do my best to capsulize my comments and leave some time. The Hon. Member will be aware that I have spent some time preparing this, since it is on my initiative that this motion comes before the House.
The motion I have presented to the House calls for the Government to redress an unfair situation that exists in legislation for many softwood lumber producers in the maritime provinces.
The December 30 decision taken by the Government of Canada imposes a 15 per cent surtax unilaterally across Canada. Twenty companies across Canada have been exempted from this surtax and five of those were in New Brunswick.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: I am terribly sorry to have to interrupt the Hon. Member. We have 20 minutes to listen to a Private Member's Bill. I think each and every Member of the House should extend the courtesy of allowing him to present his Bill and allowing the Chair to hear him.


Robert Alfred Corbett: Thank you, Madam Speaker. The 20 firms that have been excluded from the 15 per cent export tax were previously excluded from the U.S. countervail action and have maintained their exemption from this export tax.
The decision to impose a national export duty crippled the competitive position of maritime softwood exporters as they are now required to pay not only the highest stumpage fees in the country, but an additional penalty of a 15 per cent export tax. Maritime softwood producers do not feel that this situation is equitable, nor do I. It is their position, and rightly so, that as the highest stumpage fee payers in the country, they are being unfairly penalized by a decision to rectify a problem that they were not part of and certainly did not create.
The U.S. countervail action specifically stated that: "Provincial softwood stumpage programs in Ontario, Quebec, British Columbia and Alberta are subsidies". At no time during the countervail proceedings were the maritime provinces ever mentioned as being part of the problem or a concern by either the U.S. wood producers or the U.S. Department of Commerce.
It is a general consensus among maritime producers that, indeed, the Americans would have been agreeable to an exemption for maritime softwood producers under the countervailing duty action or, indeed, by a negotiated agreement. It is generally agreed that the Memorandum of Understanding that was signed on December 30 is the best possible solution under a very desperate and extremely difficult set of circumstances. Maritime softwood producers have honoured
Softwood Lumber Tax
and respected the agreement and acted in accordance with its obligations.
Nonetheless, there is a very real concern that the inclusion of all maritime lumber producers but five could have a considerable negative effect on the maritime lumber industry. The effect of the 15 per cent export surcharge to date has been minimal, but that is because the present strength of the domestic market has allowed these producers to sell their product within the country. Unfortunately, it is anticipated that this will not be a long-term endowment and that they will encounter difficulties in the not too distant future.
There are 123 mills in Nova Scotia and 93 mills in New Brunswick. Some 22,000 people are directly and indirectly employed in sawmills in the maritime provinces and 6,000 are directly employed in New Brunswick. There is a great concern among maritime lumber producers that many of the smaller sawmills, 40 of which are the only serious industry in their communities, will face serious economic threats to their very survival as a result of the tax. Some 11,000 maritimers are employed by these mills.
I have a case study that has been provided to me by the New Brunswick Government. It is an impact study of the Juniper Lumber Mill of New Brunswick and the Canadian economy should the mill be closed down. That company employs about 400 people, and the residents of Juniper and the surrounding areas obviously rely very heavily on the continual operation of the Juniper Lumber Company.
If this mill were to shut down, it could result in the loss of
1,000	indirect jobs, for a total loss of 1,400 jobs in a market that only comprises a total of 1,685 jobs. The cost to the provincial Government for a two-year period as a result of this shutdown would be estimated at $2.4 million. It would cost an additional $6.7 million to the federal Government in the same period. It is a clear indication of the very real impact that any closure in the small communities would have on the area.
We believe that the maritime lumber yards that were not included in the exemption are no longer shipping to the United States. Fortunately, the local market has been able to absorb their goods, but this is not expected to last.
Industry predictions calculate that if the maritime softwood lumber is not provided with a blanket exemption from the export tax, some 4,000 jobs could be lost in the region. This region is currently struggling to create jobs and build a strong economic base. It is an area that is economically handicapped at best. We anticipate that the export tax will have several long-term debilitating effects on the sector. First, of course, the unexempted softwood lumber producers have already lost their American market because the tax effectively eliminates their profits.
We are concerned that when the domestic market is no longer strong enough to absorb all the products currently being supplied by those producers which previously shipped to the United States, there will be an influx of products from markets

June 29, 1987
Softwood Lumber Tax
west of the New Brunswick and maritime borders. Local markets for maritime producers will be swallowed by western imports-I am speaking of everything from Quebec west-and to add insult to injury, those western imports will be subsidized by transportation subsidies.
The maritime saw-log market for private woodlot owners, which number some 66,000, is obviously threatened by cheaper domestic imports. In a letter of concern to the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney), I wrote:
The Government of Canada is sympathetic to the economic and job-creation difficulties of the Atlantic region and have led the way to enacting programs and policies to help New Brunswick and the other Atlantic provinces more fully realize its potential.
However, to place our softwood industries in a position where we lose a favourable competitive advantage, thereby forcing shut-downs and increased unemployment, are not the economic rewards that this Government is committed to achieve.
I submit that thousands of jobs in the Maritimes are dependent upon a healthy and competitive lumber industry. We must ensure we put in place policies that are going to result not in job losses but in job increases. The loss of a competitive position and continued regional disparity is just not acceptable.
The Senate committee has called for a revision to Bill C-37. The legislative committee which studied the Bill has called for a revision to Bill C-37. There are numerous provisions in place in the Memorandum of Understanding which would allow the Government to move at this particular time to negotiate with its American counterparts. I would like to refer briefly to some of the measures which are related to in that Memorandum of Understanding under "Replacement Measures".
The Government of Canada may reduce or eliminate the export charge on the basis of increased stumpage or other charges by provinces on softwood lumber producers. The Government of Canada and the Government of the United States of America will consult semi-annually and otherwise at the request of either Government regarding any matter concerning this understanding, and six months from the effective date of this understanding, the two Governments will consult regarding the information exchange under the understanding. The date of the Memorandum of Understanding, Madam Speaker, is December 30.
It now becomes quite obvious that the Government is in a position to renegotiate this agreement. I would suggest that the Maritimes should now press on through the Government to claim exemption exclusion from the export tax, based on the conditions I have just related from the Memorandum of Understanding.
I note the Minister, when I introduced the motion, recognized my concerns. I want to assure her that the people of New Brunswick are grateful that five New Brunswick softwood producers have been exempted, and they represent a substantial 92 per cent of the market which is exported to the United
States. But that does not alleviate the situation of those other 40 small producers which are seriously threatened when the local market dries up by the importation into the maritime area from west of our borders, as I have previously stated.
It is my position, and the position of my colleagues and the workers in the area, whose livelihoods and economic futures depend on a strong competitive position and equal access to the huge American market, that all maritime softwood producers be given the competitive footing they are rightly entitled to receive.
As so often has been stated by the maritime softwood lumber producers: "The Maritime Producers are not part of the problem, we should not be part of the solution". I would like to complete my remarks there, Madam Speaker, in order to give my colleagues an opportunity to address this important issue as well.


Lloyd Axworthy: Madam Speaker, I am certainly aware of the clock and I want to leave a few minutes for my colleague from the New Democratic Party who would like to comment on this very interesting proposition with which, of course, we are in total sympathy. I would ask the Hon. Member for Fundy Royal (Mr. Corbett) where was he when we presented amendments in committee asking for this very same thing and his colleagues in the Conservative caucus voted against us to a man? Where was he in the House of Commons when these very measures were brought forward and his colleagues, to a man, voted against them?
We have seen hypocrisy in the House of Commons before, almost daily from the other side of the House, but now a member of the Conservative caucus stands up and says it is time we did something about an exemption for the maritime lumber producers, when he and his colleagues were responsible for the Bill in the first place, and were responsible for voting down the amendments and were responsible for turning down any effort to make any redemption.


Robert Alfred Corbett: I was responsible for this motion. Where were you when I was looking for your support?


Lloyd Axworthy: Let me quote the Cabinet colleague of the Conservative Member from New Brunswick, the Minister of State for Forestry (Mr. Merrithew). I quote from the Moncton Telegraph Journal'. "New Brunswick wins big, Merrithew says of Accord".


Robert Alfred Corbett: Where is your motion, Lloyd?


Lloyd Axworthy: I would suggest to the Hon. Member that he may want to talk to his colleague from New Brunswick, who is in Cabinet, who supported this agreement, who was the initiator of it. He now has the gall to stand up and say: "My colleagues and I think it is a good idea we get an exemption". Certainly one of his colleagues does not think so. The Minister of State for Forestry does not think that is the answer. He was the one who put this agreement in place right from the start.
June 29, 1987

We know that the trade agreement on softwood lumber is probably the worst trade agreement this country has ever made with another country. It is not just the people in the Maritimes who are suffering. People in British Columbia, Manitoba and Alberta have had no answers whatsoever to their problems. Our lumber industry is facing an additional 15 per cent in costs, amounting to $600 million. We have inequity after inequity. We have created the worst possible conditions for ourselves. We agreed to the definition of a subsidy on the grounds that the Minister for International Trade (Miss Carney) and the Minister of State for Forestry said this will provide for our protection against future action.
Now we have Congressman after Congressman introducing amendments in Congress to provide further restrictions on Canadian resources based upon the softwood lumber agreement this Government signed, because we capitulated and agreed it was the proper definition that when we provide a stumpage fee rate, that is an unfair practice. So the Government signed that agreement. This Government brought in the legislation. Now we have a Conservative Member of Parliament saying it is no good.
I would simply say to that Member of Parliament that he had many opportunities in the past to make his voice known, to make his case known, and it seems to me it is now a little after the fact. While we are very happy to support his motion, I would ask him why he did not support what we were doing in committee when we brought in amendments of this kind? Why did he not support us in the House and why did he not vote against the Bill, as he should have and as all Members on that side should have, and say to Canadians from the Maritimes-


Mr. McCain:: Cheap politics.


Lloyd Axworthy: The Hon. Member talks about cheap politics. The cheapest politics going on in this House right now are Members of Parliament on the Conservative side who voted with their Government against their constituents when this Bill was brought forth. That is the cheapest kind of politics.


James Ross Fulton: Madam Speaker, I have long supported the Maritime exclusion, but I join with my colleague, the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy), in pointing out the hypocrisy on the other side of the House. I do not think any maritimer should be sucked in by this. The Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry and I sat on that committee for weeks and weeks listening to witnesses from the Maritimes.


Robert Alfred Corbett: We were all listening.


James Ross Fulton: And that Member for one was not one of the ones who came and sat regularly on that committee. He happens to be one of the Members of this House who did not support the maritime exclusion when the amendment was brought before the committee, nor did he support it here in the
Softwood Lumber Tax
House. He voted in favour of the legislation without there being a maritime exemption.
Let me read what the Minister of State for Forestry from the Maritimes had to say. The article in the Moncton Telegraph Journal is headed: "New Brunswick wins big, Merri-thew says of Accord", and I quote:
Merrithew said Canadians scored wins in six areas-including the exemptions from the tax for 20 Canadian companies, five of them from New Brunswick. The companies were also exempted from a preliminary ruling on a proposed U.S. duty that sparked the negotiations that led to the tax.
"New Brunswick wins big" an exhausted Merrithew told a news conference upon his return to his Saint John riding yesterday. "The five companies exempted in the agreement account for more than 80 per cent of the lumber this province exports to the U.S.
He identified the five as J. D. Irving Ltd., Fraser Inc., Dead River Ltd., Fawcett Lumber Co. Ltd. and Devon Lumber Co.
That is the Minister of State for Forestry. He is a Conservative Minister from the Maritimes and he said: "New Brunswick wins big". He said that the five big companies got off the hook, they get the exemption. It is all the little guys. The Hon. Member is pretending. He is going to go back to the Maritimes and say: "Oh, I had a Private Member's Bill. I was out there fighting for you. I was fighting for the exemption". He never raised his voice in this House. He never raised his voice in the committee. He never came to support the Maritimes when they were there to be heard on this issue. The record speaks for itself. That Member and his Conservative colleagues from the Maritimes-


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Order.


Gordon Edward Taylor: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would like to move that the debate continue for another 25 minutes. That is not the same as the last motion. I think it is a shame that we cannot have this full debate. I move we debate it for another 25 minutes. I ask unanimous consent for that.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: 
Gordon Edward Taylor: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The motion was for one hour. My motion is for less than one hour. But it will allow the debate to continue a little bit longer for a very worthy subject. My motion is for 25 minutes, which is still less than one hour.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The Chair would very much like the House to understand that the Chair is very conscious of the extreme importance of the subject matter being discussed. The Chair does not mean in any way to dismiss the request of the Hon. Member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor). However, the question was asked earlier and there was not unanimous consent. Therefore at seven o'clock the time expired.

June 29, 1987
Capital Punishment


James Ross Fulton: On the same point of order-


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The hour provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business-


Fred Alward McCain: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. In view of the fact that all Members involved in this debate were done with their remarks prior to seven o'clock by about one minute or one minute and a half, in connection with direct debate on the subject matter, is the motion then deemed to have been accepted by the House or rejected by the House?


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: I rose to interrupt the Hon. Member for Skeena (Mr. Fulton) because the time had expired. Hon. Members will find from looking through Hansard or consulting the televised portion of the proceedings that the Hon. Member for Skeena's speech was interrupted because the Chair rose.


Robert Alfred Corbett: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Am I to take your interpretation of the course of events, then, that the Hon. Member for Skeena (Mr. Fulton), a member of the New Democratic Party, talked out this motion and did not allow it to pass, a motion which would have greatly assisted the softwood lumber producers in the Maritime region of Atlantic Canada?


James Ross Fulton: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. As the Chair knows, I had only two minutes to speak. Ordinarily, Members have 20 minutes to speak. The Hon. Member is just diddling around.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Order, please. The time for Private Members' Business has now expired. Pursuant to Standing Order 42(1) the order is dropped from the Order Paper.



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. George Henderson (Egmont):: Madam Speaker, I rise today to lend my voice in resolute opposition to the reinstatement of capital punishment. Though it is always a privilege to speak to the nation and to my constituents in this Chamber, it is with sadness that I am now compelled to do so on this issue.
It is a tragedy that the ugly issue of state execution should once again be brought before this House. It is obvious that the Government has taken this opportunity to use this debate in an attempt to distract attention from the great many problems facing Canadians as a result of the Government's incompetence.
It is my feeling that the call for the reinstatement of capital punishment is an understandable but illogical reaction to the brutality that we see all too often in Canada. I am certain that every Canadian is enraged and disgusted at the thought of criminals such as Clifford Olson and the horrible acts he has committed. It is in reaction to big headlines that people's attitudes toward crime are formed. Their fears are understandable, but I believe somewhat exaggerated.
June 29, 1987

According to a 1982 study carried out by the University of Toronto's Centre of Criminology, almost 75 per cent of Canadians believe that violent crimes make up about one-third of all crimes committed. The reality is that violent crimes account for only 5.7 per cent of the total. Moreover, almost two-thirds of Canadians believe that the murder rate has increased since the abolition of capital punishment in 1976. However, a report from the Solicitor General's department has shown that the rate has reflected no significant changes. The Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney), when he spoke the other night, reinforced that argument.
In the year prior to the complete abolition of capital punishment there were 701 homicides in Canada, a rate of 3.09 per 100,000 citizens. In 1986 that rate had dropped to 2.87. Obviously, misinformation has created a great deal of panic in the population.
It is the duty of every Member of this House to speak clearly and directly to Canadians. I am sure that as people follow this debate it will become abundantly clear that capital punishment is both unnecessary and unjustifiable. Much will be said about the responsibilities of Members of this House to their constituents, to the nation as a whole, and, indeed, to their own consciences. It is my belief that the needs of my constituents is the most important concern I have to address. It is the needs of one's constituents that must take priority.
However, it is important to separate what is needed from what is merely desired. We have all seen polls, and Members who spoke prior to me mentioned this, that indicate that a majority of Canadians want to return to capital punishment. Since the public has been misinformed, it is not our duty here to follow the demands of the public. On the contrary, it is our responsibility to make use of this debate to try to educate the public and to show rational and moral leadership in maintaining the abolition of capital punishment. We must assume the confidence of our constituents and move forward according to our judgment. If this is not done and Members of the House turn instead to vote in a manner designed only to meet the demands of the polls, then Parliament will have dealt a great blow to the progress of the country. The cycle of revenge will have begun.
It is the tradition of our justice system to provide three functions in its work. Punishment must be a deterrent. It must be a form of retribution and it must encourage rehabilitation. Capital punishment falls hopelessly short of meeting any of those three required principles. The evidence and statistics relating to the death penalty as a deterrent are completely clear-capital punishment is not a deterrent.
I fail to see what overwhelming deterrent effect can be created by institutionalized killings. What example can be achieved? Are we showing people what to expect if they take another's life, or are we setting an example of how to react when one is wronged? State executions of criminals hardly seem like an effective method to show how wrong it is to kill.
Capital Punishment
It is hard to argue that the death penalty is not a decisive form of retribution. Some will claim it is the ultimate retribution. The problem here is that dead criminals cannot be rehabilitated. Since there is no rehabilitation, the entire society loses something. A lost life will never again contribute to society. The execution of a criminal has never brought a victim back to life. Capital punishment can add nothing but revenge to society. Under any careful examination there is no way to interpret it as a positive step.
When I was born in Freeland, Prince Edward Island, I was immediately given and privileged with all the rights, freedoms and liberties to which the citizens of this great country of ours are entitled. Of course, I was also instantly subject to the laws of the nation.
No one would dispute the right of the Government to remove a person's right to freedom within a society if that person has committed a crime. Prison sentences remove the criminal element of society. These people have forfeited rights they once held. However, the right to life is something that no government can logically or morally take away. Simply put, the Government cannot take what it has not given.
I cannot hold myself, as others have, as a leader in morality on this issue. Instead, I follow the initiative and concern expressed to me over the last few months by at least 30 different religious bodies, ranging from national organizations to tiny church groups.
I should like to thank these groups for their guidance in this most difficult issue that this Parliament is faced with. These people believe, as do I, and as do, I believe, all Canadians, in the sanctity of each and every human life.
The Canadian justice system cannot, and should not, be used by the Government as the arbiter of death. The possibilities of error are endless; and once an error is committed in this context it cannot be undone. There have been many cases in our legal history where people who were hanged were later found to be innocent, or at the very least convicted on false evidence.
We have, of course, as has been cited by many Members of Parliament, the Donald Marshall case and the John Wildman case, both of which remind us that while we do have a good justice system, it is not an infallible justice system. Other problems could and would arise within the justice system as a result of the implementation of capital punishment.
It is widely believed that jurors trying murder cases, given the choice between bringing down a verdict of guilty with a death penalty and a not guilty verdict, come down on the side of a not guilty verdict. As former Crown counsel Alan Cooper explained: "If you talk to the average guy on the street, he talks tough. But when it actually comes down to his making the decision, he won't do it."

June 29, 1987
Capital Punishment
When a jury has the opportunity to hang a man, they rarely do it; and because they do not want death sentences, the possibility-and I emphasize "the possibility"-is that some of the guilty will go free. There is always a threat with jury trials of wide-ranging inequities in terms of who is sentenced to death and who lives. Studies have shown that the death penalty has traditionally been used more frequently in cases involving racial minorities and the poor. That is something that has been brought out by other Hon. Members during the course of this debate. And this is another sad irony, because, as we have seen, it is the same people who suffer most in our society.
The death penalty is, and has been, a measure that is used to attack a symptom rather than the cause of the problems in this country. Desperation is at the root of a great deal of crime, and we should be attacking the cause. Instead, we are focusing our attention today in this Parliament on the effects of these crimes of desperation.
Certainly there are criminal acts, as we have seen, that are both horrible and unexplainable'; but, these are the exception rather than the rule. It would be impossible to expect that our justice system could completely and unerringly separate the criminal monsters from those who are nothing more than sad tragedies. If one innocent person is to die unnecessarily, as would surely happen, then we are, each and every one of us in this Chamber, to blame, and we will have lost one more precious life in the name of blind justice.
Let us hope that neither Hon. Members of this House nor the public at large have any doubts about the result of the return to capital punishment. The fact is, some people will die: people who may have been falsely convicted; people who are consumed with guilt and who long for repentance; people who are, and who were at the time of their crime, without any control of their minds. In fact, who can say that any man who kills another in a civilized world is not insane?
There will also, undoubtedly, be people who die who could have enriched us, helped us, and even taught us many things, after a sufficient time of imprisonment, leading to repentance and rehabilitation. History is full of great men and women who spent a part or even much of their lives imprisoned, only to return as functioning and contributing members of society.
In our own nation, we have the example of Roger Caron, a man referred to by his fellow prisoners as "mad dog", who returned to society to educate and warn our youth and to advocate fair treatment of the inmates of our prisons. I ask Hon. Members, are we really so morally bankrupt as a nation, so resigned to our inability to rehabilitate people and so thirsty for revenge and spectacle that we should return to the death penalty? I certainly hope not. As a nation, we have traditionally strived to better the fate of our fellow human beings. We are recognized as a world leader in the fight for human rights.
We certainly have nothing to gain in joining such countries as South Africa and Chile, which have institutionalized and advocated capital punishment as a practical measure to curb unrest in their societies.
The problems of this country have always been solved through knowledge, hard work, and compassion. It is our duty to help the victims of crime in as many ways as possible; but it is also our duty to punish and rehabilitate the criminals themselves. It may well be that we need judicial reform. I, for one, would advocate stronger judicial reform. It is difficult to see a person who has been charged and convicted of first-degree murder out on parole after only a very few short years.
This Parliament, before going to capital punishment, the taking of the life of an individual, should try at least one other method, that being a stronger and more effective sentencing regime. We certainly do not need a justice system based on revenge.
It will be said in this House that we should return to the death penalty as a measure of government cost-saving. We hear that argument being put forth by people across this country. People say that it costs a great deal of money to keep these people incarcerated. This argument is also false. As well, it is disturbing. A study by the State of New York has shown that there is no money to be saved by executing criminals. The long line of appeals that accompany a death sentence more than offsets the money spent on the incarceration of the criminal. Quite apart from that, it is revolting to think that we could consider killing people in order to save relatively tiny sums of money; or, for that matter, any sum of money.
Perhaps those who use this argument would consider letting people starve to death-another good way of saving dollars. The Government would be better using this precious time, I believe, to implement a fairer tax system, if money is the main issue.
In closing, I should like to urge Hon. Members to look deep into their hearts to find their position on this grave issue. I think the immorality of the death penalty will be easy to see. I urge Hon. Members to feel the weight of their consciences, as I have. If we reinstate capital punishment, we will be doing so on behalf of all Canadians, and any executions which follow will be carried out in the names of a people who deeply believe in the sanctity of life.
I urge Hon. Members to think of the logic being applied here. Does it make any sense to kill to show the wrongness of killing? I do not think so.
I will be voting against the motion, and I will be doing so with a clear mind and a hopeful heart.
I should like to conclude with a quote from a letter I received from one of my concerned constituents, a Mr. Carroll Kadey, from Ellerslie, P.E.I., who has mindfully stated the truth of this issue. I quote:
For one human being to take the life of another is a great tragedy.
For society to execute a human being is barbarity.
I have stood for Parliament in two elections, 1980 and 1984, Mr. Speaker. When asked my position on capital punishment, when asked whether I would vote for the return of the death
June 29, 1987

penalty in Canada, I said, on the occasion of both campaigns, that I could not.
Last evening I attended a state dinner in Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island, which was hosted by one of our cabinet Ministers, the Hon. Minister of the Environment (Mr. McMillan), and had an opportunity to have a long chat with the former Member for Egmont, the Hon. David MacDonald, who is now Canada's Ambassador to Ethiopia. My position has been clear for many years, and it was reinforced when a poll was taken on who would vote for and who would vote against the reinstatement of capital punishment. Mr. MacDonald said that he was glad to see me voting against the reinstatement of capital punishment. He said that he had done the same on many occasions, and that previous Members of Parliament for Egmont were also abolitionists. I informed him that I had read his speeches in Hansard, which he gave over the years with great consideration and care, and that I took much from them.
As did other Hon. Members, I asked the following question in my householder: "Are you for or are you against capital punishment". In my riding of Egmont I sent out 18,000 householders, and I received back something less than 200. The breakdown was something like 102 against reinstatement of capital punishment and 96 for its reinstatement.
I understand that Members of Parliament are really very concerned politically and otherwise, but there are times when we must show moral leadership. We must live with our own consciences. While we work very hard as Members of Parliament in every way we can to help our ridings and our constituents, there are some issues-and this is one of them for myself; I am also a pro-lifer-on which we must vote with our consciences. I must live with my conscience, and I hope all my constituents will understand and respect me for it.


Simon Leendert de Jong: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to participate in the debate. I suspect that for many Members of Parliament it is one of the most difficult debates which we have faced in our careers as parliamentarians and as elected leaders in our respective communities. It is not an easy debate; it is not an easy subject.
It deals with very deep-felt emotions which we experience as human beings living in this day and age. It deals with various intellectual arguments relating to something about which we as members of the human community feel very strongly, that is, our collective security or ability as individual human beings to live our lives in a society free from random violence and death. It deals with a question which affects each of us to the core regardless of political or religious beliefs, regardless of all things which separate us as human beings. This debate touches us in terms of what we share as human beings.
I am referring to the question of what we do with those in our midst who commit what is surely the most awful crime of all, that is, the taking of the life of another human being. How do we prevent that? How do we minimize it? How do we treat
Capital Punishment
those who have committed that crime? These are the questions in this debate. These are the questions which individual Members of Parliament have attempted to answer.
I should like to deal with some of the intellectual questions dealing with the logical side of the issue. Some of those who call for the restoration of capital punishment use the argument that it is a deterrent, that the state being able to put to death a murderer will deter such crime.
The truth of the matter is that that logical assertion cannot be proven. Most intelligent and reasonable people would admit that there are no statistics whatsoever to support the contention that capital punishment is a deterrent. As various speakers during the debate have pointed out, in many instances we could almost make the opposite assertion. In certain jurisdictions which have done away with capital punishment the homicide rate in fact has declined over the last number of years. The argument that it is a deterrent is not a valid one.
Another argument is that it protects society and that society needs this protection. Logically I do not think that argument holds water. Quite often, as the Law Society pointed out, the opposite can occur and the courts would be loath to convict someone of such an offence if it meant his or her execution. In certain instances a court will in fact adjudge manslaughter rather than first degree murder. Along with the notion that restoring death penalty protects society, one could also make the case that it endangers society by allowing people out who should not be allowed out.
I think the most important argument by those who want to see a return to the death penalty is the retributive justice argument, in other words, vengeance or revenge, that a member of our human family has committed such a horrifying act or acts that he or she deserves to be killed. This is perhaps the most potent of all arguments used, and I also reject it.
There is no doubt that when we read gruesome details of mass murderers like Clifford Olson that there is a certain sense of deep-rooted revulsion which we all feel, a sense of wanting to put the SOB out of his misery. We feel a sense of anger that such an awful act has been committed, that young, innocent children, at the stage of beginning to live or to discover life, have been killed by a demented animal who is a human being, a member of the human species. I think we all feel that we just want to kill the person. That part of our nature as a human being comes out, the one that wants revenge, that response of anger.
I understand that because I feel it myself. Any member of our human family will feel it. It is normal. Yet there is another part of us that calls out and helps us rise above that feeling of anger and wanting to kill for revenge. Surely that part of us that calls out is the better part of our nature. It looks at events in terms of cause and effect, of nature and seeks to understand and put reason where there was anger and pure emotion. It is that part of us that wants to make certain such things never

June 29, 1987
Capital Punishment
happen again and realizes that in order to do we must understand. That is what this debate is about, not only how we as individuals react but how we as a collective society, as a civilization, act. What part of our nature will we call forth as a community, as civilization?
In many ways this debate is a debate about how consciously leaders of our community decide what type of a civilization we will have. 1 submit that feeding emotion tonight will be an affirmation that the community called Canada tries to achieve a higher level of civilization, a higher level of conduct, one more motivated by attempting to understand rather than one of pure emotional reaction. That in large part is what this debate is about. EIow do we see ourselves as a community, as a society? How do we see ourselves as individual members of that society?
I have heard arguments that what we have to do is vote according to the wishes of our constituents. That is compelling. Practically speaking, we are all politicians and we all want to get re-elected. There is that part, of course, but there is a loftier part as well which has some validity. One attempts as a representative of the people of one's constituency to reflect the people's desires and wishes so that this, indeed, is a representative democracy. That is understandable, Mr. Speaker. But very often we have to forget that from time to time. A few weeks ago I was engaged in a radio debate over the telephone with my colleague from Saskatoon East. The Hon. Member for Saskatoon East (Mr. Ravis) stated that he would support capital punishment because that is what his constituents wanted. He had done his poll, and had the responses to his householders, and had decided what he was going to do.
Let me tell you about Saskatoon East, Mr. Speaker. It is a seat which the New Democratic Party represented in the previous Parliament and we will probably represent again in the next Parliament. The polls seem to indicate that the constituents in Saskatoon East want a change in their representative. I posed a question to my colleague from Saskatoon East. If I went into his riding, conducted a poll and was able to demonstrate to him that the majority of his constituents wanted him either to change Parties or resign and allow somebody else to run, would he do so. He was not quite into doing that. I told him that in a poll I would probably be able to demonstrate that the majority of his constituents were against Bill C-22, while he voted in favour of it.
I asked him would he consider, using that same argument that he was using to support capital punishment, and now vote against Bill C-22. Of course, he was not quite prepared to do that either. Our system of Government and Parliament operates in a certain way. Yes, as practical politicians and politicians wanting to represent our constituents we try to stay in tune with the desires of our constituents. We have to do more than that because there is more than that to this job. Otherwise our system of government just would not work. I suggest that the argument that you have to do what your constituents ask you to do is not a valid one.
What is it that our constituents are asking us to do? Yes, public opinion polls have shown that a 60 per cent range of the Canadian public want us to restore capital punishment. Apparently the polls also indicate people do not feel quite that strongly about it. I have detected an amazing change of mood over the last number of years.
When I fought my first election in 1972, capital punishment was a question I was asked about quite often on the doorsteps. Yet the mail I have received is by far from those who are opposed to returning capital punishment. I suspect that people are not as convinced that capital punishment is going to be the answer. I certainly feel in terms of the public impression that I get from my constituents that they are not as concerned and not as adamant now as they were before.
I suspect that most of my constituents, even those who favour restoring capital punishment, would not look kindly on me if I happened to vote according to how they want. I suspect that I will gain more support by standing here and stating what I deeply believe than if I were to change. I think our Canadian electorate is mature. I think people respect the consciousness of Members of Parliament more than they would respect one Member who would just vote according to what some poll indicated as to how he or she should vote.
The one other area on which I wish to touch is how can we make our society more secure? After all, those who want to see capital punishment restored and those who are opposed to it all agree on one thing. We want to see a safer and more secure society. We want to live our own lives with our loved ones, dependants and so forth in a more secure community. By rejecting capital punishment, it will force us to look more into the causes of violence. By not restoring capital punishment we close the door to the easy way out. We must begin to recognize the conditions that produce sick people. We must begin to examine very carefully our justice system that allows, in some cases, people who are sick to be at liberty and to commit heinous crimes again.
I remember the case of a demented person killing nurses in Saskatoon in the late 1970s. This person had a history of mental illness and sickness. He had killed farm animals and had done sick things. Yet we have devised no way as a society to keep tabs on these people, to treat these types of people, to treat them and make certain that they are never in a position to inflict harm and horror again..
Again, in the case of Clifford Olson, he was a sick person who fell between the slats of provincial and federal jurisdiction, the bureaucracy. We must examine that but we must also examine the roots of violence.
We must accept that we are living in a day and age of horrendous social, psychological, economical and technological change. Individual human lives are in freefall. Many children are being raised by single parents who are poor and have to work, come home, fix supper, change diapers and simply
June 29, 1987

physically do not have the emotional and physical strength to give love, attention, concern and all those things that make us normal human beings. A breeding ground for psychopaths is surely one way of describing the wasteland of our civilization and culture today.
Then, of course, there is the influence of the mass media and the violence and number of deaths portrayed hour after hour. Children are brought up on television, the biggest babysitter and biggest source of information right there in front of them. It gives them violence, violence, violence. Is it any wonder we produce violent people? Does anyone think that killing those violent people will solve the problem of violence? No, it will just feed on it and more violence will beget more violence.
If we are really concerned about stopping violence, we must address the question of how we can maintain individual freedom of expression and still cut down on the amount of violence to which our youngsters are exposed. By saying no to the question of capital punishment, we force ourselves to address the real causes and will hopefully achieve some solution so that we can live in a safer and sound world.


Mr. Geoff Scott (Hamilton-Wentworth):: Mr. Speaker, I have been waiting and in a sense dreading this moment for 11 years. Ever since I witnessed the last debate on capital punishment in 1976, I have wanted to place my views on the record in the House of Commons and cast my vote on this critically important albeit wrenching issue. This is the most difficult speech I have ever had to make. However, when the free vote is recorded later this day, I will vote in favour of the motion to reinstate capital punishment in principle.
I may, however, be voting from a perspective not shared by other colleagues on all sides of the House. My gut feeling tells me that we should put the death penalty back on the statute books at once. My head tells me that this country will never again see another person executed even if we do restore capital punishment in principle later tonight. Let me explain my reasons for obeying my gut instinct rather than my realistic rationale.
Eleven years ago, I sat up there in the Parliamentary Press Gallery, the third-floor balcony overlooking this place, and I listened carefully to many stirring speeches through countless hours of debate on the abolition of capital punishment. Incidentally, there were stirring speeches in 1976 but there have been very stirring speeches in 1987 as well. I commend many of my colleagues on both sides of the House for some of the profound and in some cases moving speeches that they have made.
As a television journalist for some 22 individual stations across Canada, I had to monitor the proceedings carefully. I provided filmed interviews with Members of Parliament to their hometown television channels along with commentaries reflecting the views of MPs on both sides of the death penalty issue from all sides of the House. I was exposed to all the arguments that we have been hearing during this debate and, I
Capital Punishment
will confess, as an objective journalist I felt comfortable in my officially neutral role. Still, I held the personal view that the death penalty was considered a mere formality on the statute books, a provision that no Government had used since 1962. It was certainly an ultimate solution that no Liberal administration had contemplated, nor would the Trudeau Government of the day do anything but commute any death sentence coming before it.
Back in July of 1976, the conventional wisdom in the Liberal Government and in the media of the day was that the abolitionists would almost certainly carry the vote and it turned out to be an extremely close vote, as I predict it will be tonight. However, it was anything but free back in 1976. Mr. Trudeau's Whips were on with a vengeance and all kinds of carrots were being dangled before government MPs immediately prior to the 1976 roll call on capital punishment. That brings us to the present debate and the conduct of the present Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney).
I want to put on record that I can rarely recall hearing a more powerful and persuasive speech made by any Prime Minister than the one delivered by the Right Hon. Member for Manicouagan here in the House one week ago tonight. His thoughtful and obviously deeply felt address on capital punishment ranks with those contributions of Arthur Maloney and the Right Hon. John Diefenbaker. I believe history will applaud the Right Hon. Prime Minister's speech regardless of the outcome of the vote tonight.
The fact that I am allowed to stand here in my place and disagree philosophically with my leader says something else about this Prime Minister. Soon after I became a Member of Parliament, I got used to hearing former Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau say that he would see to it that the issue of capital punishment would never again come before Parliament as long as he was in charge. Well, Pierre Trudeau is mercifully no longer in charge of this Parliament, not on the government side in any event, and that is another reason that I have a towering respect for this Prime Minister. He keeps his word. The capital punishment issue is indeed before Parliament. The matter will be dealt with one way or another during this Session. This highly controversial and intensely personal matter will be allowed to come to a truly free vote later tonight.
I might point out that the Right Hon. Member for Yellow-head (Mr. Clark), a former Prime Minister, also promised from 1976 onward that there would be a free vote in this House. He too will be able to participate in that vote tonight.
In any event, my own personal view back in 1976 was that capital punishment was abolished for political reasons and with the political clout of the Government of the day. My personal view in 1987 is that this House should restore the death penalty in principle but that while this Prime Minister is exerting no political pressure on his Progressive Conservative colleagues, I still have a journalist's sense of scepticism and

June 29, 1987
Capital Punishment
perhaps realism that this Government and any future Government many years down the road will not likely resort to the ultimate penalty even if the House of Commons does approve the motion in principle tonight.
Let me answer the obvious question which is: "If you think that this or any future Government will automatically commute any death sentence that comes before it, why in heaven's name don't you vote for continued abolition? Wouldn't that be more realistic?" The answer is no on two counts. First, it is because of my duty to my constituents which I consider extremely important and second, my personal responsibilities and my conscience.
To vote against this resolution would be a betrayal of the constituents of Hamilton-Wentworth. Through four successful federal election campaigns and following extensive polling of my riding recently, I am convinced that my gut feeling is totally in tune with the vast majority of the people I have the honour to represent. Just as an example of that, last fall on CHML Radio's open-line show, Mr. John Hardy got in touch with five or six Members of Parliament from the greater Hamilton-Burlington area. We were all on an open-line program where we received calls from listeners. Present were the Hon. Members for Lincoln (Mrs. Martin), Burlington (Mr. Kempling), Hamilton West (Mr. Peterson), Hamilton East (Ms. Copps), and in the absence of a Member of Parliament for Hamilton-Mountain, I represented that constituency along with Hamilton-Wentworth. The results of that poll were 75 per cent in favour of the restoration of the death penalty and 25 per cent against. I communicated those results immediately after the radio program.
Some of the arguments put forward were interesting. They included the following: "We have to consider the families of the victims, the survivors", "Capital Punishment is a deterrent", "Life does not mean life, it is only 25 years. This punishment is not severe enough". I am quoting directly from some of the people who called in on that program. Others said: "The prisons are too lax, they're too soft, they're too comfortable".
The comment of one caller in particular got to me. He was a police officer who referred to the Prime Minister's comments last fall that "emotions are too high now to have a free vote on capital punishment". Immediately after that police officer was murdered, when emotions were running so high in the House of Commons, was possibly not the time to have a free vote on capital punishment. However, the officer made the point that police officers continue to be murdered and there is no time in between these deaths to cool off.
The concerns of the people of the greater Hamilton- Wentworth region are much like mine and can best be expressed in the words of the Right Hon. John Diefenbaker. Here is what Canada's thirteenth Prime Minister, a long-time abolitionist, wrote in his book, One Canada:
Society must be protected from those who kill for profit or who regard murder as an occupational hazard in the commission of robberies or kidnappings.
The people of Hamilton-Wentworth and I worry about the fact that society treats the killers better than we do the victims' relatives. I can say as a former newsman that it certainly seems as though we give people who have gunned down Popes, presidents and policemen more publicity and more consideration.
There is an overwhelming impression in my part of the country that people who have murdered before are quite likely to murder again while on parole. There is a fear in my community about how people can be properly advised when these killers are back out on the street. The solution, they say, is surely not after the fact-the solution is before the fact.
My first reason for voting for this motion tonight is that I have great respect for my constituents and for their views. When we are asked to pass judgment on an issue as complex and important as this one, I have absolutely no hesitation whatsoever in asking for and relying on the guidance and advice of the people of Hamilton-Wentworth.
My personal reasons for supporting the motion do not stem from the point of view of bloody-minded revenge and retribution, although denying the "eye-for-an-eye" approach to the capital punishment question seems to mean that it is all right for a criminal to give someone the death penalty but in fact society-you or I-cannot render the same death penalty to the criminal.
Let us face it, Mr. Speaker, a great many Canadians approach this issue out of a deep-seated revenge on behalf of relatives who sorrow for the rest of their lives as a result of deliberate acts of violence against society such as blowing up an airplane, smuggling in guns to blow away prison guards, beating to death convenience store employees, gunning down policemen, shooting up banks, or bombing embassies. It is not difficult for many people to give vent to such an "eye-for-an-eye" emotion and philosophy. From those outraged by such grizzly offences you often hear: "Hanging is too good for them".
What is more difficult to accept, however, are the dispassionate, legalistic and selected biblical arguments and passages used by some organized churches, many academics, many criminal science specialists, many media people, and others who completely ignore the peoples' views on this life and death issue.
Just as I am not quoting statistics at length in these remarks-for I think statistics can be proved to use anything and manipulate any argument, as we have seen during this debate-neither will I quote the Bible to Hon. Members because the Bible can also be quoted to prove anything if you are prepared to lift the text out of context.
I am, however, a Presbyterian by upbringing and the Judaeo-Christian tradition is the major source and the wellspring of western civilization. The recent Maclean's
June 29, 1987

Decima poll on how Canadians feel about capital punishment specifically points out that religion does have a bearing on attitudes about the death penalty with Protestants in general, and Anglicans in particular, more likely to lean toward capital punishment while Catholics tend to lean toward the abolitionist point of view.
According to Michael M. Ferguson of Moncton: "The orthodox Christian tradition has generally emphasized three key points: First, the state has in principle the right, within limits and for good cause, to take life. Second, it is a question of prudence when and where the state should, if at all, exercise that right. Third, there is no definitive Christian position on the matter, and the individual, if properly informed, is free to make up his or her mind. The Jewish tradition does not appear to me to take a materially different position than orthodox Christianity, and in our own time the State of Israel retains the death penalty".
This is all to demonstrate that my own upbringing has contributed to a personal philosophy which is not out of line with my countrymen of similar backgrounds. This is not to say, as a Member of Parliament, that 1 cannot also demonstrate leadership and use my conscience and intelligence to operate independently from my traditional upbringing. My parents will confirm that I have gone that route many times before. This is, as many of my colleagues have expressed eloquently during this debate, a matter of conscience, a moral question, and I have analysed it in the way I have described.
My reason for supporting the motion tonight, while a "gut feeling" and a responsibility to my constituents, also amounts to something else, something far more immediate and urgent than the prospects of this country actually returning to executing people which, as I have already pointed out, will not likely happen.
My vote will be cast as a plea to this and future Governments to dramatically tighten up our parole system and our sentencing procedures. My Winnipeg friend, Frank Crockett, was quoted in Maclean's as saying, "If I had some assurance that a 25-year sentence meant 25 years, then I'd have no hesitation in saying, 'Don't bring back the death penalty'". Well, I am not as lenient as Mr. Crockett, but he does express the frustration of many of my constituents.
There is something fundamentally wrong with a system which allows a confessed murderer back out on the streets 24 or 30 months or three or five years after sentencing. As my mother said to me just this afternoon on the phone from Vancouver, "They're out in no time flat". A life sentence is a joke, Mr. Speaker. If we are not going to have capital punishment, we must build into the system a deterrent so the sentences given out for premeditated murder and the killers of police and prison guards and terrorists must be respected. We have heard during this debate that there are murderers in penal institutions who will kill again because they have nothing to lose. There are statistics to show that killers on parole will kill again.
Capital Punishment
It is my firmly-held belief that if this motion is defeated- and at this hour it could be even by the slimmest razor-thin margin-abolitionists will heave a sigh of relief and society will revert to the status quo. Canada's parole system will continue to make a mockery out of the administration of justice where first degree murderers are concerned. My view, my preference, is that with the death penalty once again on the statute books the sentencing of killers of police, prison guards, children, terrorists-whomever the committee selects to qualify for capital punishment-will have their sentences commuted to life imprisonment. Then a Government will be compelled to justify to the Canadian people that the lesser life sentence is respect and if not, why not.
Even if this motion is lost this evening, whichever way it goes, we as parliamentarians have a duty to ensure that one way or another we will bring an end to open season on those who protect society. In the interest of law and order, and as a grim and forceful reminder to would-be killers that the ultimate penalty is once again on Canada's statute books, I will be rising in my place later tonight to vote for the motion in principle to reinstate capital punishment.


Mr. David Berger (Laurier):: Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the speech by the Hon. Member for Hamilton- Wentworth (Mr. Scott). I could not help but grimace somewhat at what I think are flaws in his logic. At the conclusion of his speech he said that he felt we should be tightening the parole system and sentencing and that he would be against the death penalty if we did so.


Geoffrey Douglas Scott: I did not say that.


David Berger: He said that his vote was a signal to the powers that be that we should be tightening the parole system and sentencing. I would ask him, therefore, why are we debating capital punishment? Why not debate the issues that he says are the real problem with our criminal justice system?
He seemed to be very concerned about recidivism, the number of convicted murderers who will be let out of prison because of eligibility for parole and may kill again.
I was not aware that there was a very high rate of recidivism among convicted murderers. I suggest that he put any facts he has on the record because he did not do so during his speech.
Indeed, I have a concern about the parole system and sentencing which I will address during the course of my remarks. The particular case that I plan to talk about did not apply to a convicted murderer. This was a person who murdered, and one of the contributing factors may indeed have been the leniency or some of the anomalies in our present prison system. The person about whom I will talk is someone, according to his record, who had committed a series of crimes, but none of which were violent. This raises a problem of how one deals with a person who could potentially become a murderer.

June 29, 1987
Capital Punishment


Walter Leland Rutherford (Lee) Clark: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I thought there was no longer any opportunity for questions and answers.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: There are no questions and comments. All speeches are 20 minutes.


David Berger: Mr. Speaker, from the outset I should like to say that I do not agree with the restoration of capital punishment, and even less with this resolution. I would also express my regret that this debate should even be taking place. I have no praise for the Prime Minister. The Elon. Member for Hamilton-Wentworth (Mr. Scott) who has just spoken commended the Prime Minister for allowing a free vote on this issue. But why this vote? Why take up the time of the House for this useless debate? If, as suggested by the Hon. Member for Hamilton-Wentworth, we are not going to reinstate the death penalty, then why not instead debate the real and serious issues facing our society today?
Mr. Speaker, had we devoted as much effort to study the sources of violence in our society, we would be further ahead.
Here are some of the questions which deserve our attention. What should we do to improve our penitentiaries? What should we do to have better control over firearms? I have yet to see this Government take the lead in this respect. How can we reduce the violence we see on television every day? What can we do to gain better insight into family quarrels, alcohol and drug abuse?
These are questions we ought to debate, these are the kinds of problems whose solutions might help us reduce violence in our society.
At the beginning of my remarks I should like to thank all my constituents, particularly those who wrote to me about this mater. I received about ten personal letters and more than 150 postcards, all of them against capital punishment.
Therefore I think I can safely say that I share the views of at least some of the residents of my riding of Laurier.

I want to deal briefly with the question of public opinion. This question was addressed by a professor of criminal law at McGill University in an article published today in The Gazette.
I addressed the question of public opinion several weeks ago when I spoke to Bill C-55 dealing with the determination of refugees in Canada. In my speech on second reading I pointed out that the very first argument the Minister brought to bear in support of Bill C-55 was that public opinion supports Bill C-55. As Professor Sklar asked in The Gazette today: "How many have read Bill C-55? How many understand it?" While the legal community is unanimous about some of the provisions, their views widely contradict the views expressed by the Minister.
How many have carefully considered the arguments about the value of the death penalty as a deterrent? How many have reflected on the U.S. experience that the death penalty is applied in a disproportionate manner to minorities and the poor? What if public opinion changes? Do we invoke the death penalty one day and revoke it the next if the public's view changes?
I would also point out that majorities in Canada supported the internment of Japanese Canadians during the war. The majority of public opinion presumably supported keeping Jews out of Canada in the 1930s and 1940s, and presumably supports keeping out refugees today if one can believe the polls that have been published lately.
The real question is whether the public's views are the right answers to these questions, or do Members of Parliament have a different duty in dealing with these questions as part of our responsibility to the people who vote for us? In that respect, I would simply quote what Professor Sklar said about elected representatives in the last sentence of his article:
What we need, ultimately, is that they protect us from our prejudices, not legislate them.
In supporting the abolition of capital punishment in his speech to the House on June 15, 1976, Prime Minister Trudeau argued that the only basis to justify capital punishment is on its value as a deterrent. He said:
The crux of the question before us is whether execution is an effective and therefore justifiable weapon for the state to use in order to deter potential murderers.
In other words, is hanging a good way for society to defend itself? It may surprise some people in the House or the public to know that the Right Hon. Pierre Trudeau said that capital punishment could be justified if there were evidence that executions were likely to deter other murders. This would ensure that a human life was not being taken capriciously. In other words, it would ensure that state-sanctioned killing would accomplish some worth-while social purpose. There was no such evidence in 1976 and there is no such evidence in 1987. Indeed, all the evidence is to the contrary.
As the Leader of our Party, the Hon. Member for Vancouver Quadra (Mr. Turner) said in his speech on April 27, even the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police no longer argues that capital punishment is the only effective deterrent. In the civilized world there is no evidence to show that capital punishment has had any significant impact on the murder rate. At 2.1 murders per 100,000 people, last year's homicides rate in Canada was the lowest in the past 15 years. It was 2.9 murders per 100,000 people in 1976 when capital punishment was abolished. If we look at the United States, we see its statistics show that those states which imposed the death penalty report a higher number of homicides than do other states where it has been abolished.
June 29, 1987

Like other Members of this House, I have had contact with the families of murder victims. One of the most difficult things I have had to do as a Member of Parliament was to meet with a certain Anibal Tavares, the father of a nineteen-year old student by the name of Emmanuel who was murdered in March, 1985 while resisting an armed robbery in the family's depanneur or convenience store in my constituency. This young man worked for me in the last election campaign. I went door to door with him.
The murderer in that case pleaded guilty and was sentenced to life imprisonment. He will be eligible for parole in 10 years.
I met with the Crown prosecutor after having met with the father on a few occasions and asked him a number of questions the father had put to me. He discussed with me the difficulties he faced in obtaining a conviction.
There was no witness to the crime. In the words of the Crown prosecutor, it was a perfect crime. However, the murderer talked to others who provided information to the police which led to his arrest. There was some question in the Crown prosecutor's mind whether this evidence would lead to a conviction. He was not sure whether the persons whom the murderer had talked to would turn up at the trial. They were not exactly reputable persons and there was no guarantee they would turn up. He also was not sure whether their testimony would hold up under cross-examination. His main objective was to get a murder conviction. He had to weigh the possibility of going to trial and not obtaining a guilty verdict because of the risky nature of that procedure versus obtaining a guilty plea by the accused prior to trial.
I met with Mr. Tavares, the father, on a number of occasions since his son's murder, as I explained. As can be expected, this man was absolutely shattered by his son's death. His anguish and his views have been reported several times by the city columnist of the Montreal Gazette who reported that Mr. Tavares lamented the death of moral principles, the death of justice in our society, and claimed that the state was responsible for his son's murder. The laws of the land, he argued, border on complicity, and the rules of evidence favour criminals. I guess I should not have to point out that Mr. Tavares also favours the death penalty. His views partially stem from the fact that his son's murderer was a person who had a lengthy criminal record. From 1980 to 1983, he had eight convictions from assault to break and enter and possession of stolen goods. As a young man he was convicted and sentenced to probation. His sentences increased to six months, nine months and 12 months in prison.
Mr. Tavares, in my mind, is fully justified in asking why this individual was on the street in a position to be able to murder his son. I believe that the previous record of this murderer testifies really to the failure of our criminal justice system. I do not mean to absolve this individual from responsibility for his actions. However, I think we have to recognize that prisons very often do not rehabilitate criminals. The prison system, on the contrary, probably often hardens criminals. A young man convicted of a relatively minor offence comes into contact with
Capital Punishment
hardened criminals and upon leaving prison perhaps is involved in a criminal world which leads to further and more serious crimes.
Prisoners, I am convinced, are often ill-prepared to return to society. I have met some convicts who have been released from prison and who have come to see me in my constituency office. They go on welfare because they have no training and very few support systems outside the prison world to help them to become independent again in our society. The care and attention which is given to victims of violence is undoubtedly inadequate.
Another question I could mention is that our criminal system, as was mentioned by the previous speaker, has undoubted weaknesses. There are many problems. Sentences are not proportional to offences. Punishment is not certain. We imprison far too many people, indeed, a much higher proportion than in other countries.
I do not know, Mr. Speaker, if you followed a seminar which was organized for parliamentarians about two months ago which dealt with many of these problems in our criminal justice system. Unfortunately, that seminar was very poorly attended. I think there were only about five or six Members of Parliament who attended that particular seminar. Capital punishment will not solve these kinds of problems. Capital punishment, in my mind, is too simple an answer. It is an admission of failure. I have faith in the human spirit. I have confidence in our ability to take positive steps to protect human life and to reduce violence. I would suggest to Members of the House who may be wavering, if indeed there are any Members who are still wavering, that they consider the problems which have been raised in this debate. Yes, there is a need to reduce violence in our society, but I believe that if they reflect carefully on many of the difficulties we face in our prison system, and if they reflect carefully on the many types of things we could do to reduce violence, they must come to the conclusion that those alternatives are far better than returning to capital punishment and reinstituting a system under which violence can only beget further violence.
In conclusion, I would like to quote indirectly the parish priest in the Portuguese community in my constituency who spoke at the funeral of young Emmanuel Tavares. He stated that it was in the hands of young people in particular to do something about it, not to waste his life but to make it into something positive, to do something to prevent this kind of tragedy from happening again.
I am firmly convinced that it is in our hands. It is within our power and it is within the ken of Canadian society to deal with these issues and minimize violence in our society so that we see those kinds tragedies happen less often than they do at the present time.

June 29, 1987
Capital Punishment


Mr. Francois Gerin (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, first of all, I want to say that my position on capital punishment was taken long ago and it is well-known to those who have known me since my early youth. It may be a matter of family upbringing or religious upbringing. It may be the kind of education I had in various classical colleges in Quebec. It may be the fact that I have been a member of the Bar since 1969 and have acted as defence counsel in criminal court for fifteen years, until my election as a Member of the House of Commons. In any case, it means that today, I cannot speak out in favour of this motion and will vote, without any reservations, against the motion and against capital punishment.
Mr. Speaker, from the very outset, I have tried to explain, without ever trying to hide them, my own views on capital punishment to my constituents. I asked them to write and tell me why they were for or against reinstatement of capital punishment-not that they would influence my own position, which was pretty firmly anchored, although you never know- to find out what their arguments were and to be able to give them the real facts. Many times in conversations with friends, associates, lawyers and some of my constituents, I realized that their opinions were based on facts that were inaccurate. And after our discussions, they would start wondering, and after a while, they would reverse their views.
I therefore asked my constituents to write to me. I received several hundred letters, and 820 or 86 per cent of my correspondents were against capital punishment, mostly for religious reasons. I told them I would send them a copy of the speech I would make today and some material we were sent by various agencies across Canada. I wrote to the others, who gave me their opinion based on facts that were often incomplete. Many wrote to me later to thank me for sending the material, and some actually changed their minds. That is one reason why in voting on this important issue, a Member should not be guided by the polls alone.
A poll is an attempt to find out what people think at a given moment, without providing information or making distinctions. We had 75 per cent of Canadians in favour of capital punishment only a few months ago, but this percentage has been coming down gradually, so that today, there would be 61 per cent. In Quebec, the last poll showed that a majority of Quebecers are now against capital punishment, probably because of the public debate that has taken place. If there had been a real referendum, if every Canadian citizen in each province had been able to vote personally for or against capital punishment, that citizen should have done what every Member has done, and that is, get the information, study the facts, read all the documents available, form an opinion and then vote. We would then have the real, enlightened view of Canadians. But since that process would have been very costly anyway and the Government chose to go through the House of Commons,
which is quite appropriate, a Member of Parliament has an obligation to vote according to his conscience, after carefully going over the facts.
I therefore do not share the view that Members of Parliament should vote according to surveys. Suggesting that is a false perception, a mistaken view.
When I state I received letters from constituents I have tremendous respect for, those letters reflected the same concerns that are now expressed in various analyses, the Maclean survey for instance which just appeared in June 1987. But certain analyses we saw, as reported in that excellent study The Death Penalty by The Criminal Lawyers' Association of Ontario, according to people generally, the general public perception is that 50 per cent of all crimes are violent. But the facts are different. It is not true to suggest that every second crime is violent in Canada. Only 8 per cent are. Those 8 per cent are a far cry from the public perception of 50 per cent. Two Canadians out of three believe the murder rate increased. That is wrong, the murder rate did not increase. Since 1976, when capital punishment was abolished in Canada, the murder rate declined from 3.09 per 100 000 citizens to 2.78 per 100 000. The rate declined since capital punishment was abolished in Canada. Those facts are self eloquent. Therefore, it is incumbent on those who believe capital punishment is a deterrent to prove it. The Prime Minister said so. They should prove that. The onus is on supporters of capital punishment to prove it would be a significant deterrent. But the facts, statistics point to the contrary.
How many times do I hear-and I am going to refer to police officers, and I will digress in my speech to refer to police officers. I followed very closely the contribution made by the Hon. Member for Bourassa (Mr. Rossi) last Thursday. He was a police officer before he came to this House a few years ago, and he always supported capital punishment as a requisite in Canada, but now he just made a vibrant plea against reinstating capital punishment. I want to tell the Hon. Member for Bourassa that I admire his great courage. I admire his courage because personally, over these last few months, I had a number of opportunities to discuss the matter of capital punishment and I know the man's courage, his convictions. I listened to his speech, it does him honour. He will agree with me that statistics show the number of police officers killed in Canada has not increased since capital punishment was abolished.
Let us look at the years 1966 through 1975-in ten years, 38 police officers were killed in Canada. Let us now look at the ten following years: 37 were killed. So, since capital punishment was abolished, one police officer less has been killed, while the number of police officers doubled in Canada. So, abolishing capital punishment certainly has not resulted in more police officers being killed as such. Of course, police officers are there to protect our lives and property. This is why we respect and love them as such. But because he is a police officer, this is no reason to reinstate capital punishment. The rate of police officer deaths in the line of duty is far from being one of the highest in Canada. If we looked at statistics as such,
June 29, 1987

we would see that the mortality rate among police officers is in the vicinity of 9 per 100 000, as against 157 for fishermen, 119 for forestry workers, 83 in mining, 32 in the construction industry, for construction workers in our constituencies, etc.
Mr. Speaker, penalty is not a deterrent but rather the degree of certainty of being caught when committing a crime.
You are signaling that my time has almost expired. A number of Members want to speak. Well, I will skip a few things in my speech, Mr. Speaker, because I would like to refer to something of real significance to me, because of course I am directing my comments to my constituents, but also to Members in this Elouse who might not have a firm position as yet.
Capital punishment is not the solution. The solution is to prevent second offences. The solution is to ensure criminal rehabilitation. And the solution as such is to reduce the crime rate. And how do we go about that, Mr. Speaker? By reforming sentencing. Perhaps by making sentences more severe or by amending them to find a more adequate formula. Also by amending parole. And the Law Reform Commission suggested the Government should undertake such a study immediately. And the Commons Standing Committee on Justice and the Solicitor General promised to study that as early as next fall. So it happens, Mr. Speaker, I defended people in murder cases and rape cases. I acted as consel for 74 defendants before jury in my professional life, and I can tell you that I was always surprised when a young guy 23, 24 came to my office with a record of convictions that long who just committed a robbery, and when I told him: OK, this might get you a few years in prison, his surprised look of anger shower he was thinking of seeing another lawyer.
As you know, Mr. Speaker, when you look at the record certain individuals have, you realize people do not become criminals overnight. They do not become murderers overnight. You will not find one individual who one day is pure as lamb and the next day will go and buy a gun and cartridges, load the gun, go to a bank and kill a guard or someone else. That is not the way it happens. Before that he appeared before judges. For a first offence, he raised a smile. For a second offence, he was committed to his parents. For a third offence, he was reprimended. For a fourth offence, he got a fine, then probation, then a second probation. Finally, for a seventh or eighth offence, the judge sentenced him to 60 days' prison to be done over weekends. Often this is where the young fellow is criminalized. He is simply criminalized. It is just as if as a society we put a gun in his hands.
And now you would like to hang that young fellow, you would like to send him to the electric chair. No. It is my view that there is a lot of alternatives in our society before we come to such a difficult solution. It may not solve all murders either. I hear some of my citizens suggest all murderers should be sentenced. There are crimes of passion. We know that some 80 per cent, I think it is over 80 per cent of people who commit murder as such kill someone who is close to them. A spouse, a
Capital Punishment
wife, a husband, a child. A friend, a neighbour. Somebody close. It is not an implacably planned and premeditated murder. This applies to the greater majority of murders. There are a great many solutions other than capital punishment to try and reduce the homicide rate in cases of this kind.
There is also the real amateur. The amateur does not think. He reacts immediately, spontaneously, as such. And he is often found by the courts guilty not of first degree murder, but of second degree murder. Therefore, not a murder punishable by the death penalty.
We are thinking therefore only of premeditated murders as such. I challenge anybody to find someone who has been found guilty of a planned and premeditated murder and who had no previous criminal record. I think that is where the solution lies. It is by working on sentencing, on rehabilitation and parole, making its conditions more severe.
Mr. Speaker, Canadians just cannot understand how a criminal who has been sentenced by a judge to 12 years in prison can obtain day passes after seven or eight months or be paroled after two years. They just cannot understand that. They do not find any reason for that. Criminals should get lighter sentences, but at least they should spend in prison three quarters of their sentences.
Canadians no longer understand the justice system. They can no longer make head or tail of it. Because of that, they are asking today for something which is worse, capital punishment, as though this was the universal remedy.
Mr. Speaker, I want to conclude immediately by saying that Canada has made tremendous efforts over the past few years-I think the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) who is here today could vouch for that-to serve as an example for all other countries in the world in the area of human rights. If we should reinstate capital punishment in this country, how would countries such as Iran, the U.S.S.R., all the other countries which violate human rights-I do not refer to these two countries in particular-would react when they find out that Canada had reinstated capital punishment?
Mr. Speaker, as a civilized nation, we have to be against capital punishment just as we were against flogging, quartering, against the use of the wheel and the garrotte. Mr. Speaker, an error is always possible: 79 per cent of Canadians agree that a judicial error is possible. And when we know that it would be possible to sentence to death an innocent, we should not take a chance.
Mr. Speaker, I strongly urge all my colleagues in the House to vote against reinstating capital punishment.


Cyril Keeper: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to put my views with respect to the question of capital punishment on the record. And, of course, it is not the first time I have spoken on this issue, though it is

June 29, 1987
Capital Punishment
certainly the first time I have spoken in this Elouse on the issue. I spoke in a public forum in Winnipeg with regard to capital punishment. Members from all three political Parties were asked to attend and to address the issue of capital punishment, and I accepted on behalf of my Party to attend. There was a representative from the Liberal Party in attendance. Unfortunately, in that situation there was no representative of the Progressive Conservative Party.
I welcome the opportunity this evening to address this issue. The question that I think needs to be answered is: Why is this issue before us? Is it because there is an overwhelming case in favour of capital punishment? Is it that, after weighing all of the evidence for and against capital punishment, one comes logically and without a doubt to the conclusion that capital punishment is necessary in Canada? Or is it because of politics, because of public opinion polls, because of politics at leadership conventions?
I think that, really, is the question that we need to ask ourselves. We need to ask why it is that we are voting on this issue, and why it is we are voting on it at one o'clock in the morning. Why are we debating this issue deep into the dark of the night? Why can we not face up to this issue in the full light of day?
I want to deal with the question of whether there is a case for capital punishment on its merits, not in terms of public opinion polls or whether or not it is popular. I would like to look at its merits from a couple of basic perspectives. Will capital punishment work? Is it the right thing to do? Is it just? Is it moral? Is it principled? Then I will close my remarks by talking about how we are dealing with the issue and how it needs to be dealt with.
First I will turn to the question of whether it will work, whether it is something that will be effective. If we in the House choose to reinstitute the policy of capital punishment, will it be effective for society? Will it work? What will it do? If there is a case for capital punishment, it must be that somehow it will protect Canadians, that it will protect society, that it will make us more secure.
I have thought about an interesting question in this regard- are Canadians, in terms of their security, any worse off since the abolition of capital punishment? The statistics demonstrate that there has been no great rise in capital crimes following the abolition of capital punishment. There has been no great increase in the number of murders in our society, if we look at the facts, the statistics. That is one crucial question which I have asked myself.
Another way of looking at the question is: if capital punishment is reinstated, do our constituents really believe that three years or four years down the road they will be better off, that they will be more secure when they walk the streets, or that they will be subject to less violence? Common sense tells us, no. It would be a very pale ending to the motion before
the House if people really believed that with the reinstatement of capital punishment they would be more secure as they walked the streets of their neighbourhoods.
I return to the question of whether capital punishment will work and protect society. Will capital punishment affect the behaviour of people? Will it actually stop people from committing murder? If a punishment is to affect human behaviour, we must be certain that the punishment will be carried out consistently every time the crime is committed. A fundamental weakness with capital punishment is that it is an uncertain, indefinite, unsure, and unlikely punishment. If punishment is to affect behaviour, it must be certain.
The punishment is uncertain because juries are very reluctant to convict people of capital crimes when they know the punishment will be death. The juries, the people asked to carry out this punishment, hold back from imposing the final sentence and refuse to implement it. They convict people of lesser levels of crime. Common sense tells us that the existence of capital punishment will not provide society with greater protection.
I want to give another example of why capital punishment cannot work. Many of us are parents. Many of our constituents are parents. When we deal with children we know that they make a distinction between our words and our actions. We can tell children not to do something or we set down rules for them. However, if they do it and we turn our backs, we do not enforce the rule, they will not pay any attention to it because it does not affect their behaviour. If society establishes a rule that one who murders will be murdered and then does not carry it through, it has no impact, it does not affect behaviour, and therefore it does not protect society.
I would like to see a society in which people feel more secure when they walk the streets, are better protected, and are free from violence. Therefore, we must ask the following question: If capital punishment will not do that, are there other ways to arrive at that situation? Are there other ways to look at the question of violence in society? Are there other ways to look at the insecurity which people feel as they walk the streets?
I think there are more fundamental ways which require long-term work in order to achieve the result. Achieving a secure society in which people are free from violence is not a short-term effort. We should not be turned away by the fact that the process will be a long one.
There are things which we as a Parliament and as Canadians need to look at. We should be reviewing our policing policies. Is it effective to have police in inner cities in ridings like mine simply patrolling in automobiles? Would it make more sense and would senior citizens feel more secure if they had police on the beat, walking the streets and showing a presence? Would they feel greater security when they meet someone on the street who threatens them? We need to look at our policing patterns.
June 29, 1987

We need to look at the question of sentencing. We need a parliamentary debate in that regard. Many Canadians are alarmed when they see people convicted of brutal crimes and then hear about them walking the streets a very short period of time thereafter. We should enter into a very legitimate debate with regard to sentencing, and we could do it without going down the road of reinstating capital punishment.
We should also look at how parole is handled in society. There are policy areas which need to be examined without going down the wrong highway. At the same time, policing and sentencing do not take place in a vacuum. Certainly policing does not take place in a vacuum. I believe we need to look at our community development policies.
It is not enough to have a policeman driving a car or even walking the streets. For policing to be effective, it must take place in the context of a community. Many of our communities have been devastated by economic trends in society. We need effective community development policies so that we have genuine neighbourhoods, so that neighbours know each other, so that policing policies can operate within a community context.
We also need to look at social conditions which incubate violence. We need to look at how to eliminate poverty in society so that it does not become a breeding ground for violence. We should seek ways of building a better society. We should build a society upon co-operation rather than upon violence. I believe that the argument in favour of capital punishment falls down when we ask the question of whether it will work to protect society. We need to look at alternative wayr to build a secure security in which people are free from the fear of violence.
I come to the next question, namely, is capital punishment the moral thing to do? Is it the right thing and the just thing to do? My answer to that is no, because fundamentally it comes down to a question of values. What value does one place on human life? It is because I believe in the sanctity of human life that I think capital punishment, the taking of human life, is wrong. All of the great religions of the world teach that the taking of human life is wrong. If we ask the question of whether capital punishment is the right thing to do, I think our answer has to be, no.
Let us look at this from another perspective. Is this the moral or the right thing to do? If society chooses to kill people, if society chooses to impose the death penalty, or if society chooses to hang people, what kind of an example are we setting for members of society? What kinds of values are we teaching? I suggest the obvious, namely, that we are teaching disrespect for human life. We are teaching violence. We are teaching revenge. These are not the values that we wish to teach if we want to build a society based on moral values.
To decide whether this is the right thing and whether capital punishment is just and moral all we have to do is to look at
Capital Punishment
where we get the model for our own behaviour from. Where do we learn our own values and behaviour? Do we learn them from the great moral teachers of all time, from Jesus, from Mohammed and all of the great religious leaders? Or do we turn to a killer as the model for our own behaviour? Surely that will tell us whether capital punishment is the moral or the right thing to do.
Is capital punishment fair? Based on the statistics that exist in the United States, capital punishment is patently unfair because it falls much more heavily upon the minorities, the blacks and the visible minorities throughout the U.S. In Canada, I am not familiar with the statistics, but having checked into Canadian jails and penitentiaries, which are disproportionately filled with native people, who are a very small percentage of our society, it is clear to me that if we have capital punishment then the minorities, the native people, the blacks, and visible minorities will suffer this penalty disproportionately to those who are in the majority of society.
Another thing that concerns me is the possibility of error. Once one implements capital punishment, there is no way to reverse it. We know there are volumes of cases in the American experience in which juries and judges have made mistakes and imposed the wrong penalty. If one imposes the penalty of death, there is no way to reverse it. We already have some experience in Canada in which Canadian courts have made mistakes. Surely we do not want to fill our own volumes of books with irreversible mistakes.
Why are we dealing with this whole question of capital punishment? Is it because of the merits of the case or is it because of politics? Judging capital punishment on whether it works to protect society, capital punishment fails. I come to the conclusion that we are dealing with this question because of politics, because of the politics of a leadership convention. That was the way in which a future Prime Minister was able to get the votes in order to lead his Party. That is the politics with which we are dealing.


Charles Joseph Clark: That is a falsehood.


Cyril Keeper: We are also dealing with this matter because of the politics of polls. We have a governing Party that is at the bottom of the pit in the polls. Some Members of that Party see this matter as a way to recoup. I believe we are dealing with this issue because of politics.
How do we deal with this question? Do we deal with it as a matter of public opinion, of politics, or do we deal with it as a matter of personal conscience? I think the behaviour of juries demonstrates to us that it is a matter of personal conscience. When ordinary Canadians read about cases in newspapers, they tend to come to the conclusion that a person should be convicted. When they hear the evidence as a jury, they tend not to want to impose capital punishment. This tells me that the matter is one of conscience. Why ask Members of Parliament to do what juries will not do? Why ask Members of Parliament to do what Prime Ministers have refused to do?

June 29, 1987
Capital Punishment
This matter of capital punishment is a matter of conscience. We should deal with it accordingly and we should vote against its reinstatement.


Alex Kindy: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak on the issue of capital punishment. It is a subject that has been debated now for many days. We have heard those who are for it and those who are against it. All sorts of arguments have been brought forward, arguments that are certainly valid in one instance and the other.
I listened to the speaker who preceded me who told us about the sanctity of human life. No doubt human life is extremely valuable. But because of its sanctity, nobody has the right to take it away. If a criminal kills somebody, there should be an adequate punishment for that deed. We hear the bleeding hearts saying that we should not take human life.


Mr. Orlikow:: Like your Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney).


Alex Kindy: But the state has an obligation to preserve human life. The state does it by having a constitution. Section 7 of the Constitution tells us that we should preserve life, liberty and security of the person. For that reason, the state, as such, has an army to defend it from outside invasion to preserve democracy and it has a police force to preserve it internally. If somebody attacks the good order of government, he is violating some law. Naturally, taking somebody's life, whether it is for the state or for an individual, is a very serious offence, but the state, because it has to protect the individual, has the right to do so.
We can bring up all kinds of statistics for and against capital punishment. If I look at the year 1961, the rate of murders was 1.1 per 100,000 population. In 1962 the last execution took place. The Government gave the signal that it did not intend to apply the law. From 1962 to 1976 the rate increased to 2.81 per 100,000 population, it more than doubled.
The Government had given the signal that it would not apply the law of capital punishment. Once that signal was given, the number of crimes increased and we had to increase our police forces. Some minutes ago, 1 listened to the Hon. Member for Megantic-Compton-Stanstead (Mr. Gerin) tell us that between 1966 and 1976, police forces had doubled. Because the crime rate increased, there was a necessity for more police forces.
The Leaders of the Conservative Party, the Liberal Party and the NDP are abolitionists. Naturally it will be extremely difficult even if the motion passes to apply the law because Cabinet as such could commute the sentences. Our debate, although it is extremely important, is one that I think will not have much consequence.
There are other arguments against capital punishment. Some argue, for instance, that it is the disadvantaged and the
poor who do not have a chance in our justice system. I would like to mention two cases. Mr. Buxbaum in Ontario had the most expensive lawyer and was convicted of the first-degree murder of his wife. A politician in Saskatchewan, a former Minister of Energy in that province, was convicted of murder. I believe that that argument does not wash. It does not hold water.
Recently, on June 22 in the City of Calgary, a young girl, 17 years old, a high school graduate, was killed and her body found nude in the streets of that city. We do not talk about the victims enough. It is the victims we should consider. We should consider the sanctity of life and we should not take an innocent life.
I will vote for the reinstatement of capital punishment. I hope that most Hon. Members in this House will do the same. The feeling in Canada is that our justice system is too lenient. A person murders someone and in a couple of years is eligible for day parole and is eligible for complete release after a few more years. That is a tragedy.
I recall that a father of one of those murdered girls came before the Justice Committee to testify. He said: "I was walking down the street and who do I encounter but the murderer of my daughter. I was not even advised that he was on day parole and that was only three years after he was convicted". It is for that reason that the people of Canada want the reinstatement of capital punishment.
Those who tell us that we can reform our justice system, make it more efficient, have been saying those things for many, many years. The fact is that our justice system is deficient. There are always the bleeding hearts who will argue that the criminal is a criminal because of his upbringing, because of his family background, because he was not treated properly by society. However, this does not give him the right to take an innocent life.
Today we will vote on whether or not the state has the right to take someone's life, the life of a person who has committed a murder. I am not talking about simple murderers but about people who commit serial murders, about professional killers and about terrorists. Those are the people who, if put back into society, would repeat their acts. Therefore, we have to consider that the only solution is to bring back capital punishment.
As a physician, I had the opportunity to see people who had killed others. I remember an instance when a lady came into my office who had destroyed her youngest daughter who was seven years old. She was liberated and was walking the streets again. A year later, she committed another murder. She killed her son. One can argue that that person was mentally sick, but even if she was mentally sick, she should have been in a psychiatric hospital or in jail.
We must look at the consequences of giving parole to someone. Today, a life sentence is not a life sentence. People
June 29, 1987

get off much sooner than that. Even if we change the system, there will always be bleeding hearts telling us that these people should be released. For that reason and for that reason only, I believe that the state must act. Tonight, at one o'clock, the vote will take place. If you consider all the arguments which have been brought forward for and against, you cannot argue but that they are balanced. However, the will of the people should prevail. Statistics from across Canada show that 60 to 70 per cent of Canadians are in favour of the re-establishment of capital punishment. Mr. Speaker, we will vote at one o'clock.


Mr. Jean-Claude Malepart (Montreal-Sainte-Marie):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take the floor in such an important debate, particularly after the speaker and my friend who has just explained his position in favour of restoring the death penalty.
I had drafted a few notes, but instead I will use the arguments he made to justify the reasons why we ought to reinstate capital punishment to demonstrate that these arguments should be used instead to prove that the death penalty is not the solution to the problems he raised.
I will not refer to statistical data which might indicate that the number of murders in Canada may have gone up or down because of the death penalty. I will not refer to statistics which show that the crime rate is higher in those Americans states where capital punishment is the law of the land than in the others where it has been abolished.
My hon. friend has just explained why most people, when responding to a questionnaire or a survey, are in favour of restoring capital punishment.
First he cited concrete examples of convicted murderers who have been released a few years after being so convicted. Apparently this is why so many Canadians are frustrated. The only alternative when confronted by the lack of initiative is altogether natural and normal. People react and say to themselves: Since our prison system is inefficient, since our courts are inefficient, and since there are no other solutions available, let us go for the ultimate option, hanging. Let us hang convicted murderers.
But when we get around to talking to our fellow citizens, in my riding or anywhere else in Canada, and we ask them: Do you really want the treatment an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, they say no. Would it be that you seek revenge at all costs because someone has killed? Do you want to kill him too?
When debating capital punishement, we ought to keep in mind the thousands of Canadian workers who died, for instance, as a result of accidents on construction sites because the boss wanted to make money so he took a chance and did without safety scaffoldings to protect workers, so there were accidents and workers died. Are we going to hang this man who risked the lives of workers to make a few extra bucks? We
Capital Punishment
see this happen in mines and in many industries. If we decide that we want an eye for an eye, we shall also have to kill employers who voluntarily decide to risk the life of their workers, whatever means of execution we choose. We would then go back to the law of the jungle, and I am convinced that my hon. friend who has just spoken and all Canadians would be against such a system.
What Canadians cannot accept, and I agree with them, is the inefficiency of our parole system. What the hon. Member clearly showed was that the father of a murdered child was not disappointed to know that the criminal who had killed his child was not dead himself, but disappointed and discouraged to see that the murderer had been set free before being convicted, and this is what the population cannot accept.
If we say that the problem is caused by our penal system and by the easy access to parole, then we should talk about that problem and take action to correct it. I find the present situation unacceptable and I can understand that the public would react spontaneously by requesting reinstatement of the death penalty. However, I cannot understand such an attitude on the part of a parliamentarian who should represent the population. Why are most retentionists in favour of reinstating the death penalty? Some say that, since our penal system is not working, we should capitulate and kill the criminals. Others say that it costs a lot of money to run our prisons. Such views are dangerous. Elected parliamentarians who judge such issues as the life of an individual on the basis of cost, if they are still here in the year 2000, might find that it costs a lot of money to keep our increasingly large ageing population in senior citizens' homes. Faced with dramatically high costs, instead of looking for new solutions, these people will capitulate as they are now doing in the case of the death penalty as they have no ideas about how to reduce the crime rate and the costs of running our prisons, and they will say: We need euthanasia to get rid of the sickest and the oldest because we have to reduce costs. This is a danger in a society if we, especially as parliamentarians, accept for monetary reasons, the idea that we can take away the life of someone else. This is very serious.
And the other people were saying: In my riding, most are for this. I remember that no so long ago, most people were against deindexing old age security pensions and there were not many Conservative Members who would stand up and say: Canadians are against this, Canadians are against that. People were following the leader. And now, all of a sudden, in an effort to attract attention, to justify for some reason, not to displease the Prime Minister, they come up with this argument which I feel is worthless. Because from now on, all of those who are using this argument will have to carry out surveys in their own ridings, whatever the subject matter of the debates may be. If their constituents tell them to go to the left, they will go to the left; if they tell them to go to the right, they will go to the right. This is sheer nonsense. If Canadians elected these people, especially those in the Opposition-those opposite were

June 29, 1987
Capital Punishment
elected with the wave, with the swing of the pendulum, a great many of them will leave the moment the pendulum swings the other way-it is because they felt they had leadership, they could stand up and say: You are asking for such or such thing. Let us take the case of the death penalty. I think it is the duty of each Hon. Member to tell his or her constituents: You are right to seek more severe penalties. But the more severe penalties you are seeking does not mean necessarily to go and take someone's life. And then to ask them how we are going to kill murderers I feel is going a little bit too far. Assuming most Hon. Members are in favour of reinstating capital punishment, will they accept tomorrow to become executioners? It is easy to delegate powers to others, to appoint them and say: You are going to use hanging to kill this man. It is easy to say. But when we get on an individual basis, because of my experience as a social worker in my area, working to stop juvenile delinquency ... You know, the people who get involved with organized crime know that sooner or later they will end up in a coffin. It is as easy as this, and they know it is one of the gang who is going to do them in; this is not reason enough to stop them from getting involved with organized crime. Remember in Chicago, A1 Capone, they did not stop him because of the death penalty, but they managed to destroy his empire by convicting him of income tax evasion. What I believe, and I invite the Prime Minister, before we proceed to vote-since this debate, in my mind, is pointless and people who think that it will solve the violence we have witnessed lately in convenience stores are mistaken. The death penalty will not solve that problem, it will change nothing. For those who think that this debate will solve the problem of assault and robbery on our senior citizens, I say that the death penalty is no solution. And this debate will not resolve the issue. For those who expect solutions to theft, to violence, to crime and delinquency among our youth or to drug abuse-this debate will bring no solution.
I would have liked to see the Prime Minister, in his speech, go beyond saying that he was against capital punishment and say why he was against it. I would have preferred to see the Prime Minister commit his Government-in this debate, which he allowed for political reasons, so to speak, because he was railroaded into it by two or three Members from his party and because this is what made him win the party leadership, as one NDP member has observed. But we must admit that whatever the reason for the debate, he could have committed himself and given the reasons and that he will be the one to blame if the debate on abolition of capital punishment is lost this evening. The reason is that the Prime Minister could have won over five or six Members from his party who now intend to cast their vote in favour of reestablishing capital punishment. Those MPs would have voted against the motion with assurance that, as soon as the session will resume in September, their party, their Prime Minister, their Government would put forward bills to improve the parole system, and a program or bill to stop juvenile delinquency or to improve our prison system, and programs to rehabilitate people convicted for a first occurrence of shoplifting or a first hold-up. That kind of guarantee would have given the Conservative Members
confidence that the criminal justice system would be corrected. But unfortunately the Prime Minister just said, as any other parliamentarian, that he was against capital punishment. But the difference with him is that he has power. He is the Prime Minister. As for the Conservative Member who spoke before me, I just feel that he might have changed his position if he had been given the guarantee that the justice system would be corrected, that people convicted for heinous crime and sentenced for 25 years would stay in prison for 25 years. I feel that that kind of statement would have satisfied that MP and that he would have changed his vote. But that was not to be, unfortunately. I think the Prime Minister still has an opportunity to do that before the vote in order that at 1 o'clock tonight the majority of members reject the reinstatement of capital punishment.
I would like the Members to ask themselves why there is so much violence. For what reason are there so many robberies? We have to start at the root. Why is it that young people, in spite of all they read in the papers and see around them, will still go the wrong way? The reason is a lack of incentive, a lack of community organizations in most of our ridings all across the country, to help young people in trouble. I believe the Government to be somewhat responsible because programs like Katimavik were probably not the breeding ground for prime ministers but some of those young people would get an education that way, they learned how to work in teams and acquired a sense of responsibility, of respect toward their fellow human beings, a sense of sharing. However, unfortunately, the Government has failed to accomplish something for our youth and for future generations; it has done nothing to stop juvenile delinquency. What has the Government done to prevent and eliminate drug trafficking which is a primary source of violence, robberies, hold-ups, and murders? Drug trafficking is one of the major causes of what is happening in Canada. It is much more difficult to control this form of organized crime than to simply hang the poor who get caught and allow the big shots responsible for all this trafficking to key their network in operation and to cash in on it.
Why has the Government failed to bring in real measures? Instead of this debate launched in January or February in the House, where about half the Members had an opportunity to make their views heard, why has the government not develop a strategy to improve, as I was saying a while ago, our national parole system? Why are we not tougher with those who deserve it and more tolerant with those who deserve our tolerance? Also why not introduce mechanisms with appropriate financing to help those who for various reasons go astray once? It happens once, they get caught shoplifting, or being an accomplice is a hold-up and often one wonders why?
It is the lack of money, and these people are often sent to jail with other people having a lot more experience, and nothing prepares these young people to return to society when they have served their sentence, or sometimes the only persons who await them when they are out of jail are people who, under the pretext of helping them, will perhaps bring them back in a
June 29, 1987

shady environment, where they will graduate into criminality, into violence, into drug trafficking and into shylocking.
When I was working in the social field, Mr. Speaker, with the help of the Royal Bank we opened the first community branch in Canada. And it is funny to see an institution as the Royal Bank establishing itself in a 100 per cent French speaking community as the Montreal-Sainte-Marie riding and working in the social field. One of the first things we tried to do was to free people from shylocking, people who had needed say $300, a father who had wanted to do as other fathers for his daughter's first communion and who needed $300, not borrowed from the bank and to be repaid such-and-such an amount a month for a year, but to be had right away and to be repaid in full three weeks later when he got his cheque. As the banking system does not work that way, he would go to the shylock-as we say in English-and get his $300. That would cost him $25 a week, and then $50 and the like. People that do shylocking take advantage of those poor people and continue to lend them money. When those young people are unable to pay, they are told: "Well, you are working at such and such a place. If you do not want to have both legs broken, bring me some goods." They are not really thieves but they want to help their family and when they try to solve their problems, they are caught.
Mr. Speaker, I see that my time is running out. I should tell you that I have known people with records. I worked with young people and I must say that on two occasions, when I was responsible for a recreation centre where a dance was held with a minimum of discipline which was enforced, two young guys came with daggers to stab me because they did not like how I ran the place.
I had two options. I disarmed them. I was strong enough to defend myself, but the young guys thought that I would call the police to have them jailed. On the contrary, I took charge and gave them responsibilities. The delinquency among young people can be due to their family or the lack of trust at school. They cannot succeed like others. They feel ignored and I must tell you that, given my practical experience, if you trust these young people-even if they seem to be the rough and tough kind, it is very often out of defiance-if you know how to give them some responsibilities in their field, they can change, they can learn to respect others.
But, if you alienate them, they are lost; if I had called the police, these two young men would never have come back to the community centre. They would have continued to patronize the tavern. Others would have taken advantage of them and today, perhaps, they would be in a penal institution. The truth is, they have served a short time, but they are now rehabilitated. They have been educated.
Mr. Speaker, my time is up. I would like to conclude by saying to Hon. Members who are in favour of capital punishment: I strongly invite you to change your vote and join us in a campaign, the strongest campaign ever mounted in Canada, to force the Conservative Government to set up programs to
Capital Punishment
make sure that people sentenced to a term in prison actually serve their term, but that those who must be withdrawn from the prison system and trained, are taken care of.


Mr. Ken James (Sarnia-Lambton):: Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to rise tonight to speak in this very important debate.
I am aware, as are all Hon. Members, that the entire country is watching us with interest this evening. There is no other issue before this House which has commanded such interest and concern for most Canadians. Most Canadians have knowledge of, and a real interest in, the outcome of this debate on capital punishment. Tonight we will vote on a motion proposed by the Canadian Parliament to establish a committee to examine the reinstatement of capital punishment. If this motion is passed, the committee will draw up legislation to present to this House dealing with offences punishable by the death penalty as well as the method of execution. If the motion does not pass, the subject dies with it for now.
I say "for now" because I do not believe that the question of whether or not Canada should have a death penalty will ever really be resolved. Capital punishment is not a new issue, nor do I believe it is one which will ever completely disappear. Since Confederation, Canadian legislators have been faced with a constant barrage of opinions about the death penalty. The first of many abolition Bills was introduced in the House of Commons in 1914. In 1953, another abolitionist Bill was introduced and defeated in the House. Again, in 1962, a Bill to abolish capital punishment for all offences except treason was introduced in the House of Commons. This Bill was defeated but, nevertheless, 1962 saw the practical if not legal abolishment of capital punishment. It was during this year that the last two executions were carried out in Canada.
In 1966, a multi-party Private Member's Bill calling for the abolishment of capital punishment was defeated again. However, the next year a Government Bill was passed which abolished capital punishment except in the case of murder of prison guards and policemen, for a five-year period, that is. As all Hon. Members are aware, this legislation was extended for another five years in 1973 by the Government of the day. Finally, in 1976, a Bill abolishing capital punishment was passed in the Canadian House of Commons. Since then more than 40 Private Member's Bills have been introduced calling for the reinstatement of the death penalty.
Historically, then, it would seem that this is not a subject which has any sort of easy resolution. However, the prevailing constant I have been able to find on this subject is that the majority of Canadians have traditionally supported the death penalty. Although the degree of support varies, it has not fallen below the majority in favour for all these years. There have been times of fairly significant increases in public support for capital punishment, but over-all, since before the 1976 legislation abolishing capital punishment, public support for

June 29, 1987
Capital Punishment
capital punishment has been at around 65 per cent or 70 per cent of the population.
It is significant to note that even with this constant public support for capital punishment, the Government or Governments of the day have traditionally moved in the opposite direction toward abolishing and maintaining the abolishment of capital punishment.
There is no doubt that hard choices must be made. The decision made by myself and my colleagues in the House this evening will certainly be the most difficult any of us will ever make in this House. There have been enormous pressures put upon Members of Parliament from citizens representing both sides of the issue. We are all familiar with the often quoted passage from Sir Edmund Burke concerning the role of an elected representative. Similarly, we have all heard dismayed citizens refer to the tyranny of the majority. I have been urged by many organizations and individuals to vote not with public opinion, but according to my individual conscience. Personally, I cannot accept that argument.
It is my belief that the subject of capital punishment is radically different from any of the amendable decisions a Member of Parliament is called upon to make. An understanding of the subject does not require the availability of great amounts of technical information. One does not need to be a statistician or an accountant to understand how the death penalty affects all Canadians. It is a very personal concern. It is not a technical concern. I believe that there is hardly a person in Canada who does not hold a personal and informed opinion on the subject of capital punishment.
Canadians have a great understanding of their wants and needs as they relate to their personal security and safety. I cannot and will not ignore the concerns of my constituents. Additionally, I do not buy the argument put forward by some that the Canadian public is too uninformed or emotional to decide for itself on this issue. If the people of this country cannot have their voices heard on this very important subject, then just exactly what is our system of government all about? Can we seriously justify our actions and our consciences by smugly determining that we, as legislators, know better than our constituents?
I do not believe it is my role as an elected representative to think or decide entirely for my constituents that the death penalty is or is not a valid punishment. I do not believe, and cannot accept, that on this subject I am any more informed or knowledgeable than the people of Sarnia-Lambton, the people I was elected to represent. It must be remembered that in the time of Edmund Burke, this type of sentiment perhaps had some validity. Mass communications were an unknown in Britain in 1774. Illiteracy ran at about 90 per cent. The majority of Britains were uninformed and cared little about any issues other than those of a local nature. The thrust of political philosophy in those early years of democracy was predicated on the belief that there were two classes of people, those who ruled by virtue of their higher intelligence and fine
morality and those who were meant to be ruled. But this cannot hold true today. The people of Canada are among the best informed of any country in the world. We are not illiterate, nor are we ignorant.
It is the Canadian people, not Members of Parliament, who sit on juries in murder trials. It is the Canadian people who live in fear for the safety of themselves and their families. It is the Canadian people who have demanded and who deserve the right to be heard on this very important subject. It is the Canadian people who live in my constituency, those whom I was elected to represent, whose voices I carry to this House. I would not have it any other way.
I was most interested to discover that the illustrious and oft-quoted Sir Edmund Burke also had this to say about public opinion:
I am not one of those who think that the people are never in the wrong. They have been so, frequently and outrageously, both in other countries and in this. But I do say, that in all disputes between them and their rulers, the presumption is at least upon a par in favour of the people.
That is the other side of the oft-quoted Sir Edmund Burke.
What has also amazed me over the years is the number of people who believe, and I must say this belief is centred exclusively around this particular subject, that to allow the will of the majority of Canadians to prevail is tantamount to tyranny of the minority by the majority. It seems that it is only on the subject of the death penalty that this sentiment is so loudly expressed. These same people do not appear to be proponents of the philosophy on any other issue.
Well, what others call the tyranny of the majority to me is democracy. It is not always perfect. Nor does it always have the desired results. But it is the best that we have to offer.
I would like to share with the House the words of Sir Winston Churchill on the subject. He said:
Many forms of government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government, except all those other forms, that have been tried from time to time.
Democracy provides for the will of the majority to be heard. It is through the will of the majority that I was elected in 1984; and it is this majority that I have pledged to serve.
I receive dozens of letters daily from my constituents, not only on this subject but on a multitude of concerns and issues.
I respond with an in-depth analysis and highly explanatory letters on the questions which I am asked by letter, by telephone and by people who come to see me. I believe I represent my constituency to the best of my ability, with diligence and interest, with my constituents' opinions at heart.
It is certainly no different on this subject. During the 1984 election campaign I stated publicly that I was in favour of capital punishment for the unequivocally proven first degree, premeditated murder of police officers and prison guards. But
June 29, 1987

I would be more severe, or less severe, in that instance based on the dictates of my constituents. I will not retract from that pledge.
The written and verbal submissions to me from September, 1984, have indicated a strong support for the reinstatement of capital punishment among the residents of Sarnia-Lambton. Of 3,500 responses to a recent questionnaire on capital punishment, some 88 per cent of the respondents were in favour of the reinstatement of capital punishment for first degree, premeditated murder. Additionally, over 77 per cent of those who responded were also in favour of the death penalty for the killing of law enforcement officers and the murder of children. I believe that in addition to this survey the cards, letters, and telephone calls, the personal interjections that I receive supporting capital punishment, give me a mandate to vote in a positive way on the motion that is before us tonight.
If the motion passes and the legislation is tabled in the House of Commons, I have also pledged to my constituents that I will arrange for a professional survey on the acceptance of the actual Bill. The survey will be conducted in my riding of Sarnia-Lambton when and if legislation is tabled. This survey, combined with representations I expect to receive in the future, will determine how I will vote on the actual legislation if and when presented.
I have received some very disturbing letters and calls from my constituents on the death penalty issue. I have read letters from senior citizens who have broken faith with their churches over the issue. I have talked to and received submissions from families who have some very, very personal involvement in the issue. I received a heart-wrenching letter from a young boy who had a very close friend brutally murdered a few years ago in Sarnia-Lambton. I have spoken to parents afraid for their children and to other parents who feel that further violence may not be the answer, but that clearly something must be done.
It would seem to me that the majority of Canadians, whether or not they favour the death penalty, are deeply concerned about safety and security in our country. Statistics show our society has an increasing number of violent crimes. It seems to many Canadians that law and order has been suspended. Clearly, through their support for capital punishment, the majority of citizens are indicating their belief that their lives are not being afforded sufficient protection. Throughout the many letters that I receive daily are comments such as "insufficient sentences", "parole too easy to qualify for", "inadequate supervision of parolees", and the most common "what about the rights of the victims?"
It is my strong belief that the majority of Canadians deserve to be heard. We must remember that this motion could be the first step in a lengthy legislative process. Nevertheless, it is an important step in the recognition of the rights of Canadians to be represented in the Parliament of Canada.
My constituents have given me a mandate, and I intend to vote for them this evening. It is with conviction to democracy
Capital Punishment
and to the recognition of the very personal issue in the minds of Canadians that I will cast my vote this evening on behalf of the residents of Canada and, in particular, the residents of Sarnia-Lambton.


Ms. Margaret Mitchell (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, I rise with regret, regret that as this session of Parliament closes for the summer we should have to debate and make a decision on whether or not to legislate killing when there are so many very positive reforms that we should be considering and with which we should be dealing. I regret that many parliamentarians with very firm and sincere conviction, I now, feel that we should move backward in history to restore the death penalty. Perhaps my greatest regret is that there are also parliamentarians for whom I have great respect and who, in their own conscience, perhaps are neutral or even against killing by the state but who have made a decision to vote for the reinstatement of the death penalty because of a survey of their constituents.
Perhaps a positive aspect of this debate is the change which has occurred in public opinion which seems to have resulted, I think, from Canadians having learned more about the facts. They are perhaps considering the issue somewhat more rationally as opposed to only from an emotional point of view. They have realized that killing by the state is no solution to the murders which we all deplore.
As the debate has continued and more and more Canadians have weighed all the facts and all the moral arguments, support for the death penalty has declined. Support for the death penalty is now at its lowest since its abolition in 1976. I think it is a shame that the Government is forcing an early vote on this matter since it is clear that as time goes by Members of Parliament, like all Canadians, are having an increasing number of reservations about the death penalty.
The recent Maclean siDecima survey of 1,500 Canadians shows that, of the 61 per cent of Canadians who are in favour of capital punishment, only 36.7 per cent are convinced that Canada should bring back the death penalty, with 24 per cent only leaning toward the idea. As well, the poll indicates that 33 per cent of Canadians are not fully committed on the issue, and that over one-quarter of those, or 10 per cent of the whole population, might change their minds. So, it is evident that the population as a whole does not have a rigid position on this matter. One of the positive aspects of this debate, and one reason why we should not have had closure, is that the trend is moving toward the rejection of capital punishment.
I hope that this trend will cause those Hon. Members who took surveys of their constituents to reconsider. We all know how volatile polls are, and particularly so on such a volatile issue as the death penalty.
I am concerned that the Government has imposed closure on this debate, something which runs contrary to parliamentary reform rules, the rules for a free vote, which this is. I am

June 29, 1987
Capital Punishment
convinced that even more Canadians would have reconsidered their position on the death penalty had we proceeded in a more thorough manner, delaying further debate on the question until the fall.
In reviewing all of the information that I know we have all received on this issue, I have found that some of the most moving testimony has come from the mothers of children who have been murdered. These women have written to us, attesting to their realization that the death penalty will not bring back their children. They appeal to Members of Parliament to vote against the reinstatement of the death penalty. They do not believe in a society that supports killing, in any form.
Many of my colleagues in the New Democratic Party have presented facts as to why we unanimously oppose a return to the death penalty. The Coalition Against the Return of the Death Penalty has done a great service to our country in that it has provided documented evidence to show that we should not kill people to show that killing people is wrong.
I want to tell my own constituents this evening, and anyone else who will listen, why I personally feel so deeply in respect of this question. Coming from British Columbia, I know how very upset the people of British Columbia were following the Olson killings. In our anger and fear, we wanted retribution, and even revenge. I must confess, I felt this way myself.
But the facts show that killing a murderer will not prevent further brutal crimes from occurring. We need other measures to prevent violence and killings. As well, we need to protect the public through more effective policing and sentencing. In addition to assisting the victims of crime, society needs to take steps to rehabilitate criminals, where possible.
I am against the death penalty because I am morally against killing in any form. I agree with all three party Leaders, all of whom have said that, as a civilized nation, we must not give the power to the state to kill. The reinstatement of the death penalty could lead to the execution of an innocent person. We are all aware of Donald Marshall, who spent some 11 years in prison before being proven innocent.
We have heard many religious arguments as to why capital punishment is wrong; why it runs contrary to all Christian values. We have ample evidence that capital punishment is not a deterrent. In fact, the murder rate in U.S. states which have capital punishment has gone up, whereas it has gone down in those which do not have the death penalty.
Some people are so angered and frustrated and fearful when someone is murdered that they seek vengeance. That is understandable. But the state itself, in a civilized society, cannot practise vengeance. Violence begets violence. As Gandhi said: "The trouble with an eye for an eye is that it leaves the whole world blind." As a social worker, I know very well that sociopathic personalities can rarely be rehabilitated; but it is wrong to deny the possibility of rehabilitation to all.
History shows that where the death penalty is in place, it is the poor and members of racial minorities who are hanged or electrocuted. Rich murderers can afford the best defence, while penniless persons are condemned to death row. It is also a fact that there are fewer convictions against murderers where the death penalty exists. In that circumstance, the justice system operates differently.
Those who support the return of the death penalty want the state to have the most awesome power of all, the power to take a human life. New Democrats do not believe that the state should have this kind of power over its citizens. The death penalty has no place in a civilized democracy. With the exception of most states in the United States, western democracies have rejected the death penalty.
What kind of countries have the death penalty? Very centralized, top-heavy, undemocratic countries, often with brutal dictatorships. South Korea, South Africa, Chile, Guatemala, the Soviet bloc countries, those are the kinds of countries that have the death penalty. Those are the countries where there is legalized cold-blooded murder conducted by the state. Is that what we want in Canada?
During the course of this important debate, we have heard many compelling arguments about how inhuman and brutal the death penalty is. Disturbing accounts of past executions have been read into the record. These are accounts from our past.
I invite Hon. Members, and anyone who may be listening, to read The Handmaid's Tale, a novel by Margaret Atwood. I wish I had time to quote from it this evening. In that book, Margaret Atwood describes, in very dramatic terms, what can happen in the future when a state adopts a policy of "salvaging", pursuant to which people are forced to witness public executions.
Not long ago, I heard a Member of this Parliament express the opinion that women who have abortions should face the death penalty. When I heard that, I was left to wonder what we might have in store for us if we should reinstate capital punishment in Canada! The death penalty does not stop murders. Based on the U.S. experience, it appears that the death penalty does not even decrease the number of murders. There are, however, other steps that we can take which will decrease the number of killings.
Let me relate to you an example from my own riding of Vancouver East. For years the people of Vancouver East have been crying out for measures that will lead to a decrease in the number of murders in downtown Vancouver, murders in which the weapon is usually a knife. We have asked for the banning of knives in public places.
Over the years, many constituents have been murder victims at the hands of someone carrying a knife. Thus far this year, six out of twelve murders in Vancouver have involved knives, and a similar trend is reported in other cities across the country. These murders take place during moments of passion.
June 29, 1987

Often alcohol is involved. A fight takes place at a bar, or on the street; a bit of pushing takes place, and a knife is produced. In the heat of the moment, a murder takes place.
The death penalty will not stop this type of murder. Banning knives will, or it at least will decrease the number of murders. But, the people of my riding have got nowhere in their quest for action to reduce the number of murders. I call upon the Minister of Justice (Mr. Hnatyshyn), once again, to investigate this situation. I ask him to consider the request for amendments to the Criminal Code that will prohibit the carrying of dangerous knives in public places.
This is a debate about how we view ourselves as a nation. Do we want to be a nation where the state conducts cold-blooded murder? I say no: no to death and yes to life.
Citizens must be protected, and murderers must be committed-for a lifetime, if necessary; but state murder of murderers is no solution. It denigrates all of us, as we ourselves become killers. It is immoral; it is wrong.
Let's direct our energies, instead, toward working for life, for humanity, and for a better society. Let's try to reduce violence and hate on TV and in society. Let's help children to grow with love and security, and reasonable limits, such that they become socialized human beings who care about others.
Let's provide necessary services and guidance at an early age for those who lack inner strengths or are emotionally disturbed. Let's offer young people positive alternatives to homelessness, drugs, prostitution, crime, and a terrible incidence of suicide. Let's get on with positive programs to deal with child abuse and domestic violence which can lead to death and murders. Let's start a serious war on poverty, on unemployment, and on hopelessness which is the chronic state of far too many Canadians.
I say from my heart to all my colleagues in the House, let's be proud tonight that we have reaffirmed the importance of life while we sat in our time as Members of Parliament in the House. Let's do a noble thing together tonight. Let's refuse to go backward to reinstate the death penalty. Let's vote instead in large numbers against this motion and for a better society in the future.


Mr. Andre Plourde (Kamouraska-Riviere-du-Loup):: Mr. Speaker, I have made a number of important speeches since I began my recent political career, but this one will be one of the most important ones, and I therefore wish to dedicate it in all sincerity, first of all to my colleagues in this House who do not share my views, then to my constituents in the riding of Kamouraska-Riviere-du-Loup and to all Canadians.
Mr. Speaker, editorial writer Carl Theriault at the weekly newspaper the St-Laurent Echo, who is well known in my riding, concluded an article on the death penalty in the May 7 issue this year with the following words, and I quote:
Capital Punishment
The issue may be a very personal one for each Member of the House of Commons but it is also a refletion of how the collective attitudes of a nation have changed. A country like Canada has always been known for its balanced opinions based on facts rather than on the emotional content of certain problems.
The death penalty is a good example. We can only hope that Canadian parliamentarians will continue to live up to this honourable reputation.
Mr. Speaker, my speech on this very important question will try to reflect the attitudes and purpose supported by this philosopher from my region.
From his conclusion we realize he does not side with the majority who, in my constituency as in many areas in Canada, in answer to a flat question: " Are you for or against?" have to come up with a bold answer, with no possibility of tempering their views as required by such a difficult subject, and without having had an opportunity to think the matter over before making such an outright choice, for or against.
Mr. Speaker, in support of my choice I would like to bring the view of another eminent citizen of my constituency of Kamouraska-Riviere-du-Loup, judge Jean-Paul Berube, the dean of Sessions Courts judges in Quebec. He summed up the matter of capital punishment a few months only before being appointed to that court. In a now defunct local newspaper called Le Renouveau, when the late John Diefenbaker's Conservative Government was considering indeed abolishing capital punishment, Mr. Jean-Paul Berube wrote, and I quote:
Abolitionists claim that capital punishment is absurd, it prevents a criminal from redeeming himself, it repares nothing; it does not intimidate criminals, let alone detersing them; finally, what if a court error leads to an innocent being executed, that error is beyond repair, and then society as a whole is responsible.
And the lawyer concluded with a quote from a French priest, who for some time was a Member of France's Parliament, a firm abolitionist, who stated during a debate on the abolition of capital punishment, and I quote that extremely intense comment which clearly defines the challenge before this Parliament: He used to say: "Capital punishment is an illusionary and dangerous defence. It attacks the effects of crime and not its causes. It is an easy way out which excuses the legislators from addressing the real problem, that of prevention and possible rehabilitation".
Mr. Speaker, it is not the first time that we try to sum up this vital issue. The first time I remember dates back to the Diefenbaker government which had opened the debate on this issue. I had been impressed by an argument which I could not quote exactly now but which meant that capital punishment would deter neither the murderer who plans his crime because he is convinced he is clever enough to escape justice, nor the murderer acting out of passion who, in a moment of uncontrollable emotion, acts without thinking twice, nor the hired assassin who kills in cold blood for a price which has nothing to do with the risk of capital punishment. So that, in the end, the only people really intimidated by this legislation are those who will never kill.
Mr. Speaker, even if I am perfectly aware that most of my constituents would give a positive answer to the question "Are you in favour of reinstating capital punishment?", I am

June 29, 1987
Capital Punishment
convinced that this would be a quick and hasty answer, resulting from an excessive self-defence reflex, which following discussion, could be restored to more reasonablable terms. I am convinced that by meeting personally with these respondents, I could easily bring them to the positive sentiments expressed by the editor, the jurist and the theologian I quoted a while ago. In short, we should not fall into the trap of sentimentality which could distract us from the real issue, the root of crime. By approving retribution, our conscience is clear but no more. As legislators, our sense of responsibilities should carry us further.
Mr. Speaker, I always been unable to believe that capital punishment sets an example for potential criminals. As a result of what historians have told us about the death penalty as retribution and what we have seen in historic films and documents-if we go back to earlier times, we realize that there is some logic in that argument. The death penalties were publicly carried out and that was an important aspect of the example to discourage eventual criminals. Elowever, with the development of our civilization, those public scenes of torture were disapproved and progressively, retribution by the state for even the most contemptible crimes was questioned. The executions are now carried out more secretly and less brutally.
1 think that this refinement was developed to make the execution easier, the previous torture being replaced by the painless execution and to observe a greater discretion, the public place being replaced by an isolated corner of the prison in the presence of a few official witnesses because the executioners were not very proud of themselves. And surely the abolitionists are not so proud either since to my knowledge those who are demanding the reinstatement of the death penalty do not complain about the effectiveness of the procedure nor about the discretion of the execution. Tell me where is the exemplarity?
Mr. Speaker, greater experts than myself on the matter have tried to prove that that penalty does not act as a deterrent, and they have succeeded in proving it since capital punishment was abolished in Canada. Others had referred to the irremediable guilt feeling owing to the concern about a possible miscarriage of justice. I agree this last argument has its merits. Novels, political writings and films have made heroes of criminals executed after being convicted of crimes for which the death penalty was given at the time, while afterwards, people started having second thoughts. I am convinced that the quality of our judiciary system, based on the presumption of innocence, has reduced this risk considerably. However, these are reasonable and genuine arguments we cannot ignore.
Mr. Speaker, I am one of those who believe that the death penalty does not protect the public against potential criminals. We have all, from time to time, read reports in the media on series of murders of policemen on duty and more recently, of convenience store owners. Executing these murderers would do nothing to protect policemen or store owners. Actually, people who rob convenience stores without killing, people who commit their crimes without killing policemen are still around and are
a potential danger when we are talking about violent acts. An armed thief who commits his crime without killing a policeman or a convenience store owner is not any less dangerous than the thief who used his deadly weapon when he was caught in the act. One will be sent to jail and the other will be sentenced to be hanged. And what kind of additional protection does hanging the second criminal afford society? I don't believe in this argument, because, as I said before, the death penalty would only have a deterrent effect on someone who would be afraid to commit the crime leading to the murder. The other guy, who is involved in a crime where he will be able to escape or who is a professional criminal, is usually afraid of nothing, even if his life depends on it, whether it means being shot down by a policeman exercising his responsibility as the protector of the public or by an executioner with a legitimate mandate to do so. It doesn't make much difference to him.
Mr. Speaker, this brings me to my very real concern which is how we ought to punish acts of murder. How do we deal with this evil at the source? My answer to that is by seeking a better distribution of wealth in our country and the gradual building of a juster society. I became involved in active politics, inspired by a great Canadian who is committed to these goals, our Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney). Since my election, I have done my best to meet these objectives, first, by being receptive to the grievances of my fellow citizens and by looking for the maximum of benefits within Government programs to meet their expectations, second, by working at developing new programs to meet this objective, and third, by supporting the major legislative proposals of our Government which I believe can contribute to this end, such as the tax reform proposal announced by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson), to name but one.
Mr. Speaker, I therefore express the wish that my colleagues who advocate reinstatement of the death penalty will reflect on this more constructive approach, which they would surely be able to convince their fellow citizens to support, by taking the time necessary to reflect and argue on such a crucial issue instead of giving in to the temptation of first impression arguments steeped in feelings of revenge and especially helplessness. Indeed, I have to say that I find the attitude of the advocates of the death penalty fatalistic and steeped in a feeling of helplessness at endowing our country with more equitable social programs, and in this regard, our colleagues opposite should perhaps reflect on our expressed intention to bring about a better distribution of our social programs by giving less to the better-off and more to the poor at the risk of making certain exceptions to the universality principle.
You see, Mr. Speaker, when I read in the newspapers that two senior citizens, who have lived together for 40, 50 or 60 years and who have raised eight or ten children can feel so much hate for each other that it leads to the death of one of them, my feeling of helplessness does not make me want to punish these acts of violence by a return of the death penalty, but look for means to improve the standard of living and wellbeing of these victims of poverty. One of the solutions which I
June 29, 1987

still find reasonable would be to give more to senior citizens whose only income is the old age security pension and to give less or even nothing at all to those pensioners who have the good fortune of benefitting from the generosity of our system.
I still regret the demagogic comments of certain apologists of the universality principle who put a check on this will for greater social justice, and I find this a good opportunity to express my views even more forcefully.
Mr. Speaker, when I hear, as we often do from our media, about youths who, in a moment of despair, have killed convenience store owners or a pedestrian for a measly $100 and even less sometimes, my feeling of helplessness does not lead me to promote a return of the death penalty, but to try and find how I could promote a better distribution of our wealth to avoid such situations. Indeed, I firmly believe that no criminal is born bad. Evil, cruelty, immorality and a tendency to crime are probably weaknesses which exist in human nature, but they develop when the social environment promotes such weaknesses more pressingly than the more humane and positive feelings which must be present in all the right-thinking people that we are to speak about the right to life and death of these criminals who deserve our consideration and attention, whatever we might blame them for. None of us here can lay claim to perfection and set himself as absolute judge to decide whether they will live or die, although it may appear legitimate, because supported by the majority, that the state should impose such a penalty for the most odious crimes.
There is no doubt that this very legitimacy would result from a survey which would ask the following question: "Would you be in favour of Parliament adopting legislation to improve the lot of the disadvantaged?" by directing this question to the same people who were asked: "Do you agree that capital punishment should be reinstated?"
To conclude, Mr. Speaker, I should like to emphasize that a great many citizens who are in favour of reinstating capital punishment base their choice on the notion that it would be less expensive for the state to execute murderers than to pension them for life.
Well, I have been particularly impressed by the fact that economic analysts have shown that this popular belief is unfounded, to a large extent.
First of all, only a very small proportion of prisoners would be sentenced to death and executed. Then, what is generally meant by the expression "annual cost" of keeping a prisoner is obtained by dividing the total cost to the Canadian Penitentiary Service by the number of prisoners. Then we realize immediately that removing a few of them each year would have no more practical impact on this cost than on the total cost to the penitentiary services.
Quite the contrary, Mr. Speaker. Everything seems to indicate that a prospect of a death sentence would make
Capital Punishment
procedures longer and more complex. The appeals, the pleas for clemency, and the execution process would prove still more expensive for the Canadian judiciary system.
Mr. Speaker, I am convinced that Canadians who are watching this debate will realize that reinstating capital punishment would not result in a significant reduction of the financial burden to society.


John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to make submissions with regard to this very important issue facing the House of Commons and Canadians. Unfortunately, a great number of my colleagues will not have the opportunity to express their points of view here in the House. That is because the Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Mulroney) decided to invoke closure this morning, notwithstanding the fact that he promised, the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Mazankowski) promised and other high-ranking officials in the Conservative Party promised that we would have a full and open debate on the subject.
We have no alternative but to vote on this motion tonight. I consider it unacceptable, given the serious nature of the issue before us, that the Government should invoke closure, thereby denying a great number of individuals an opportunity to express their points of view.
In less than three hours, the House of Commons, consisting of 279 Members at this time, will be called upon to decide whether or not capital punishment should be reinstated, whether or not the Criminal Code of Canada should be amended to provide that the death penalty be reinstated. There is no question that the vote will be a close one. It will be the closest vote there has been in the three years of this particular Parliament and it will likely be the closest vote there has been in the last number of years.
The burden of proving to the House that capital punishment should be reinstated rests on those who are in favour of reinstating capital punishment. In my submission, the advocates of capital punishment have not discharged that burden. They have not convinced Members of the House to support capital punishment. They have not provided the necessary evidence to convince Members that capital punishment is in fact a deterrent. Is it any wonder that a number of those who previously supported capital punishment no longer support it today? They have been convinced that capital punishment is not the answer.
Those who have changed their views, those who previously supported capital punishment but who will in less than three hours vote against it, ought to be commended for the position they have taken. In effect, it has been a tough decision for them. It has been somewhat tougher than it has been for those of us who have always opposed capital punishment. We as Members of Parliament should congratulate those Hon. Members for their wise judgment on this particular issue.

June 29, 1987
Capital Punishment
With regard to those who advocate capital punishment led by the Hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr. Domm), it is clear that they have lost the battle. If I were a betting person, I would bet at this point that the motion to reinstate capital punishment will be defeated. Even if it is not defeated, it is clear that the vote will be a close one. It is clear that public opinion has moved somewhat over the last number of months since this resolution was tabled in the House of Commons. Canadians in increasing numbers have been convinced that it is not the right thing to do.
When the time comes for me to cast my vote on this resolution, I intend to vote against it. I intend to vote against the reinstatement of capital punishment for a very simple reason. I will vote against it because it is wrong. It is wrong to kill a human being. Capital punishment in my view is the mark of an indecent, uncivilized and immoral society.
To reinstate capital punishment is to revert back to the law of the jungle, to the law of an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth. Vengeance is the only justification for the return of capital punishment. In their heart of hearts, those who argue for capital punishment know that it is not a deterrent. Later on in my comments, I will look briefly at some of the statistics to show that in fact it cannot be proven on a balance of probabilities that it is a deterrent.
To take human life is wrong. It is interesting to note that a great many of those who support the reinstatement of capital punishment are opposed to abortion. That is a somewhat hypocritical position to take. Those very Hon. Members who rose in the House of Commons and argued in favour of capital punishment rose a few short weeks ago to argue about the sanctity of life. It is somewhat strange for those Hon. Members to decide all of a sudden that human life is no longer sacred, that in certain circumstances human life can be taken.
I suggest that if it is wrong to kill an innocent unborn child, it is wrong to kill a human being.
It is interesting to note as well that a few months ago, I put a question to the Hon. Member for Peterborough in committee. I asked him if he would execute Colin Thatcher, and he did not answer me. Mr. Thatcher, a former politician, a former cabinet Minister in the Saskatchewan Government, was convicted of first-degree murder. One would have thought, given the fanatic nature of the beliefs of the Hon. Member for Peterborough, that he would not have hesitated to say that indeed, Colin Thatcher ought to be executed because he was convicted of first-degree murder and the Hon. Member supports capital punishment for first-degree murder. It is strange he did not say that Colin Thatcher should be executed.
I asked myself why he did not say that Colin Thatcher should be executed and it is because in his view, Colin Thatcher does not fit the mould of a convicted murderer.
It is clear that as far as the Hon. Member for Peterborough is concerned, the debate is lost. I take solace in the fact that even though the motion to put together a committee composed of 15 Members might carry, I am convinced, given the
closeness of the vote, that we will never see legislation to bring back capital punishment carry in this House.
Eleven years ago, this matter was decided here in the House of Commons by a very slim margin. The arguments were made 11 years ago both in favour of and against capital punishment. Parliament, in its wisdom, decided not to restore capital punishment at that time. Why are we here again 11 years later talking about capital punishment?
We know that the Prime Minister made an election promise and we know that he has not kept too many of his election promises. However, one of the promises he made was to have an open, free vote here in the House of Commons in spite of the fact that he is opposed to capital punishment.
I commend the Prime Minister for the position he has taken. I am appreciative of the fact that he took the opportunity a few days ago to speak in the House of Commons, but it was wrong for him to make that promise. If he was in fact a true leader, if he was as principled as he says he is, he would not have allowed this matter to be debated again.
It is not often that I agree with the Prime Minister but I agree with the position he has taken on this issue. I agree with his words:
-we uphold one simple principle: the inherent dignity of a human being, the inherent worth of a human life. I will resist with all my strength, all of my life, any action that would diminish that reality and would lessen that value.
A few weeks ago the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner) said:
1 believe the state must aspire to a higher ideal than simply killing people who cannot be fitted into our scope of conduct.
The Leader of the New Democratic Party a few short weeks ago said:
In coldly taking the life of a murderer, the state would simply compound the real unacceptability of the original violent act.
Eleven years ago former Prime Minister Pierre Elliot Trudeau said:
Are we, as a society, so lacking in respect for ourselves, so lacking in hope for human betterment, so socially bankrupt that we are ready to accept state vengeance as our penal philosophy? To retain (capital punishment) in the Criminal Code of Canada would be to abandon reason in favour of vengeance; to abandon hope and confidence in favour of a despairing acceptance of our inability to cope with violent crime except in violence.
It is obvious that even if capital punishment were reinstated it is unlikely that any responsible Prime Minister, any reasonable, rational Prime Minister, would ever allow another human being in Canada to be executed.
Some of the advocates of capital punishment say that they must respond to their constituents. Yes, public opinion polls have been somewhat consistent over the years, although in the last number of weeks and months those in favour of capital punishment, according to the public opinion polls, are fewer in number.
June 29, 1987

Notwithstanding the public opinion polls, I firmly believe that Canadians do not support capital punishment. Why then, when asked, do they say that they support capital punishment? It seems to me that one of the reasons people indicate that they support capital punishment is their frustration with the criminal justice system.
We all know that the criminal justice system is not perfect. There is cause for concern with regard to the charging of individuals, plea-bargaining, actual criminal trials, sentencing, incarceration, parole, and mandatory supervision. The debate on capital punishment has become a lightning rod for all the disillusionment, disappointment, and disrespect which exists with regard to the criminal justice system. There is, unfortunately, cynicism developing among Canadians which must be addressed.
I am convinced that if we as parliamentarians used our collective wisdom and collective political will, we could improve the criminal justice system which is so imperfect. I believe that we as parliamentarians have a duty to study the system, to educate and sensitize people to the issues, and to seek to create a consensus with regard to specific reforms.
Some of the areas which 1 feel merit serious attention include sentencing, plea-bargaining in the trial process, alternatives to incarceration, the correctional system including correctional philosophy, institutional programming, inmate accommodation, prison construction, the role of the correctional investigator, release procedures involving the correctional services and the National Parole Board, post-release programs and accommodation, the role of voluntary organizations such as the John Howard Society, victims of crime including their right to information, property restitution and impact statements, the public's perception of crime including the role of the media, public legal education, the effect of the Charter of Rights, and other issues as well.
Is there any wonder that there is disrespect for the criminal justice system when a person like Allan Sweeney, who was convicted of murder, was erroneously released by the National Parole Board only to commit another murder? There are those who suggest that if he were executed the first time he would not have been released to commit the second murder.
Well, Mr. Sweeney may have committed the actual physical act, but the responsibility for the death of Celia Ruygrok is not that of Mr. Sweeney alone, but of the system. The system failed Celia Ruygrok. She could be alive today if the National Parole Board had all the information before it. It is clear that in that particular case the National Parole Board did not have the necessary information to decide whether Mr. Sweeney ought to have been released. The system failed. Rather than talking about capital punishment we should be talking about ways to improve the criminal justice system to ensure and enhance the safety of Canadians.
Those who support capital punishment make a number of arguments. The main argument they make is that capital punishment is a deterrent. As I indicated, it clearly is not.
Capital Punishment
Almost all of the studies that have been conducted indicate that capital punishment is not a deterrent. It is plain and simple. Canadian statistics, as well as U.S. statistics, show that it is not. In 1975, the year before Parliament repealed the death sentence, there were 701 homicides which include murder, manslaughter and infanticide. In 1983, seven years after abolition, there were 682 homicides. A more important statistic is the rate of homicides per 100,000 of population. In 1975 Canada's homicide rate was 3.09 per 100,000. By 1983 it had fallen to 2.74 per 100,000.
Those who argue that capital punishment is necessary to protect policemen are also without supporting evidence. In the five years before abolition 19 policemen were murdered compared to 18 in the five years after abolition.
The statistics from the United States also punch big holes in the deterrence theory. Presently 38 states have the death penalty on the books. Yet, as a nation, the United States registered a homicide rate of 8.3 per 100,000 compared to our figure of 2.74 per 100,000. The Americans have capital punishment in 37 of the 50 states. Would you rather live in the United States than in Canada? I notice, Mr. Speaker, that you are shaking your head. Most Canadians would agree with you. We do not have capital punishment in Canada yet we have one of the safest societies anywhere in the world. We have probably the highest rate of incarceration anywhere in the western world, but we also have one of the lowest crime rates anywhere in the world. We ought to be proud that the rate of violent crime is so low compared to that of the United States and many other western nations.
Those who support capital punishment erroneously argue that violent crime is on the increase. The statistics dictate otherwise. In effect, violent crime has not increased. If anything, it has decreased. It is still possible in downtown Ottawa, Toronto, Edmonton, Montreal, Vancouver, or Halifax to walk down the streets late at night and feel safe that one will not be mugged, robbed, raped or in any way assaulted. One just cannot do that in Detroit, Los Angeles, New York, Chicago, or Miami. We have every reason to be proud that we have such a low crime rate.
There are those who argue that we should reinstate capital punishment on the basis of cost. That is the most disgusting argument one can think of. They argue that it would be cheaper to execute, to kill a human being, than to incarcerate a human being for 25, 30, or 40 years. Since when do we put a price on human life? It is wrong to suggest that if we execute individuals it may be a saving to the state. It certainly does not hold any persuasive power, yet there are those in the House who suggest that as a reason for reinstating capital punishment.
There are those in the House who support capital punishment and honestly believe that retribution, vengeance, is a reason to reinstate capital punishment. I say it is wrong to

June 29, 1987
Capital Punishment
have retribution or vengeance as the basis of our criminal justice system. If an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, were the basis for our criminal justice system, why would we not cut off the hand of a thief or physically harm others who do physical harm to their victims?
You have indicated that my time has expired, Mr. Speaker. In closing I want to ask those who have not yet made up their minds, in spite of the fact that we will vote in a short period of time, to vote against the resolution that is before us. To vote for the motion would result in this country being one of the very few countries in the world that presently have capital punishment. To vote for the motion would return Canada to the law of the jungle and would return Canada to an uncivilized, indecent and immoral society.


William (Bill) Gottselig: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to participate in this debate on capital punishment. Let me say at the outset of my remarks that I support the re-establishment of capital punishment in Canada. I do so as the result of a personal conviction I have had all my adult life. I believe that the basic issue is protection for society. Most people will realize and agree that society is demanding more protection. There are many people in our society who resort to violence as a means of enforcing their will over others. This is evident from the large number of robberies that are reported every day in the national press. This happens not only in the large cities, but throughout Canada in the small cities, down to our small towns and villages.
I approach the re-establishment of capital punishment as a necessary step to providing society with protection.
If our system of jurisprudence is considered objectively, it will be seen that it more than adequately protects the rights of the criminal. The murderer is informed of his rights. He is given the counsel of a lawyer who protects the criminal's interests. He also has the right to appeal to a higher court. Society bends over backwards to protect the rights of the accused. This is more than a murderer gives his victim whom he deprives of the most basic right, the right to live. That victim has none of the benefits given to his killer whose act is final. That victim has no jury, no lawyer, and no appeal.
When I state that I support capital punishment, 1 am, of course, referring to capital punishment for first degree murder as described in the Criminal Code. Section 212 to Section 215 of the Criminal Code defines first degree murder as, first, all planned or premeditated murder, second, the killing of a police officer, third, the killing of a prison guard and, fourth, the killing of one or more persons while committing another offence such as rape or theft. I do not favour capital punishment for second degree murder or manslaughter.
I want to read into the record some comments from the June 8, 1987 edition of the Swift Current Sun, a newspaper published bi-weekly in Swift Current, Saskatchewan. These comments are made by a Mrs. Ruth Lee-Knight who lost a daughter last August in London, England.
She makes several points in this article that I believe are very relevant. She makes them as the mother of a victim. She states:
I do want to raise the consciousness of people so they have a fuller picture of crime and what it does to its victims. I would ask that everyone, before coming to any conclusion about how society deals with murderers, becomes a little acquainted with what victims endure. In decision-making people should recognize the hard fact that the victim's family has a life's sentence imposed on them with no chance of parole or early release.
She goes on to make some other very valid points, particularly dealing with the increased public awareness of the sentencing and the reality of how the system works. She says:
Hopefully this will lead to a general tightening up of bail and all forms of early release for violent offenders.
Many who oppose the return of the death penalty are the same people who have lobbied so successfully over the years for the rights of offenders and they are well organized in their efforts. Many operate on government funds and our concern is that, because of their resources the Canadian public will be presented with only one side of the issue as they have in the past.
She concludes her article by again making reference to the organized groups or individuals who make statements regarding the suitable punishment for murderers. She states:
For the most part they are far removed from knowledge of pain caused by such individuals for the lifetime of the victim's family. They are not close to a murdered victim, never knew anyone who was murdered, don't appreciate all that dies and is lost forever to the world when a special person is murdered by a criminal who has nothing to offer, yet lives. Many of these groups or individuals speak from a position of ignorance and yet are taken seriously.
I want to spend some time talking about the purposes of the remedial and corrective measures. One of the main concerns in considering the problem of abolishing or retaining capital punishment is whether or not the crime demands the penalty or whether the penalty is suitable for the crime. There is no doubt that in graduating the offences the punishment is also graduated proportionately on a reasonably equitable basis. However, the more serious the crime, the more difficult it is to evaluate the punishment inasmuch as more criteria for the evaluation of the commission of the crime enter into the picture.
In reviewing many sociological, historical, and philosophical texts, there is no doubt that the principle of punishment for an offence has never been questioned. However, there are many diverging and varying views on the nature of punishment and the intention of the punishment.
Today's permissive elements consider punishment as revenge or the paying of a debt in proportional amount to the offence committed, and feel that it is wrong. Rather, according to the soft sciences, society should try to reshape an individual or to understand the commission of the crime and to take constructive measures to rehabilitate.
This philosophy may be a laudable one which may work in some instances, but practical experience has shown beyond a shadow of a doubt that some people who choose to ignore the laws of society simply cannot, will not and do not want to be
June 29, 1987

rehabilitated, and the only alternative which society has openly demanded time and time again is the absolute assurance that the crime will not be repeated.
As a basic principle, an individual who will not abide by the laws of society should be removed from that society and dealt with in a proper manner. The proper manner might well vary according to the individual and the crime committed, graduating to the severest punishment for the worst offence. There is no doubt that the taking of a life is, indeed, the worst offence that can be committed. The severest punishment has traditionally been death. If one is to consider the purpose of remedial and corrective measures from the rehabilitation point of view, then death as a penalty is of little value. On this premise, some question the value of the death penalty, identify it with revenge, and say that it is hardly a corrective measure because of its finality. But the death penalty and punishment are not of their nature vengeful.
Punishment is more related to a forceful remedial action, one that will have a marked corrective effect and be so shocking to the recipient or to others that the act which merited the punishment will not be repeated if only because it attacks the self-preservation instinct and the natural desire to freedom of the offender.
Inasmuch as rehabilitation has its place where there is an assured chance of success, society has nevertheless unequivocally rejected the experimental attitude and has expressed the unqualified desire that the principle of maximum punishment, as opposed to the principle of rehabilitation, be retained so that, where applicable, the severest penalty, as a penalty will be applied.
The value of rehabilitation and punishment as separate ideas and methods in the field of corrections has long been debated. Some quarters feel that the idea of punishment as being vengeful is not proper. However, I submit that in this instance they have erred in removing punishment and substituting rehabilitation. Both have their value, but they are dependent upon the nature of the individual as well as the nature of the crime and what society expects by way of protection for itself, as a whole, as well as protection of its individuals.
This brings in the next facet in the evaluation of actual and contemplated corrective measures in rehabilitation and punishment. In either case, it is stated without argument from any quarter that the object is the prevention of crime and that the exercise or measure taken must have a deterrent quality. The quality of deterrence can be looked upon from two aspects, the first being repetition and the second being prevention. Following up on this premise, which is tenable even using the arguments of the abolitionists, the only penalty that can achieve the maximum deterrence from repetition of the crime and that would prevent crime is death. The principle of rehabilitation, so called life imprisonment or other measures, in the eyes of society, if not in the eyes of sociologists and others, has not proven adequate.
Capital Punishment
This issue of deterrence should not be decided only on the deterrent factor but must be a consideration. Nevertheless, there is much evidence to show that capital punishment is a deterrent. Paul Gascon, the executive secretary of the Public Service Alliance, which represents penitentiary guards, reported that the six guards taken hostage in the Kingston penitentiary riot in 1971 may owe their lives to the existence of capital punishment. He said: "The inmates were told that if a guard was killed, the responsible people would be hanged".
Criminal sanctions do not stop all crimes, but there is no question that the vast majority of Canadians want these sanctions and are convinced that they do deter some from committing crimes ranging from theft to murder. I believe it is imperative that our laws stress personal responsibility for one's actions. This assumption is a basic tenet of our civilization. I believe we must always take into account all factors surrounding the commission of a crime when sentencing a convicted criminal and thereby sometimes reducing a sentence. However,
I do not accept the claim that every murder represents a failure of society and that society must acknowledge its guilt.
The other issue raised over and over by those supporting the abolition of capital punishment is that an innocent individual may be executed. This straw man raised by abolitionists is an illogical argument. It is probably very much less than the possibility that a criminal may commit another murder while serving a long prison term, or later when on parole. There is not one example of a person executed who was found later to have been innocent by a court or Government in Canada. However, it has been reported that convicts on parole and mandatory supervision in Canada were responsible for 41 murders and 27 manslaughter offences. One of the leading abolitionists in the United States, Adam Bedau, has stated: "It is false sentimentality to argue that the death penalty should be abolished because of the abstract possibility that an innocent person might be executed". He cites a study of the
7,000	executions in the United States from 1893 to 1971 and concludes that the record fails to show that such cases occur. The main point, however, is that if government functioned only when the possibility of error did not exist, government would not function at all. Human life deserves special protection and one of the best ways to guarantee that protection is to ensure that convicted murderers do not kill again. Only the death penalty can accomplish this end.
We have also heard over and over that juries may not want to convict someone of first degree murder. This is also a foolish argument. In trials for murder where capital punishment is the penalty for first degree murder, prospective jurors can be excused in such instances if they are opposed to capital punishment. I would like to quote from an article by the Mayor of New York, Edward Koch, on April 15, 1985 in the periodical The New Republic. He states:
Everyone wants his or her rights, and will defend them jealously. Not everyone, however, wants responsibilities, especially the painful responsibilities that come with law enforcement. Twenty-three years ago a woman named Kitty Genovese was assaulted and murdered on a street in New York. Dozens of

June 29, 1987
Capital Punishment
neighbours heard her cries for help but did nothing to assist her. They didn't even call the police. In such a climate the criminal understandably grows bolder.
He went on to say:
The death of anyone-even a convicted killer-diminishes us all. But we are diminished even more by a justice system that fails to function. It is an illusion to let ourselves believe that doing away with capital punishment removes the murderer's deed from our conscience. The rights of society are paramount. When we protect guilty lives, we give up innocent lives in exchange.
When opponents of capital punishment say to the state: "I will not let you kill in my name , they are also saying to murderers: "You can kill in your own name as long as I have an excuse for not getting involved."
It is hard to imagine anything worse than being murdered while neighbours do nothing. But something worse exists. When those same neighbours shrink back from justly punishing the murderer, the victim dies twice.
Successive polls over a number of years have shown conclusively that an overwhelming majority of Canadians are demanding the return of capital punishment. I firmly believe in my heart that capital punishment is a deterrent and it does provide an element of protection for society. I have made my position on this issue very clear ever since I sought the nomination in 1984 and later during the 1984 election campaign.
In closing I would like to say again that I will be voting in favour of capital punishment for all of the above stated reasons.


Mr. John R. Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker, this is the second time in 11 years that I have had the opportunity to participate in a debate such as this. The motion that is before us tonight poses a problem for us. Where do we want Canadian society to go? Do we want to take Canadian society back to the Dark Ages? That is what the supporters of this motion are asking us to do. They want to take us back to an uncivilized society.
It seems to me that what we ought to be doing is spending our time in building and developing a concerned society, taking a look at violence in society, whether it be violence in a dark alley, violence in the home against the wife or children, or whether it is violence on the hockey rink or on the playing fields.
How much of our resources do we put into research concerning violent behaviour? What is it that causes people to behave in a violent fashion? What identifiable tools do we have, what methods and means do we have to assist those who are involved in early childhood education to assist youngsters with respect to dealing with their feelings and expressing them in a socially acceptable way?
We can vote in favour of this motion tonight. We can take Canada back, back to a time in history when violence was the response to violent behaviour. Indeed, we think it is barbarous today the way we treat schoolchildren when they misbehave, to beat the tar out of them. We give them the strap. The strap is supposed to tell them they should not behave violently. What this motion is asking us to do is to kill people who kill people to
make other people not kill. There is something missing in the logic which escapes me. It is the same with respect to the way we treat young children. We respond in a violent way to a child who does not behave in a socially acceptable fashion. We hope that that child will grow up to behave in a sensitive, loving and responsive way.
I want to tell Hon. Members that that has not worked. This motion, if passed, will not work. The supporters of this motion would have us turn back the clock on human civilization.
If the motion is passed, what will happen is an admission of defeat. That is why we have kept the strap in the schools. It is for corporal punishment, which is an admission of failure, that the only way that one can maintain order and discipline in the class-room is to have the strap handy in the drawer. The first son of a gun who steps out of line, the teacher just takes him outside and lays into him. It seems to me that that is an admission of failure. It is an admission of failure on our part. Capital punishment is an admission that society has failed and that, in fact, the murderer has won. He has reached beyond the grave and he has won. The dark side will have won.
It seems that the arguments I have heard from the supporters of this motion say somehow or other that by passing it and bringing back the rope we will create a safer society. That is a false sense of security. All the statistics and all the evidence that has been amassed and presented in the House over the last several days clearly indicates that there is no relationship between having capital punishment on the books on the one side and murder on the other.
It is a nice, easy way for parliamentarians to stand here in the wee hours of the morning and vote for this motion to bring back hanging. We can then walk out of here feeling selfrighteous that we have created a safer society and we will not have anything to do anymore. We can pack up our books. We do not have to pay attention to the problem anymore.
That is the challenge for those of us who are going to vote against the motion. It means that we have to keep on seeking to find better ways of dealing with violent criminal behaviour.
I suggest that locking them up in some maximum security prison and throwing the key away is not the way either. I also suggest to Hon. Members that there is a greater challenge for us. Should this motion carry tonight, and I sincerely hope it will not, the streets of any city in Canada will not be any safer. No home in Canada will be safer. No family will be safer.
In fact, by having capital punishment on the books it may very well ensure that murderers get off because juries will be loath to convict when they know-


Howard Douglas McCurdy: They don't want to make a mistake.


John R. Rodriguez: That is right. The whole idea of not making a mistake remains uppermost in their minds. They may very well be hesitant to bring in a guilty verdict.
June 29, 1987

As I look back and read popular press, I ask myself who it is who is really hung for murder. It is not the rich, not at all. When a policeman carrying out his peace-keeping duties is murdered by a criminal we all correctly feel a loss because, collectively, we have experienced one.
I live in a mining community and for years and years we have known that corporations gave no concern to health and safety on the job. In fact, workers died on the job. But nobody in this country prosecuted a corporate owner of a mine.
In fact, some very interesting information was published by the Federal Law Reform Commission which issued a report last month. It stated in its report that employers who make workers risk death or serious injury should be subject to a proposed new offence of endangerment. The report also stated that as many as 3,600 Canadians die each year from cancer caused by workplace pollution. There are 175 health and safety inspectors in Labour Canada for all of Canada. But imagine 3,000 people dying in the country each year because, in fact, the environment in their job was not safe.
If I were to say to the movers of this motion that capital punishment should be applied to the corporate bigwigs of this country, those who turn a blind eye to the health and safety of workers on the job, they would immediately say: "Hold it; hold it. This wasn't meant for those people. Those are good citizens. Those are productive citizens. They contribute to the life of Canada." No one ever talks about that kind of white collar homicide, Mr. Speaker. It seems to me that those the movers of this motion want to hang are those who belong to minority groups, to the poor.
If this House of Commons this evening votes in favour of bringing back capital punishment, bringing back the rope, we would be accepting a culture of violence; we would be sinking into a state of barbarism. I, for one, will not cast a ballot to take Canada down to that level.
If this motion is in fact passed, a committee will be established to study the question of capital punishment. We have already spent a lot of time on this question over the last several months. That would have been time better spent in trying to find more positive and progressive ways of dealing with violent behaviour, of dealing with crime in this country.
Some of those intending to vote in favour of this motion have said that they will do so on the basis of the majority of their constituents wishing the reinstatement of capital punishment. Those constituents sent their respective Members of Parliament to Ottawa because they believed them to be intelligent and thoughtful. They considered that they had the ability to read and to draw some positive conclusions.
For those Hon. Members to say now that, while they themselves are against capital punishment, they will vote in favour of it on the basis of how their constituents feel, is an
Capital Punishment
insult to their constituents. To take that position is an abrogation of the responsibility of an elected representative in a parliamentary democracy.
We are not delegates. If one were to extend that argument to its logical conclusion, we should take the same position on tax reform, and other matters. We would be mere puppets. We would turn over to the poll takers what is rightfully the responsibility of Members of Parliament, that being to deal with the issues facing society: social programs, tax reform, free trade. Truly then it could be said that the poll takers would be the legislators of the nation. I know that Percy Shelly said that poets are indeed the true legislators of the world. But to say that the poll takers should be the legislators is ridiculous. As much as we love Angus Reid these days, I would hardly want to concede to Angus Reid the responsibility of legislator of the nation.
We have a responsibility to our constituents to think a problem through. We have an obligation to read the appropriate material relative to a given issue, and then to cast an intelligent decision based on the facts that we have assimilated about it.
Indeed, our constituents are much wiser than we are. To those Hon. Members who take the position that they should vote in accordance with the view held by the majority of their constituents, I say: Be not faint of heart, you who hide behind polls. If you are thinking of re-election, the polls show that 73 per cent would not regard a vote on capital punishment contrary to how they feel about it as a reason to vote against their Member in the next election. I realize that that is only a poll, but certainly it indicates very clearly that our constituents are very wise; it indicates that they understand the process very well.
I have said that we have two choices, Mr. Speaker. As we go along the road, it forks. We can take the fork that takes us in the direction of Chile, Iran, and the Soviet Union-societies that are not noted for their human rights, societies that are not noted for progressive thinking in terms of how to deal with violent behaviour. We can go down that road. But, I am not prepared to travel down that road along with those who have proposed this motion. I am not prepared to go down that road. There is a better road, one that offers us greater security, and that is the road toward a more enlightened way of dealing with violent behaviour.
We have recently had brought down a White Paper on Defence that calls for expenditures over the next 20 years amounting to some $200 billion, and certainly the defence of our country is a legitimate undertaking. But how much are we spending to defend the country internally? How much of our Gross National Product are we prepared to commit to a study of the cause-effect relationship between poverty and violent behaviour, between unemployment and the effects of that on one's behaviour?
Are we prepared to spend a greater portion of our Gross National Product to defend the very nature of our democracy?

June 29, 1987
Business of the House
The answer is no. That is not something that we talk about in this place. But boy, we can sure whip off S200 billion for the military. I know that those expenditures will span 20 years, but I have yet to see a projected figure with respect to the kinds of studies in behavioural sciences that we should be engaged in, the kinds of studies that are required in the field of education. Indeed, there is a great cut-back going on in the educational field.
This is no time for governments to step back. The challenge is in this area, and we are not going to resolve it by quick fixes such as hanging. The rope is not going to resolve the problems which are connected to deep-seated human behaviour. For example, we have a housing crisis in the country, yet we seem to avoid spending and focusing on that particular problem. We have had reports on child care, one of the areas to which we should be paying very close attention. Our children should be number one.
I hope that my remarks will have caused those who have proposed the motion to think long and hard in these closing minutes before we vote, because to go the way of this motion is to go down that long, dark road from which there is no return.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions among the Parties, and we are making excellent progress toward the completion of the legislative package with which we will deal tomorrow. I say without hesitation that it is thanks to the cooperation of the Liberal House Leader and the New Democratic Party House Leader.
I think Your Honour would find unanimous consent to put the following motion and also unanimous consent for the motion itself:
That, notwithstanding any Standing Order of this House, when the House
adjourns this day, it shall stand adjourned until Tuesday, June 30, 1987 at ten
o'clock a.m.;
Provided that:
At ten o'clock a.m., on that day, the House shall proceed to the consideration of "Routine Proceedings";
Upon the completion of "Routine Proceedings" the House shall proceed to Government Orders;
The House shall continue to sit between one o'clock p.m. and two o'clock p.m. to continue consideration of Government Orders;
At two o'clock p.m. for the remainder of the day's sitting, the provisions of the Standings shall be in effect; and
No later than 8 p.m. the Speaker shall suspend the sitting to the call of the Chair for the purposes of Royal Assent if necessary or adjourn the House as the case may be.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for the Parliamentary Secretary to introduce the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, what the Deputy Government House Leader has read out certainly reflects our discussions.
I want to make clear that what he is proposing is subject to our Standing Orders which call for us to adjourn tomorrow until the appropriate date in September.


Philip Derek Lewis: Yes.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: I just wanted to make sure that there was no doubt about that.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, it is certainly our intention to facilitate the passage of a number of Bills on the last day of the session. However, I want to say to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Government House Leader that we have not had an opportunity to see those Bills including the farm Bill, the changes to the Farm Loans Act. Therefore, at this point it is difficult for us to make a determination on how we will proceed in terms of expediting the passage of that Bill or not until we have had a chance to see it.
I encourage the Parliamentary Secretary to provide us with a copy of the Bill at the earliest possible moment.


Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that. I made no reference to what would pass or fail tomorrow. My colleague is correct. I have already discussed the matter with the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise), and I believe he will be getting in touch with the spokespersons for the various Parties to look after the matter.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.