1987-06-22

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Hon. Harvie Andre (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-70, an Act to amend the Hazardous Products Act and the Canada Labour Code, to enact the Hazardous Materials Information Review Act, and to amend other Acts in relation thereto.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


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

Mr. John Nunziata (York South-Weston) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-261, an Act to amend the Criminal Code (abortion).


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased today to introduce this amendment to the Criminal Code of Canada dealing with abortion. This Bill would restrict abortions to situations where the physical health of the mother is threatened. If adopted by the House of Commons, it will afford greater protection to the innocent unborn.


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

Mr. Stan J. Hovdebo (Prince Albert) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-262, an Act to amend the Auditor General Act.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Stanley J. Hovdebo: Mr. Speaker, this Bill is another attempt to make the Auditor General report more useful to Members of Parliament and, at the same time, the Government and people of Canada. It would allow the Auditor General to report his audit when it is completed rather than waiting until the end of the year when he makes his final report.
This Bill has had all-Party support, including that of successive Standing Committees on Public Accounts as well as the general membership of the House.


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

[DOT] (mo)

Mr. Dan Heap (Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour and pleasure to present a petition from some 100 residents of Toronto who are concerned that the low-level flight training at Goose Bay, Labrador, will disrupt the ancient way of life of the local people there. They say also that this is an aggressive war-fighting principle.
Therefore, they request that Parliament ensure that the Prime Minister end all low-level flight training at the Goose Bay Canadian Forces Base and cease negotiations with NATO for the establishment of a larger base there.

June 22, 1987
Questions on the Order Paper


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition from an equal number of residents of Toronto who are concerned about Canada's laws governing the admission into Canada of people seeking refugee status. Since our system was overloaded a new system was proposed by the standing committee a year and a half ago which has the support of the churches, the Jewish Congress, and many other groups in Canada.
Therefore, the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon Parliament to enact legislation which will embody the principles of fair and complete oral hearings of claimants before a refugee board independent of the Immigration Commission, universal access to such hearings for every claimant in Canada, and a fair chance to arrive in Canada to present their claim. As in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.


Mr. Cyril Keeper (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition with regard to the Post Office. These several thousand petitioners from across the country indicate that the federal Government's proposal to seek financial self-sufficiency by 1988 for the Canada Post Corporation will result in cutbacks and deterioration in service at the Post Office which will consequently be at the expense of service for Canadian consumers.
The proposed measures have already resulted in the closure of many rural post offices and cancellation of routes in rural communities and mean a drastic reduction in service for many Canadians. Postal rate increases affect all Canadians while basic services are being cut. The federal Government has not enabled the Canada Post Corporation to pursue revenuegenerating activities such as electronic mail and parcel delivery.
The undersigned call on Parliament to instruct the Government to make improved service the highest priority of the Canada Post Corporation and to instruct the Government to abandon the policy of closing rural post offices and cancelling rural postal routes.


Stanley J. Hovdebo: Mr. Speaker, it is my honour and duty to present a petition on behalf of 40 petitioners from the community of Parson, B.C., who have particular concerns about the quality of service of the Post Office. They ask the House of Commons to try to improve service as well as change the policy of closing rural post offices and cancelling rural postal routes.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Mr. Doug Lewis (Parliamentary Secretary to Deputy Prime Minister and President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, 1 ask that all questions be allowed to stand.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Hon. Herb Gray (Windsor West):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 29 I ask leave to propose a motion to adjourn the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter requiring urgent consideration, namely, the discovery of information that the Government, despite assurances to the contrary, is, in the course of its free trade negotiations with the United States, including the likely dismemberment of the Canada-U.S. Auto Pact and has already agreed to drop our auto tariffs which are vital to the enforcement of the Canadian content provisions of the pact.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Windsor West has raised a matter which is, of course, of importance to all Members of the Chamber, as has been evidenced over a long period of time as the subject of some discussion in the Chamber. However, without minimizing to any degree the importance of the matter, the Chair feels that, at least for the moment, the application ought not to be granted. As I say, that is for the moment.



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 then 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
June 22, 1987
[Stage Direction]
recommendation on (a) and (b) above; such a bill shall be the object of a separate and distinct report of the special committee, and such a report shall be its final report;
That such bill, when reported from such special committee to the House, be deemed pursuant to Standing Order 107(1) to have been introduced and stand on the Order Paper, in the name of the special committee chairman, for first reading at the next sitting of the House; and that subsequent House stages of the bill be considered under "Government Orders", with the bill standing under the heading "Government Business", and that, when the said bill has been read a second time, it shall stand referred to a Legislative Committee;
That the Striking Committee be empowered to name the Members of the special committee, provide 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 from 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).
Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, after my speech last Friday, I was given an article published Tuesday, May 26, in the newspaper Le Soleil, of Quebec City. According to the Director of the Quebec City Police Force, we have to stop talking about the death penalty. Mr. Bergeron, who took part in the debate on the death penalty held yesterday by the Council of Churches for Justice and Criminology, said that the respect of human life is the main reason for opposing reinstatement of the death penalty. According to him, why should society itself commit the very same barbarian act it is condemning? He also said that an increasing number of senior police officers object to reinstatement of the death penalty.
[English)
Further to that, I wish to point out recent research which throws some light on the matter on which I have previously expressed great curiosity, that is, why there is so much insistence on the return of the death penalty. I have suggested that I think it is because of anger.
Capital Punishment
In this connection perhaps most people have noticed the study done recently by Professor Kenneth Avio of the University of Victoria which found that, all other things being equal, native Indians, Ukrainians and French Canadians, in that descending order, were more likely to be executed than English Canadians while the death penalty was in effect in Canada.
Beginning shortly after Confederation and until Parliament abolished capital punishment in 1976 all capital cases were referred to the federal Cabinet where a decision was made either to let the death sentence stand or to commute the sentence.
The results of Professor Avio's study indicate that cabinet decisions were not arbitrary but were influenced by the membership of the accused in particular ethnic groups. Nonwhite offenders who killed whites were more likely to be executed than other offenders. Native persons, Ukrainianspeaking Canadians of east European origin, French Canadians and Anglo-Canadians faced different risks of execution for similar crimes, in descending order. Native Canadians would be the highest risk and Anglo-Canadians would be the lowest risk. Of course, consideration of ethnicity when making a decision on execution is illegal. It was then; it is now. Yet, Cabinet appears to have been influenced, however unconsciously, by these ethnic factors.
[DOT] (U20)
Professor Avio also notes that the evidence of discrimination found here is at the cabinet level only. That is to say, it is in addition to any similar discrimination exercised at earlier stages of the criminal justice proceedings, including treatment by police and the courts.
A thoughtful article in today's The Globe and Mail describes the process of unconscious bias that may creep into the system to the disadvantage of the accused.
Professor Avio has also provided us with evidence of discrimination against ethnic minorities in Canada when the choice is being made at the Cabinet level whether or not to execute. Similar studies illustrate a similar discrimination in the United States against blacks.
I am concerned that if capital punishment were reintroduced in Canada the danger exists that we might continue to discriminate against ethnic minorities or some other identifiable group of Canadians, such as the non-wealthy or uneducated, in the same fashion. I ask whether there is any evidence that such discrimination is still at work in the Canadian justice system? While it is difficult to get a complete answer, there is reason to be concerned.
There is evidence here in our prisons. Currently, 12,122 people are serving time in federal prisons. Of these prisoners, 9.1 per cent-nearly one in ten-are members of the group we refer to as native Canadian, including Inuit, Metis, status or non-status Indian. Only one Canadian in 50 is a native

June 22, 1987
Capital Punishment
Canadian. What are we to assume from such over-representation in our prisons? Are we expected to believe that native Canadians are more prone to criminality than non-natives? Would one be justified in fearing that we have not yet rid our justice system of discrimination that has been so carefully documented by Professor Avio?
When native women are considered in isolation the discrepancy is much larger. Nearly 15 per cent of the women in the Kingston Prison for Women are native women, but only 2 per cent of Canadian women are native women. These women are over-represented in our prisons by a factor of over seven.
It is not only with native Canadians that such over-representation occurs in our prisons. Black Canadians are also overrepresented by a factor of over two for male and over three for females. In general, non-Caucasians are over-represented in Canadian federal prisons by a factor of at least two.
Again, what are we to assume from such facts? Are we to assume that Canadians who are non-Caucasian are more prone to criminal activity, or must we fear that somewhere in our system of justice an injustice is continuing to occur?
I am afraid that our Charter of Rights and Freedoms embodying as a fundamental principle that all people are of morally equal value is placed in some doubt by this de facto racial inequality in our prisons.
This seems to be the message that we have received recently from the Native Indian Brotherhood, the Assembly of First Nations, in a letter dated June 19, which states in part:
There is further evidence that First Nations citizens have been and are being punished by the Canadian State in disproportionate numbers and could be the most victims of a restored death penalty.
In our First Nations philosophies human life is held to be sacred, flowing as it does in common with all life from the Great Spirit, Creator of all life. Our forefathers traditionally practised a system of banishment rather than execution as the punishment for the grievous offence of wrongful killing. In our traditional philosophies the ultimate decision about the fate of human beings lies with the Great Spirit, Creator of all life.
Our debate today is specifically whether or not Canada should consider reinstating the death penalty. As I have stated, while there are no sufficient reasons to reintroduce this penalty, and many good reasons not to, the reason that concerns me in particular is this unconscious bias of the anger of our society directed against some of the weakest people in our society in the form of imprisonment now, and in the form of the death penalty in the past and in the future if it is restored.
In a sense, particularly at a distance, I believe it is easy to use capital punishment and to decide to kill. The job is quickly done. We can feel that we are doing something to preserve justice in our society, but we must ask ourselves whether that is true. In fact, would we be venting our anger, and even bringing in other angers that have nothing to do with the particular crime by executing people selectively, by executing someone unpopular and defenceless?
I want to share with the House the words of an American woman whose mother-in-law was murdered in 1972. She said:
From the night Penny was murdered until today, people have asked us why we did not feel the same anger and need to vengeance so many murder victims' families seem to feel. They imply that we are either saints or emotional freaks. We are neither. We did feel anger and horror and pain and an almost overwhelming sense of loss.
But perhaps our most intense feeling was a desperate need to understand "why?"-we wanted to know why there is so much violence among us, why we are so good at passing on violence and so poor at passing on love.
This woman's search to understand the why of violent crimes took her to death row where she worked with 200 death-sentenced prisoners. She said:
The details of their stories are different, but it is in the similarities that reasons are found. They are all poor. They are disproportionately made up of minorities. All but a few were abused, molested, neglected or institutionalized as children or youths. They turned to drugs and alcohol to numb the pain of their own brutal lives. More than half appear to be mentally ill to some degree.
In many cases their families sought help again and again.
They gave out clear signals that they were in trouble. They were society's throw-aways long before they murdered. We did not help them. They ended up committing murder, and now we will murder them back. It is an American way of death.
Those are the words of a loyal, sensitive American. I urge that we not let this become a Canadian way of death.
I also want to quote from a professor at Queen's University, Professor H. R. S. Ryan, who has studied criminal law and justice throughout his life. He considers the death penalty as a ritual sacrifice. He means that we as a society focus our anger and our fear on a few individuals, in the hope that their execution will provide us with an illusion of justice.
As he says:
The ritual execution of even a few of our most notorious killers gives the pacifying impression that something is being done, that we have struck back at those who threaten us, that the scales of justice have been balanced.
Professor Ryan's conclusion, with which I agree, is that it is not justice if we vent our anger selectively. If we execute because we are angry, and we choose to execute those who already have suffered and continue to suffer much discrimination in our society, can we really say that justice is being served? It is a strange kind of justice.
It is easy to execute people but it is not easy to teach ourselves why people kill, and how we are to address that fact.
Let me describe recent research that shows that throughout the world in ancient times, and even in modern times in some parts of the world, people had a system of sanctuary. It is reflected in the Mosaic Law in our Bible where there were the cities of refuge. A person could go there to negotiate with his pursuers or persecutors. This continued into the Middle Ages in Europe, with the church as a place of refuge. If there was a blood feud and someone killed another because that person had killed his brother, another relative would have to be killed and so on, to the point where it could escalate to a civil war. The city of refuge, or the church of refuge, was a way to let
June 22, 1987

things cool down so that people could negotiate some kind of resolution of the conflict.
Rather than returning to the blood feud, to the killing, I believe we should be looking for ways to resolve these conflicts, to rehabilitate even killers-it has been done-and to mend and heal the conflicts which erupt in killing in our society rather than trying to hide them by destroying one life at a time.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Questions or comments? Debate.


Mr. Geoff Wilson (Swift Current-Maple Creek):: Mr. Speaker, I speak today against the amendment and in favour of the principle of reinstatement of capital punishment. Many of my constituents have written requesting information both pro and con concerning this topic. It is interesting to note that there is a considerable amount of abolitionist material put out by a number of well-organized and well-funded groups. On the other hand, pro capital punishment material is difficult to find. The reason for that, I believe, is that, as in many other issues, there is a silent majority out there which is unorganized. As my constituent, Mrs. Ruth Lee Knight points out:
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.
In considering this matter I propose to deal with a number of the arguments against capital punishment in order to better explain my position. We are first told it is cheaper to keep murderers in prison than to execute them. Some have suggested that execution would save costs of prolonged incarceration while others say the threat of the death penalty would lead to endless appeals and legal manoeuvres which could cost even more. I would prefer to reject both approaches. 1 believe there is a matter of principle here about the value of human life and the validity and integrity of our justice system. I believe the question is one which is beyond monetary considerations.
The second argument put forward is that capital punishment is barbaric. Some abolitionist material tells very graphically of lingering death at the end of a rope, the faulty electric chair and of agony in the gas chamber. But no matter the method, it is clearly the death itself which opponents of capital punishment consider barbaric.
One does not have to like the death penalty in order to support it, anymore than one has to like radiation or radical surgery or chemotherapy in order to treat cancer. We are faced with letting the cancer spread or trying to cure it using the methods available today, methods which one day may be viewed as barbaric. In the context of capital punishment, the disease, of course, is injustice. We may not like the death penalty, but it must be available to punish the most heinous
Capital Punishment
crimes of murder, cases in which any other form of punishment would be inadequate and, therefore, unjust.
In this context I cannot help but think of the 11 individuals who have killed six or more times over the past 20 years in this country, those who would assassinate their political enemies on our soil or those who would place bombs in airplanes, thus intentionally taking hundreds of lives. If we create a society in which injustice is not tolerated, then incidents of murder, surely the most flagrant injustice of all, will diminish.
A third point put forward by those opposing the death penalty is that no other civilized country has it. Obviously, the laws of each country will differ according to conditions and traditions, but the fact is there are only 28 countries in the world which do not have capital punishment at all. These countries have less than 10 per cent of world population. The death penalty in fact is available in Ireland, Belgium, China, Japan, the United States and in 123 other countries for ordinary crimes and in another 18 countries, including Canada, under conditions of military law.
A fourth argument is that capital punishment cheapens the value of human life. Surely, for example, if the penalty for rape were lowered, it would signal a lessened regard for the victim's suffering and humiliation. It would cheapen their horrible experience and expose them to an increased danger of recurrence.
What does lowering the penalty for murder do? It displays a lessened regard for life, the victim's life. It is by exacting the highest penalty for the wanton and inexcusable taking of human life that the state reaffirms the highest value of life. I say that those who support the death penalty are no less human, no less compassionate, no less concerned and no less Christian than those who oppose it.
Another argument is that the death penalty somehow discriminates against the poor and disadvantaged. With the greatest respect, I do not believe this is so at all. We have in Canada a system of justice wherein all Canadians are entitled to counsel and to the full protection of the law. It is a system which is second to none.
A number of opponents of capital punishment put forward the Biblical admonition, "Thou shalt not kill". Others translate that as "Thou shalt not murder". In this debate it seems, and I say this with the utmost respect, that the problem with a number of the Biblical points of view is that the passages taken from scripture are often pulled out of context. I have received many letters and representations from constituents and others quoting scripture, some offered in support of abolition and just as many offered in support of reinstatement. Many of the great philosophers including Kant, Locke, Hobbes, Rousseau, Montesque and Mill, agreed that natural law properly authorized a sovereign to take life in order to vindicate justice. Indeed, the Constitution of the United States, which is widely admired as a model, condemns cruel and inhuman punishment, but does not condemn capital punishment.

June 22, 1987
Capital Punishment
I think it is important at this stage to point out that the rights and duties of the state are different from those of the individual. Jack McIntosh, a Member of Parliament for Swift Current-Maple Creek in the 1966 debate, said:
We have one duty as individuals and because we are Members of Parliament we have another duty so far as the state and its laws are concerned for we are members of that state. If such an interpretation is not correct, than in my view there is no Christian justification for pride in being a member of the Armed Service and no Christian justification for asking anyone to join the Armed Services.
As an individual you cannot kill, but if you are a member of the Armed Forces of the Government, you must repel an aggressor.
Another popular argument is that the death penalty is nothing more than state sanctioned murder. To say that the state should not under any circumstances have the right to kill is simply nonsense. The state has a duty to protect its citizens from threats and violence, externally and internally. Every November 11 we honour the hundreds of thousands of Canadian men and women who served in three wars and who gave so much that we might enjoy the freedoms of today. Some of them killed the enemy in order that we might be free to assemble and debate in this House. Their actions, far from cheapening the value of life, strengthened it. Those who killed did so as instruments and representatives of the state. Their actions were justifiable because they were done as part of, and on behalf of the Armed Forces of Canada in time of war. They did not murder, they killed, and there is a difference.
There is a duty on the state to protect its citizens against the enemy in peacetime as well as in war, whether through defence expenditures to provide a deterrent against would be aggressors, or through the kind of justice system which provides the appropriate penalties to punish those who offend against society by breaking its laws.
The murderer who says "You are no better than I am", seeks to bring law abiding society down to his level. This is a false argument. Clearly the state has rights the individual citizen does not. In a democracy, these rights are given to the state by the electorate. The execution of a lawfully condemned killer is no more an act of murder than is legal imprisonment an act of kidnapping. If an individual forces his neighbour to pay money under threat of punishment, that is extortion. If the state does it, that is taxation. The rights and responsibilities surrendered by the individual are what gives the state its power to govern. This contract constitutes the very foundation of civilization itself.
Some say the death penalty creates an atmosphere which breeds violence. It appears that not everyone wants the responsibilities, especially the difficult ones which come with law enforcement.
Back in the early 1960s a woman was assaulted and murdered on a New York street. Bystanders looked the other way. The neighbours who heard her cries for help did nothing. They did not even call the police. In such a climate, surely, the
criminal must inevitably grow bolder. In the words of Ed Koch, the Mayor of New York City:
The death of anyone-even a convicted murderer-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.
Abolitionists also suggest that capital punishment brings out the negative side of humanity-bloodthirstiness, vengeance and so on. With respect, this says to me that our society is indicating more concern for the murderer than for the victim. I question this dismissal of the victim with a shrug saying that he or she cannot be brought back to life and therefore let us help the murderer, let us rehabilitate him.
Protection of the criminal appears to become the primary objective of punishment. The rights of the victim have been forgotten. Surely, our society must first provide resources for the victims of crime. The state must get its priorities in order. It is wrong, it is indefensible, it is irresponsible to endanger the lives of law-abiding Canadians by sparing a homicidal sex offender with a previous record of murder.
If we have priorities in Canada I would place the rehabilitation of murderers way down the list. A much more positive approach would involve the reform of our corrections and parole system, a system under which over the past 10 years 95 inmates released under mandatory supervision committed homicide, a system wherein 37 inmates on parole committed murder.
In this context I welcome the remarks made earlier in the debate by my colleague, the Hon. Member for Ottawa West (Mr. Daubney), whose Justice Committee will be looking at the parole system. I urge him to tighten up bail procedures and all forms of early release for violent offenders.
Again, I quote Mrs. Lee-Knight who said:
But if common sense prevails the innocent will have a better chance.
If a "life" sentence becomes "Actual Life" and-or if the death penalty is reinstated so judges have some scope of sentencing to choose from, then your life may be spared, your daughter has a better chance of living, your friends and relatives could feel safer. A lot of good it will do to society if you are murdered before you've had a long enough life to establish the Utopia you concentrate on so single mindedly.
Opponents of the death penalty say that an innocent person might be executed by mistake. Our system of criminal justice has evolved over hundreds of years. It is a system which provides every safeguard to an accused, one under which I would consider execution of an innocent person to be virtually an impossibility. Indeed, Adam Bedau, one of the most resolute opponents of capital punishment in the United States, said:
June 22, 1987

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.
But the main point is this. If government functioned only where the possibility of error did not exist, then government would not function at all. I am prepared to accept that risk, especially when I weigh it against the sure knowledge that some murderers murder again.
The other side of this innocent person argument is the repeat killer situation. While we know of no cases in this country where an innocent person has been executed, we know for certain that there are numerous cases wherein convicted murderers have, upon release or while on parole, murdered again. Human life deserves special protection. One of the best ways to guarantee that protection is to ensure that convicted murderers do not murder again. It can be argued that only the death penalty will accomplish this end.
Another point put forward by abolitionists is that capital punishment is not a deterrent. Obviously, many statistics have been put forward by both sides, and they are viewed as conclusive or insufficient, depending on the viewpoint of the presenter or the viewer. How could one ever measure the numbers of those in our society who have contemplated taking someone else's life for whatever reason? Some hopefully discard the idea as a result of realizing its repugnancy. Nevertheless, there must still be some in our society who are deterred by the consequences of imprisonment. I suggest there are still others who do that dreadful act but who, were they to face the ultimate penalty of death, might not.
Common sense tells me that there is an incremental group who are deterred. We are not here talking about a crime of passion done on the sudden, under provocation, or where the person is mentally imbalanced or is swayed by alcohol or drugs. Those are circumstances, of course, which result in a lesser offence. We are talking about a considered, deliberate, conscious act. I believe the penalties prescribed in the Criminal Code concerning, say, impaired driving or theft, do act as deterrents. I likewise believe that the penalty of execution is a deterrent for some.
Statistics can be paraded out ad nauseam. But the deterrence issue boils down to a personal belief. Either you believe in your heart or in your guts that capital punishment is a deterrent or you do not. My sense tells me that it is, that it has to be deterrent to some would-be murderers.
If we could assume that everyone committing murder were of unsound mind and lacked the required intent, then our decision would be easy. But despite all the rules of law providing defences, the mitigating circumstances of alcohol, drugs, provocation and so on, there are still those who, after every safeguard provided by our system of justice, are found guilty beyond any reasonable doubt, by a jury, of intentionally taking the life of another person. Some of those murderers may be worthy of mercy with a provision of imprisonment. But I submit that there are some acts of murder, some acts toward civilized society that must carry with them the maximum
Capital Punishment
penalty. These may be situations of mass murder, hijacking, terrorism, air piracy, or hired killing. These must be situations of cold-blooded, premeditated murder proven beyond any reasonable doubt in the absence of any extenuating circumstances. Where there are no redeeming circumstances at all, I believe the state should make provision for the death penalty.
Surely, the circumstances of a Clifford Olson, who murdered 11 young people, the Air India bombers who cost over 300 lives, or the Hindawi human bomb case in England, had it been successful, are crimes so dastardly and so inhuman as to be deserving of the ultimate penalty. I believe that no system of justice is complete unless it contains the ultimate penalty for the ultimate crime. The failure to provide capital punishment for premeditated murder causes sentencing for all other crimes to be reduced. This in turn leads to diminished respect for the law, a lack of respect which must be evident to all Canadians.
In conclusion, this is clearly an issue on which there are significant numbers of thoughtful and deeply moral people who disagree fundamentally with each other, who disagree as to the means to achieve a less violent society, a society in which law-abiding Canadians can feel secure. At my nomination in 1983, and in the campaign of 1984,1 pledged to support the reinstatement of capital punishment and the reform of the parole system. After hearing and earnestly considering the submissions, the expressions of deeply-held belief put to me by constituents and others on both sides of this issue, I remain convinced that our society provides the accused murderer with every safeguard that he has denied his victim. Should that accused be proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt, then 1 believe the state should provide the death penalty as a sentencing option.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Are there questions or comments? The Hon. Member for Willowdale (Mr. Oostrom).


Mr. Oostrom:: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that the Hon. Member for Swift Current-Maple Creek (Mr. Wilson) so eloquently expressed the opinion of the majority of Canadians, including myself, and the majority of constituents of Willow-dale who support a death penalty for premeditated murder. I may not be able to speak on this important topic at this stage of the debate due to time constraints. However, I would like to ask the Hon. Member why there are so many-I believe he said 123-countries in the world which still have the death penalty enforced by law. I would like to know more about that specific aspect.


Mr. Blackburn (Brant):: Sure, all of those great shiny examples of public morality, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan-


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for Brant (Mr. Blackburn) is busily quoting a number of socialist countries which retain the death penalty. I am not sure what his point is.

June 22, 1987
Capital Punishment
In answer to the Hon. Member's question, my concern is that many speakers in this debate have put forward the notion that because certain other countries do not have the death penalty, that they are somehow more civilized and in some way have a better system of justice than those countries which have retained the death penalty for certain crimes.
I simply want to point out, as 1 did earlier, that according to Amnesty International there are 28 countries which do not provide for the death penalty for any crimes at all, with another 18 countries which have the death penalty under conditions of military law, and another 129 countries which carry the death penalty for ordinary crimes.
I note that among the 28 countries which do not have the death penalty under any circumstance are countries such as Costa Rica, the Dominican Republic, Nicaragua, Panama, Kiribati, Tuvalu, and Vanuatu. So we have here a number of interesting countries-


Mr. Gauthier:: England, France-


Geoff Wilson: I can draw no conclusion from it other than that there clearly is a sovereign power in each of these countries and they will pass their laws in accordance with the circumstances of their respective societies.
1 believe that in Canada, as in many other countries, we have a problem with violent crime, and I do not think that the answer to dealing with violent crime is to take the easy way out, to turn our backs on it. I believe we have to have a system of justice which carries a suitable punishment for the most heinous crime, and it is for that reason that I reject the argument about other countries, whether pro or con, and suggest that in this country, we should have the option of capital punishment under some circumstances.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Cassidy), on a question or comment.


Mr. Cassidy:: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments of the Hon. Member, although I disagree fundamentally with him.
He has said that the "silent majority" is in favour of the death penalty. However, the most recent polling by Decima Research, a firm which is well known to his Party, indicates that the number supporting or leaning toward capital punishment has now fallen to 61 per cent, and it has been falling steadily through the course of this debate. Of those, 37 per cent said that they were convinced about the death penalty, and 24 per cent said that they were only leaning toward that view.
We in Parliament, Mr. Speaker, have to make tough decisions, difficult decisions on matters on which the public may have some views. 1 think it is significant that as we get closer to a decision on this matter, the public support for the death penalty is wavering, and certainly the intensity of opposition to its reinstatement is strengthening. In my
constituency, the mail is running 12 to 1 against the death penalty and for continued abolition.
The Hon. Member has cited the scriptures. Perhaps he could explain to the House why it is that every major church denomination in this country has come out against capital punishment. These are not government-financed bodies; rather, they are the Catholics, the Anglicans, the Jews, the Quakers, the Baptist Conference, and the list goes on. Why is it that all of the major churches, which provide leadership for Canadians on matters of conscience, are asking Parliament, in the strongest possible terms, not to reinstate the death penalty? I think we should listen very carefully to the leadership which is coming from the churches, and the unanimity with which it is coming. They are the people who do interpret the scriptures in their work, in their preaching, and they say, "Do not do it."
Should we, as parliamentarians, not give very careful consideration to that advice on a matter of conscience, given that it is advice coming from those who are charged with issues of conscience in our society?


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Hon. Member for his intervention. Certainly, I agree with him that this is a tough decision, and a difficult one.
1 have heard a number of speakers in this debate suggest that we ought not to have reference to the polls and what they may say today in regard to this matter.
In my speech, 1 carefully resisted referring to the polling information or, indeed, to the feelings of my constituents, because I understand that this is a matter of individual conscience for Members of Parliament.
However, 1 will say that I perceive that a clear majority of the constituents of Swift Current-Maple Creek have indicated to me that they favour the restoration of the death penalty, and 1 have certainly listened to those representations in arriving at my decision.
1 note the Hon. Member's remarks about his mail. While that may be so, I must say that my mail at this point is running about 50-50-and I do not find that surprising, given the tremendous amount of organized agitation in favour of the retention of the abolitionist position.
There are a number of groups who are very well organized, and I am not being critical of them in any way. They have their point to make, and they are out there working very strongly toward achieving it.
As I said earlier, there is no organized movement for the restoration of capital punishment, though it is clearly a view that the majority of Canadians hold.
The final point raised by the Hon. Member related to the position of the clergy and the organized churches of the country on this issue. Again, I respect their viewpoints. Clearly, we have heard what they have had to say. It is my
June 22, 1987

opinion, however, that the view expressed does not represent the opinion of the members of the respective churches. I hear various church groups putting forward opinions on free trade and other economic matters, and while I listen to those opinions, 1 do not take them as gospel, if I may put it that way.
Quite frankly, Mr. Speaker, I listen attentively to the church groups, to the Bishops; but, I pay attention to my constituents.


Mr. Rossi:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


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


Carlo Rossi: Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, each time a Conservative Member speaks for twenty minutes, the Chair recognizes members of the same party during the period for questions and comments. According to our customs, the Opposition should also have the opportunity to express its views. I am sorry, but I have noticed this on many occasions, even though the Chair may deny it. This does happen!


Michael Morris Cassidy: I am not a Conservative.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I am alternating on the basis of a Progressive Conservative, NDP, Progressive Conservative-and if the Hon. Member wishes to wait, he will get his turn, too.


Mr. Ferland:: Mr. Speaker, as I shall be speaking myself this morning about capital punishment, I shall be happy to let my colleague for Bourassa (Mr. Rossi) ask questions in my place. Go ahead!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The Hon. Member for Swift Current-Maple Creek (Mr. Wilson).


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I would certainly be pleased to respond to any question the Hon. Member for Bourassa (Mr. Rossi) has. 1 think we should-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order. I recognized the Hon. Member for Willowdale (Mr. Oostrom) first, as he was the first to indicate that he wished to put a question. 1 then recognized the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Cassidy), following which I was willing to recognize the Hon. Member for Portneuf (Mr. Ferland) and then the Hon. Member for Bourassa (Mr. Rossi).
I think the Chair has been very fair, and I would ask that we get on with the debate.
If the Hon. Member for Portneuf has a question or comment, he may proceed, and following his intervention, I shall recognize the Hon. Member for Bourassa.
Capital Punishment


Marc Ferland: Mr. Speaker, I shall be very brief. My colleague for Swift Current-Maple Creek (Mr. Wilson) said in his speech that the state has the right to take away the life of an individual who has himself taken another life and had been found guilty of that crime. He also said that the abolitionists are much more concerned with the criminals than with the victim. First, as the state does not give life, I do not see why it should be able to take it away. Second, I would like him to explain to me how this can help the victim come back to life. After being killed, the victim is also dead. I do not think that killing someone else will bring the victim back to life. I would like the Hon. Member to go a bit further and provide weightier arguments as he has failed to convince me.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The Hon. Member for Swift Current-Maple Creek (Mr. Wilson).


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I think the best way to respond to the question by the Hon. Member for Portneuf (Mr. Ferland) is to quote again Mrs. Lee-Knight who has suffered this sort of experience. She says:
Such thinking apparently does not take into account those lives of victims that are being lept over. The victims are gone and cannot speak-easy to leap over them even piled as high as they are. The majority of families of victims are too heartsick to place themselves in an even more vulnerable position than they already are in by going public. The daily encounter, heartbreaking reminders as it is-they are subjected to cruel unthinking remarks-they have to keep trying to live and they are weakened and ineffective with the constant pain and continual trying. It's easy to leap over their heads, just disregard them and get on with idealistic (though not realistic) propaganda. They won't get in the way. Eventually abolitionists will convince themselves they-
She is referring to the victims, and continues:
-aren't real-don't really exist-not in their town, not in their neighbourhood.


Carlo Rossi: Mr. Speaker, I was very glad to hear the Hon. Member say at the end of his speech-

"When I was elected to Parliament my first promise was to work on the reform of the penitentiary system and on capital punishment".

Here is my first question: Why does he not get seriously to work to develop a better penal system? Having been myself, as many Hon. Members will probably know, a lieutenant-detective in the armed robbery and homicide division in Montreal for thirty-one years, 1 can honestly say that his first suggestion that we apply our penal code to the letter would perhaps be a better solution than his second suggestion that we reinstate capital punishment. He may have promised to support reinstatement of the death penalty, but 1 would strongly advise that we first improve our penal system, because

June 22, 1987
Capital Punishment
I can tell the Hon. Member that many criminals who are arrested after one, two or three hold-ups may receive sentences of ten years of imprisonment, but are often out on the streets after two or three years.
What happens then? When they get out after two or three years, they are told that if they are caught committing another hold-up, they will finish their ten-year sentence and receive an additional sentence of perhaps eight or ten years. The criminal therefore sees to it that, if he commits another hold-up, he will not get caught. What is the result of this comedy? It can lead to murder.
As the Hon. Member said, Mr. Speaker, the first thing should be to reform our penal system. He was also right when he said that we are all human beings and that those who are in favour of the death penalty are not any less so than those who are against it. As for me, Mr. Speaker, I started off by being in favour of the death penalty, but it is very easy outside this place to say that you are for or against the death penalty. However, when you are elected to this place and you have to vote and say: Yes, I support the death penalty in this beautiful country of Canada, I want us to hire executioners to kill other human beings . . .
I am therefore asking the Hon. Member: Should we not improve our penal system first? As we are all human beings, if you were asked tomorrow to serve as executioner, would you do it?


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, when 1 rose earlier I simply wanted to make the point to the Hon. Member for Bourassa that I thought this was a nonpartisan, non-party issue and therefore it would obviously be up to Mr. Speaker to choose individual Members in terms of questioning, not with a view to switching back and forth from one Party to another. I think that is really the essence of this debate.
The Hon. Member suggested that capital punishment was the number one item on my agenda back in the campaign. That is certainly not so, far from it. My basic interest was to try to get the economy of the country working again. Indeed, that is what the Government has been trying to do.
There was a commitment to air the matter of capital punishment. A great many other items had to come ahead of it. It is now finally being given its expression, and I think it is an important fulfilment of a commitment.
1 appreciate where the Hon. Member is coming from on the matter. I did, in my remarks, refer to the Standing Committee on Justice and Solicitor General, under the chairmanship of my colleague, the Hon. Member for Ottawa West, which I understand will be undertaking a review of the parole and release system. I think that it is a very important initiative.
In the meantime, I also believe that the return of capital punishment for certain circumstances is necessary in order to
beef up our system of justice and in order that law-abiding Canadian citizens may feel free to walk the streets of the country in safety.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Questions and comments are now terminated. Before recognizing the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier), 1 believe there is a point of order from the Hon. Member for Victoria (Mr. McKinnon).


Mr. McKinnon:: Mr. Speaker, my point of order has to do with the tabling of petitions again. This morning the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Keeper) tabled a petition which he stated quite clearly contained several thousand names. He may have wished that it contained several thousand names, and they certainly went to a lot of effort to collect these across the country. The petitions all have at the bottom "please return postage free to" and it names the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North Centre, NDP Postal Critic, House of Commons, Ottawa.
Instead of several thousand names, there are 607 names. I wonder how long we have to put up with this distortion, this exaggeration, to try to make the case which they do not have, to try to make the people watching think that there are many thousand or several thousand signatures when in fact the best effort they could come up with was 607.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The Hon. Member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Keeper).


Cyril Keeper: Mr. Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to reply to my hon. colleague. I want to make it clear to him that I still have another stack sitting on my desk which I did not have enough time to sign this morning and which I will sign and table-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: This is debate-


Cyril Keeper: Allow me-you allowed him, Mr. Speaker-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: This is debate, and it has no place at this time. The Hon. Member for Ottawa- Vanier-


Cyril Keeper: A point of order, Mr. Speaker, you allowed him to get away with it; when it comes to the Opposition, you sit down.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I have already listened to the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North Centre-


Cyril Keeper: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I have listened to the Hon. Member for Victoria. I don't consider it to be a point of order, and I do not consider yours to be a point of order. On debate, the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier-


Cyril Keeper: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker-
June 22, 1987


Some Hon. Members:: Sit down.


Cyril Keeper: A point of order, Mr. Speaker; I have a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You are favouring the Government, Mr. Speaker-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Cyril Keeper: You can't even hear the Opposition.


Miss MacDonald:: You ought to be ashamed of yourself. [Translation]


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker,
I am sorry we had this outburst. I will try to resume debate where we left off.
Mr. Speaker, first of all, I want to make it clear that I consider the death penalty is useless, and I will try to prove this in the few minutes at my disposal.
Like any good citizen, I think murder is a horrible thing. I am emphatically against crime as such, but especially against murder.
Of all criminal offences, murder is the very worst. It is the ultimate crime against the individual. It deprives the individual of everything he has. It is the ultimate act of aggression. Murder is reprehensible in every way, both in moral and religious terms, both in the way it affects society and the way it affects the individual.
It is our duty and the duty of government authorities to use every means necessary to fight murder and to prevent it. As a society and as legislators, we have a moral obligation to strive for a better judicial system, a better corrections system, a better life and a better society, and we hope, Mr. Speaker, to be able to put an end to these heinous and anti-social crimes. We hope to put an end to the unnatural act of murder.
Mr. Speaker, politicians are not often given a chance to decide on issues that are so clear-cut. More often, they are asked to judge situations where grey areas prevail, where there are pros and cons, where there are several ways of looking at things, and where politics play a role.
In the question before the House today, which is capital punishment, there are no grey areas. There is only black or white. One is for or one is against capital punishment. Just like abortion, where one is either for or against. These are two moral issues that we politicians have to deal with. We have been asked to deal with them as individuals, to deal with them according to our own judgment and our own conscience, and that is what I intend to do.
Mr. Speaker, we debated this question in 1976. We made our case at the time, and capital punishment was abolished in this country. Today, it is up to the proponents of capital punishment, to those who truly believe that this measure can be restored and re-instated, to make their case. They not only have an obligation to do so, they will have to provide arguments that justify a return to capital punishment.
Capital Punishment
Mr. Speaker, it is not enough to say we are for or against. We must provide arguments to support our stand. And that is why, in the few minutes remaining, I want to try and argue my case. I may not do so very convincingly, at least not convincingly enough to persuade the hardliners. However, these are my personal convictions, born of my own experience, and I stand by those convictions.
Mr. Speaker, in 1976 1 voted against capital punishment, after a long period of reflection. The debate was a very difficult one. It was a very long debate, and public opinion in Canada was very much divided on the issue.
Today I just signed about thirty letters in reply to letters I received from my constituents, most of whom said: We do not want a return to capital punishment. However, there are still people who argue in favour of capital punishment. And they get an answer. I respect their opinions, but I tell them: I am sorry but we have a representative, democracy not a poll or push-button democracy with, in every Canadian home, one button "for" and one button "against", one black and one white. Canada's 282 elected representatives have been asked to vote according to their own enlightened judgment, after examining the issues, and as representatives of their ridings. And that is what I intend to do. And that is what I think all Members should do.
This morning, some people told me: Your vote should reflect the will of your constituents. Mr. Speaker, I can hardly vote so as to reflect the will of my constituents, because they are probably divided 50-50 on the issue. So 1 will do what I was elected to do. I will vote according to my own judgment, and I hope that those who do not share my views will realize that they are genuine and that 1 hold them because I have thought and read a lot about this question and have frequently discussed the issue in my riding.
And I know that young people-for instance, in schools I visited again recently-express views which differ from those we hear in senior citizens' homes. One factor is security. Older Canadians are more worried, so more of them would like to reinstate capital punishment. Nearly eight out of ten among young people are opposed to the death penalty. Indeed views differ from one generation to the next, and this is good because it goes to show that people are beginning to think about, reflect upon and read up on the issue, and this is important.
Mr. Speaker, let us deal with the arguments. My decision is prompted by a number of reasons and I will try to explain some of them. In light of representations which have been made, I happen to know for example that quite a few people do not share my opinion with respect to the deterrent impact of capital punishment. The argument we hear is that the death penalty is a deterrent since the fact that a murderer has been executed is bound to discourage others from committing the same crime. One only needs to read an article published recently in the daily newspaper La Presse which sums up the

June 22, 1987
Capital Punishment
argument of Quebec's Association professionnelle des crimino-logues, and 1 quote word for word: "Death penalty proponents maintain that it has a deterrent effect, but the facts do not substantiate this statement. Five factors really contribute to effective deterrence: punishment severity, certainty, publicity, swiftness and frequency. Facts demonstrate that only the first criterion-" meaning the severity of the punishment-"relates to the death penalty. The certainty of capital punishment is more than dubious. Execution is carried out behind closed doors. It takes a very long time before it is applied-" I will get back to that-and it is ever less frequent. Therefore capital punishment has no deterrent effect."
I agree, Mr. Speaker. Capital punishment has no deterrent effect. For some people the death penalty is a case of conscience. Personally, for moral reasons and after lengthy reflection, it was in my soul and conscience that I arrived at a judgment. 1 have a sacred respect for every form of life and, for moral reasons, for personal moral reasons, I cannot condone the act of killing either by the state of by individuals. Of course there are circumstantial exceptions: legitimate defence by the state in case of war, or individual self-defence, the only two exceptions 1 can see which might warrant killing.
Given these premises, my judgment does not rest only on a moral question but also on a number of rational arguments. For one thing, there is the basic philosophy underlying this debate. Since time immemorial humankind has been seeking to achieve what we call civilization. As it happens, one of the characteristic feature of progress made by our societies in their evolution is the progressive repudiation of violence. 1 remember the debate when the Hon. Gerard Pelletier said, and I quote: "For ever indeed the road to civilization has been charted by the gradual refusal to kill one's fellow human being."
Mr. Speaker, history tells us that from the primitive society-where the old and the sick were killed, where the master had the right of life or death over his slave-to the most enlightened societies, there has been ever diminishing recourse to execution. For example, only 150 years ago people in England were still hanged for such minor infractions as shoplifting, a punishment which nobody would accept these days. This movement towards the abolition of capital punishe-ment in contemporary societies is historic and unavoidable. This is why I sincerely deplore that a country as civilized as ours should revive this debate on an issue which, I suggest, was put to rest in 1976.
I understand the reasons and concerns that may have led some people to urge the Prime Minister to do such a thing. There is widespread coverage of murders taking place in Canada in the media, both in the newspapers and on television, so that people are aware of such atrocities. However, violence has now become commonplace on T.V. In fact, a child can see more violent crimes including murders, slayings and others by just watching televison for a few days than someone else will
ever see in a whole lifetime. I tried 10 or 12 years ago to table in the House a bill that would have helped parents choose the type of programs that their children could watch by warning them when programs might have a harmful mental impact on children. However, that bill was not passed because, they said, it meant moral direction, and they did not want that. Yet, Mr. Speaker, I believe that enlightened parents should control those programs which display violence and sometimes feature a society in which mutual relationships are positively atrocious. Children watch those programs and no one is concerned. I believe it is a very sad situation.
As they watch that display of violence, people get increasingly concerned and tend to conclude that the crime rate is also on the rise. Indeed, it was shown in a 1982 Gallup poll that those television programs largely accounted for the fact that the people overestimate the phenomenon of violence by a wide margin. According to that poll, 75 percent of the people interviewed believed than more than 50 percent of criminal actions involve violence, whereas the real percentage is only 8 percent. Moreover, two people out of three in Canada believe that the number of murders has increased since 1976, whereas it has in fact remained relatively stable.
People are also very misinformed on the circumstances of murders, in spite of vociferous media coverage. For instance, very few people know that three out of four people who are murdered get killed by someone they know: a relative, a neighbour, a friend. We should have told people the real facts instead of stirring up passions that had cooled down since 1976. For instance, according to the official legal statistics of Statistics Canada, in 1976, the number of manslaughters had gone down by 20 percent, from 704 in 1985 to 561 in 1986. Since 1986, when capital punishment was abolished, the number of manslaughters has remained fairly constant, at around 650 per year. 1 grant that it is a lot and it is too much. That is why our prison system will have to be changed. Our parole system will have to be much more stringent and controlled. I wish to insist, Mr. Speaker, that those are 650 murders are too many. 1 do not think the restoration of capital punishment has any influence over those figures. The argument of capital punishment as a deterrent against crime which 1 heard earlier is difficult to defend logically, if one looks at statistics and reflects upon the various kinds of murders.
Mr. Speaker, on the statistics side, between 1962 and 1976, at a time the dealth penalty existed, we saw the number of murders increase constantly, from 265 in 1962 to 701 in 1975. The death penalty was abolished in 1976. Since then, the number of homicides declined from 701 in 1975, the year before abolition, to 561 in 1986, and as I said earlier, it is holding at a more or less constant level. Were capital punishment the deterrent it is said to be, we should have witnessed the opposite trend, that is to say that since murderers could be executed for their crimes before 1976 and if the deterrent effect worked, then the number of crimes should have increased or at least remained constant. That has not been the
June 22, 1987

case. After 1976, since murderers no longer had to fear for their life, we could have expected a rise in crimes. That did not occur. Some might say those statistics are questionable. There is undoubtedly another logical way of refuting the argument that the death penalty is a deterrent. Let us examine for a moment the various types of crimes that are divided into three categories. First, there are crimes of passion. They account for fifty per cent of the crimes committed in Canada. Those are crimes committed in a state of anger and, by definition, not premeditated by their authors. Therefore, the deterrent effect cannot act in that case.
Then, there are murders committed by the mob, which can be said to have a form of death penalty for settling accounts. Who hasn't heard of bloody wars between rival factions fighting for territories, criminal activities? So, even though mobsters can be killed as reprisals by opposing factions, this does not prevent them from killing. Therefore, the deterrent effect does not come into play in those cases and would not either if the State intervened.
Finally, in the remaining cases where individuals commit sordid crimes, the majority of those crimes are committed by individuals with very acute personality problems. Therefore, if the individual is not fit for trial, it must be concluded that the deterrent effect does not apply, or again if the murderer suffers from mental illness, he cannot be convicted for his crime. Therefore, capital punishment again is useless.
Some would say that capital punishment must be reinstated for second-time offenders, people who have already been convicted and who, after being paroled or simply having done their time, commit a crime when they get out of prison. On the other hand, it must be noted that, according to statistics from the Professional Association of Criminologists, and I quote:
Second offences (new murders) are very few in numbers when the individuals involved are paroled-less than six cases since 1963.
According to other sources, there would be 22 such cases. Whatever statistics we look at, I agree that if it be 22 cases, this is 22 cases too many, but in my view, drawing attention to the second offence problem is sidetracking the debate to important but secondary considerations. Those subsequent offence cases cannot be construed as pleas in favour of reinstating capital punishment, but rather as eloquent pleas in favour of a reshaping of our penal and judicial system, including parole. Because finally, Mr. Speaker, even if we had capital punishment, it remains that the major losers in that are the victims' families. And I find it deplorable that this House spends so much time debating the reinstatement of capital punishment, when we should have used all that time to try and find solutions to compensate relatives and victims of crimes.
Those victims need help, both financial and psychological, or just consolation. We should direct our action to them. And we would do much better by finding a solution for those people than by simply attempting to avenge them.
Indeed, on May 28, 1987, it was reported in the media that the federal and provincial Governments supported the
Capital Punishment
establishment of a system allowing victims of criminal acts to get compensation from their aggressors. The Minister of Justice (Mr. Hnatyshyn) announced that discussions were well-advanced with his provincial counterparts for the setting up of a system that would force convicted criminals to pay a fine into a fund for compensating their victims. I commend the Minister for that initiative. This is something productive, constructive.
Such retaliatory measures as taking away from criminals their unlawfully acquired monies, either in the drug trade or otherwise, to give them to the victims seems to me to be much more progressive and civilized than the cruel and barbaric gesture of ordering the death of a human being. We advocate the indemnification and compensation of the victim rather than retribution.
Retribution, Mr. Speaker, is the other argument frequently heard to justify the reinstatement of the death penalty. However, I will not insist on that argument because I do not find it valid.
Retribution, the law of retaliation, is a sociological and judicial concept which is outdated in our civilized societies. Its logic is questionable and I think unjustifiable. Because someone strikes somebody else with a stick does not mean we should strike back likewise.
Other advocates of the death penalty, Mr. Speaker, base their case on economic grounds. I have heard that argument in my constituency. To keep prisoners in jail is costly. It is true that it is very costly. The detention of an inmate is a heavy burden for the State. Indeed, it represents about $110 per inmate per day in federal prisons and an average of about $85 in provincial jails. Admittedly, that is a lot of money. However, the death penalty will not change that. Indeed, to reduce the financial burden, all murderers would have to be put to death, that is some 650 per year. It is absolutely impossible to empty a jail and put all inmates to death. However, the legal proceedings which could extend the numerous appeals before the courts could be even more costly than imprisonment.
Moreover, I wrote on March 25 last to the Minister of Justice to try to obtain some statistics on the costs of legal proceedings leading to the death sentence. The Minister indicated in his reply that the relevant information was not available and had never been collected.
What we can do is estimate these costs by looking at those in the United States. A study which appeared in the October 15, 1986 issue of the Wall Street Journal established the costs of a trial ending in a death sentence at $4.5 million in California and $7.3 million in New York State. To institute proceedings and reach a conviction for murder. It could be argued, therefore, that it would be more expensive to obtain an execution, but I will not rely on this type of argument, Mr. Speaker. I wish to put forward other information.

June 22, 1987
Capital Punishment
On top of the economic arguments, a recent study recently showed that if the death penalty had existed these past few years in most Canadian provinces, at least one juror would have changed his or her verdict so as not to feel responsible for the accused being sentenced to death. As jury unanimity is required in this type of trials, this means that the accused would have been either sentenced to a lesser penalty, or acquitted or sent to a new trial. In any event, this means that the death penalty would have had the opposite effect, the murderer being released earlier than otherwise, and the whole exercise costing a lot more.
But there is another economic consideration, Mr. Speaker, and the most important at that. I have just mentioned the legal proceedings which are long and expensive. In view of this phenomenon and the clogging of the courts, a new process has developed, the so-called plea bargaining, which results in reduced sentences. Here is how it works, Mr. Speaker. In view of possible contestations, a Crown prosecutor will suggest to the Counsel for the defence to reduce the charge. For instance, by reducing the charge from first degree murder to second degree murder, on condition that the defence will not contest it during the proceedings. The result is that murderers can end up back on the street rather than in prison.
The instatement of the death penalty would not in any way change anything to this situation. In fact, the situation could be even worse, for there would be more proceedings involved. The frequency of plea bargaining would increase. But this plea bargaining system can work only if the accused has the ability to pay. If he is poor and destitute, I doubt really that a Crown prosecutor would suggest plea bargaining. Knowing that the client cannot pay, chances are that proceedings will end rather quickly. When the accused is poor, it goes very quickly and most of the time, he is found guilty.
Murderers are not all equal when faced with the death penalty, Mr. Speaker. There are those who can afford good lawyers and those who cannot. Unfortunately, society will treat them differently. The have-nots are penalized more heavily, as demonstrated by the U.S. statistics which I have examined. In the United States, out of 1,874 prisoners on death row, there are now 944 whites and 777 blacks, representing 50 percent and 41 percent respectively, while blacks represent only 12 percent of the population as a whole, Mr. Speaker. The have-nots and the poor are those who are affected most. Of course, the remaining 9 per cent are made up of minorities Hispanic or Puerto Rican minorities. Such minorities are heavily victimized by this plea bargaining system.
For all those reasons, I am against the death penalty. 1 admit that a problem exists, for the number of homicides is much too high. The solution can only be found through a thorough review of our judicial system, an economic impact review so as to reduce social inequalities and injustices. We need also to enhance our formal and vocational training systems, as well as adopt anti-poverty social measures. Let us not accept the institutionalization of the cruel, barbarous and unacceptable act that the death penalty is. If killing is the worst crime, I do not believe that the State should kill to
convince people not to kill, either out of vengeance or for any other reason.
I sincerely doubt that the Right Hon. Prime Minister of this country, who is to take part in the debate, would want to make his mark as the one who reinstated the death penalty. I am sure that all the other Prime Ministers after him will not be proud to represent the first civilized country which instated the death penalty, after having abolished it.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Questions and comments. The Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie (Mr. Malepart) has the floor.


Mr. Malepart:: Mr. Speaker, I would first like to congratulate my colleague from Ottawa-Vanier on being so straightforward and on the way he presented his speech, given the sensitive nature of the issue.
I would like to remind my colleague from Ottawa-Vanier, as well as all the other Hon. Members in passing, that 11 years ago, on June 22 1976, at 11 o'clock, at about this time of day exactly 11 years ago, abolition of the death penalty was adopted in principle. At that time, Mr. Speaker, 133 Members had cast their vote in favour of Bill C-84 while 125 Members who were in favour of retaining capital punishment voted against it.
Mr. Speaker, after 11 years, after much debate . . . and you will recall that it was on July 14 that the bill came back to the House for third reading, at which time the result of the vote was 130 in favour of doing away with capital punishement and 124 against abolition.
1 would like to ask my colleague, given that we are now here 11 years later, day for day, and almost hour for hour since the vote took place at 11 and it is now 12:35, I would like to ask him how he feels as a parliamentarian to see that we are taking a step backward. Eleven years ago, the House of commons, the people, took a stand against capital punishment. Eleven years later, why is it that we are not discussing positive measures, as my colleague the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier has mentioned, to eliminate juvenile delinquency, to prevent people from living in poverty and provide them a better education, better training as well as a more adequate parole and penitentiary system?
How does my colleague from Ottawa-Vanier feel eleven years later, as the House goes over the same debate? A debate which is useless, since it simply deals with a motion providing for consultations.
Does the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier have any comment to make to the effect that what we needed was a constructive debate to find specific solutions to the problems we are having with our prisons?


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Naturally, Mr. Speaker, the situation was different. In 1976, we had a Government Bill. That Government showed some leadership, it presented a Bill and was backing it. The entire Cabinet had approved the resolution.
June 22, 1987

Today, we have a motion before us which is not supposed to reinstate capital punishment, but once it is passed, it will be a fact. It is perfectly clear: This Elouse supports, in principle, the reinstatement of capital punishment and-then we come to something I did not mention before, because I find it inappro-. priate for an abolitionist like myself-directs a special committee to report on the methods to be used to kill and who is going to be killed. Therefore, I cannot talk about the motion,
I will only talk about the amendment. I reject the motion, because I feel it is a bad one. That motion does not invite Canadians to reflect on the principle of the death penalty, because that principle will already be adopted, we will have approved it. This is not the way it happened in 1976. Not because it was a Bill then, but because we have here the principle of reinstatement.
Then a committee will tour the country for "three months", or "six months" if the amendment ot the New Democratic Party is passed. I should mention that "six months" have been used to make the amendment acceptable to the Chair, it is a technical necessity.
Why should we have a committee going around the country for consultations on who to kill and how, when we are against the principle of killing?
In 1976, I voted with a full knowledge of the facts, I knew I was voting against capital punishment, because I did not believe in it. We won by six votes, but I think we are going to lose this time, Mr. Speaker. I feel very sad about that, as we are using a procedure here that I believe is absolutely disgraceful.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Questions and comments are now terminated. Debate.


Marc Ferland: Mr. Speaker, for a junior Member like myself-I was elected to the House of Commons only thirty months ago-taking part in a debate on such a serious issue, the reinstatement of capital punishment in Canada, is quite a challenge. I do not lay claim to the verve or eloquence of many of my colleagues in the House. Nevertheless, I will try to explain to the people, to Canadians listening to us today, why I am an abolitionist, why I do not believe in restoring capital punishment in this country, and why the Government has reopened the debate on this issue.
It is not just because of a promise made during the election campaign. It was a fact that, in general, Canadians were in favour of reinstating capital punishment in Canada, especially if we look at the results of certain polls a few months ago, where 72 to 75 percent were in favour.
Since we started this debate in the House, Mr. Speaker, and now Canadians have heard both sides of the story, the views of
Capital Punishment
those in favour and the views of those against capital punishment, the same percentage of Canadians who favoured the return of capital punishment is now against capital punishment. The Hon. Member for Swift Current-Maple Creek (Mr. Wilson) said that in his riding, it was about 50-50, and I think that is how things actually stand today.
But why raise the issue again in the House of Commons? I think that in a democratic society like the one we have here in Canada, it is possible to question some of our fundamental principles from time to time. In a democracy like Canada, Mr. Speaker, we can afford to question the fundamental tenets of our society. Another thing that surprised me, Mr. Speaker, is the response of young Canadians who came to see me in my office and who are very concerned about the reinstatement of the death penalty in Canada. We must remember, Mr. Speaker, that Canada is still a young country. Confederation has existed for 120 years. Canadian citizenship only goes back to 40 years. In 1947, we were the first Commonwealth country to have its own citizenship. During five years, since I am 45 years old, I was a British citizen, although I was born in Canada. For the past 40 years, however, Canada always strived to improve the quality of life in this country, and to make its law better.
Mr. John Diefenbaker, who was a great Prime Minister and who took part in a few debates on death penalty, in 1966, was against the ultimate punishment. Why did Mr. John Diefenbaker become an abolitionist? I will quote part of what he said on April 4, 1966: "Some people claim that death penalty acts as a deterrent, but history has not proved it. Who could say that we abandoned that infamous punishment out of weakness? It is rather because juries started to look for reasons to acquit criminals." And I could draw a parallel between what Mr. John Diefenbaker said in 1966 and the words of Mr. Andrei Sakharov, a distinguished Soviet dissident who said: "I consider death penalty a brutal and immoral institution. A state, through its public servants, takes it upon itself to commit the most terrible and most irreparable act: to take away someone's life. Such a state cannot expect an improvement in the moral climate of its country. Those very similar statements were made by two men living in two totally different countries, under different political regimes.
In fact, Mr. Speaker, if you look at the judicial system as a whole, and if you look at the responsibility of parliamentarians in this House, they exercice the power of the state and some supporters of the return to death penalty claim that the state has the right to end someone's life. But you and I, Mr. Speaker, both detain 1/282 of that power. And I tell you that I will never yield that tiny part of power to restore death penalty. Some supporters of capital punishment say that they are obliged to do so in their riding. They are obliged to vote for it and they are afraid they will lose the next election if they do otherwise. This is in no way a valid argument. As for me, and my constituents know it, the people of the riding of Portneuf

June 22, 1987
Capital Punishment
know my position, and I told them the following: Even if that was to cost me my re-election to Parliament, I will not support capital punishment. I will not cast a ballot that would send this country back to the lex talionis, because there is nothing that can force me to have even the worst criminal sent to the gallows for the most horrible crime imaginable-there is nothing that can force me to delegate my power. Because basically, what am I doing when voting the re-instatement of capital punishment?
I am delegating to officials the power to rule on matters of life and death. I am delegating to the judicial system, to judges, to average citizens that are selected to a jury and have no other choice than to sit on that jury. We will be delegating that power to them. We will be delegating to lawyers, police officers who will have a duty, as is their responsibility, to make honest and sincere investigations and to prove that an individual is guilty of something. It has been proven on a number of occasions that errors were made, perjuries committed. There have been all sort of things. Not that police officers did not do their jobs well! Quite the opposite! They had done an excellent job. But in the judicial system errors were made in the past. Those who support capital punishment say no. The system is so perfect, so safe there is no way an error can be made in cases of first degree murders.
On the other hand, we have examples of errors on second degree murders- just recently, a young man was sentenced to 11 years in penitenciary-11 years-he was deprived of his freedom because of a judicial error. But there is no way it can happen on first degree murders. An error can be made on second-degree murders, but not on first-degree murders. That is false.
There is a quote from Victor Hugo where he wrote something that is truly very real in my view, that I find very touching anyway. Victor Hugo said:
There are three things that are God's own and that belong to no man: the irrevocable, the irreparable, and the indissoluble.
Irreparable punishment implies infallible judges.
1 believe that Victor Hugo was right in saying that. Because in fact nobody is perfect in this Parliament, even though he may have ben elected with a majority of 25,000 votes in his riding, anyone can make a mistake. Any government can be mistaken, but the mistake is not irrepairable. But any individual sentenced to death and executed simply cannot be revived by the state. If the state has made a mistake there is no way it can atone for it. Some people would argue that abolitionists defend criminals rather than victims. Mr. Speaker, even if the state chooses to execute a criminal, the worst possible option, it will not bring the victim back to life. The victim will remain dead, nobody will bring life back, that is impossible.
Mr. Speaker, young Canadians under age 25 have never known the death penalty. Unless I am mistaken, the last hanging took place in Toronto 25 years ago. All youths, boys and girls born in this country, have never known the death penalty. The immigrants from every corner of the world who
chose Canada as their new homeland probably came here because ours is a different country. There was no death penalty in Canada, it was legally abolished in 1976. And over the past 25 years, people who were born in this country or who chose it have never heard of a state execution. There has been none.
Mr. Speaker, are we so lacking in ideas and hope in the people of Canada and its young people that we have to resort again to an eye for an eye to solve a problem which commands a far wider-ranging approach? A previous speaker alluded to violence which can be seen on television day in and day out. Not long ago I spent about an hour an a half watching television: 36 dead, 36 people killed on the TV screen.
While we speak about violence and the fact that there is a problem, have the Canadian society and this Parliament done everything possible to prevent crime? If we put as much effort and money into crime prevention as in our penal institutions and police forces, would we now have to discuss reinstatement of the death penalty?
As for me, Mr. Speaker, I believe that if this Parliament votes for this, if one single Member of this House votes for reinstatement of the death penalty, we are capitulating in the face of a problem.
As for me, I am not a man to capitulate. There is a problem to solve in our society. There is a serious problem of delinquency and criminality. But why does such a problem exit? Nothing much has been said about that. Those who are for reinstatement of the death penalty have not spoken of this real problem which is at the source of criminality.
I would like to say something else, Mr. Speaker. What difference is there between a violent mental defective locked up in a psychiatric hospital and a criminal condemned to twenty-five or thirty-five years in prison? I can tell you the difference. One of them has had the misfortune of killing someone. If we reinstate the death penalty, if we agree to euthenasia in Canada, we shall start with criminals and the resolution says that we shall choose the type of criminals who will be euthenized. But how far will this go? I challenge anyone to find me a single normal human being who is able to commit a murder in cold blood.
I asked several psychologists and psychiatrists a number of questions. I have been considering this issue for quite a long time. Those who are in favour of euthanasia will say: keeping in prison these people who are beyond rehabilitation costs a lot of money. It would be like saying that we should get rid of all chronic mental patients because they cost a lot of money to society? Why not do the same with terminal cancer patients? We might as well finish them off, for they cost society a lot of money. These are unacceptable arguments. We cannot use them.
To those who rely on both the Old and New Testaments to support their position, I can say that I found in the Bible all the evidence I would need to support both sides of the issue.
June 22, 1987

We cannot base our position on this and say: I am for or against the death penalty. Mr. Speaker, I feel that the message of the Eloly Scriptures is this: You will follow the direction of your conscience and you yourself will decide. You can choose either position A or position B. It is up to you. My decision is clear and final. I am not going to let anybody kill on my behalf. I will not give the power of life or death to any administration or civil servants. I will not want to return to a situation where a juror, for fear of making a mistake, would strive to let someone who is guilty and deserve a severe punishment go free. We need to review our penal code. We must work in this direction, but not demand an eye for an eye as we used to. It is not an argument to say that the State should have the right of life or death over its citizens. The State does not give life. But it must see to it that life is protected.
Very often, Mr. Speaker, you will find that many of those who are in favour of reestablishing capital punishment are against abortion. I just cannot understand how they can be against abortion on the one hand and for capital punishment on the other. In both cases, a life is involved.
Of course, they could claim that an unborn child is not guilty of anything. The murderer, on the other hand, is a despicable person. But what made him the way he is, Mr. Speaker? At what age did the child become contemptible? Very young, Mr. Speaker, when he was in kindergarten. When a boy is rather unruly, the child of a divorced family in many cases who has been through a dozen of foster homes ... I met a young man in my own municipality. Tie had lived, Mr. Speaker, in 14 foster homes in seven years.
How long did it take us to get used to our new life as members of Parliament? We are not very young any longer. Some children of 8, 10, 12, 15 years of age are asked to adjust themselves to many successive foster homes. That is the starting point. He is boisterous at school. The teacher says: "He is my scatterbrain pupil. Go in the corner. You cannot listen." He will grow up and reach high school. He is a scatterbrain. He cannot be good. He cannot go out with a nice girl. He is a good-for-nothing, so it out of the question. He loiters at the corner restaurant. He bums around. This is what he will do till the day where a judge will rap his gavel and tell him: "You are sentenced to two years in jail because you are a scatterbrain and a misfit." And then, we will try to cast him in our mould. Is our mould really used to try and help rehabilitate those young people? No.
I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, that our mould is far from being perfect. Our rehabilitation system for criminals in Canada is far from being satisfactory, because insufficient funds are available. We should put into crime prevention as much money as we put into our jails and our police forces. This is what should be done, Mr. Speaker, and we should not return to the law of retaliation. It makes no sense.
I have read about horrible cases. Imagine! In 1803, a 13 year-old boy was hanged because he had stolen a cow. It is
Capital Punishment
terrible! We would say that no such thing could happen in 1987. Such were the times. We have progressed in Canada with the passage of time. In 1861, there was a riot in Montreal because two people were scheduled to be hanged that day and one of them had been amnestied the day before. There was a riot. They changed methods. They hanged them secretly thereafter. But that did not change the problem, it did not solve the situation. It did not improve the system in Canada. They did not really solve the real difficulty, which is prevention, the modernizing of our judicial systems in Canada.
How many times did I hear police officers tell me: We arrest an individual for drug trafficking, and before we have time to fill in all the forms he is already back on the street. We arrest a guy caught in the act for armed robbery. Two years later he is already out of prison. Is that normal, Mr. Speaker?
But at some point there will be an accident. There will be a murder. A human life will be spent. And I do not support legalizing murder in Canada. No, I am against crime. But crime must be prevented. That is the beginning, the starting point. When we see horrible films on T.V., how is it possible that young children four, five, six years old will not have a tendency to violence? If we try to fight violence with violence, Mr. Speaker, we will get nowhere. Because if the State becomes as violent as the worst murderers in society, I do not believe we will solve the problem. We will not be setting an example. The role of the State, the role of the Canadian Government is to set an example.
If capital punishment had been reinstated, Mr. Speaker, do you think I would have been able to vote for Bill C-28 presented by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Hnatyshyn)? The main objective of that Bill was:
This Act would implement the United Nations Convention against Torture
and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, adopted
by the United Nations on December 5, 1984 and signed by Canada on August
23, 1985.
How would it have been possible, Mr. Speaker, for Parliamentarians, Members of this House with 1/282 of the life and death power in this country, to vote for a Bill against torture, and cruel and inhuman treatment?
Mr. Speaker, if capital punishment is not a cruel and inhuman punishment, I wonder what it is. You can read what has been written on the subject, and I am glad that journalists have reported abundantly on the reality of death row. What about the fact that light stays on 23 hours a day, to prevent suicide. Justice must be served and the accused must be kept alive. That is justice for society.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The Hon. Member has one minute left, plus ten minutes for questions and comments when we resume debate after three o'clock.
It being 1 p.m., I do now leave the chair until 2 p.m.
At 1 p.m. the House took recess.

June 22, 1987


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House Resumed at 2 p.m.


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, the issue of South Moresby demonstrates that, when we come right down to it, the provinces place their own objectives above national objectives. So much for the new spirit of co-operative federalism.
The federal Government is perceived as a pushover at the negotiating table. The Premier of British Columbia has proven he wants to exploit the situation to the limit, a form of "environmental hostage taking" as so aptly described by Margaret Atwood today. Where is the "spirit of partnership" the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) proclaimed on May 1? Canada's Minister of the Environment (Mr. McMillan) has called for public support to put pressure on the Premier of British Columbia. I support that call.
In addition, Environment Canada and the Minister should become ardent advocates for the protection of South Moresby and generate the public pressure necessary to bring the Premier of British Columbia to reason. I call upon every Member of this House to help in building up such pressure. South Moresby should not be held for ransom and the Premier of B.C. should not be allowed to make a mockery of the new co-operative federalism proclaimed on May 1 by the Prime Minister.



CAPITAL PUNISHMENT


Hon. Suzanne Blais-Grenier (Rosemont):: Mr. Speaker, our Government wants to limit the debate on the death penalty and hold the vote immediately.
First, we resumed a discussion which many found quite needless. Now, the Government wants to close the debate right away, before the summer adjournment. Where is the logic in this?
The issue with which we are dealing goes beyond the death penalty; it has to do with how we view civilization, with what
kind of society we are. It is therefore important for all parliamentarians to be able to express their views. This is a matter of democracy. Otherwise, Canadians would be quite justified in accusing us of political opportunism.
Either this debate was necessary and should be carried out fully, or else it was frivolous and therefore unwarranted.

It is essential that every Member of this House states his position, if he so wishes. It is a matter of right and democracy. What we need here is the understanding of what freedom of speech means. What we do not need is a closure or a vote hastily called.



REFUGEES


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, the Government has been officially accused of proposing to violate international law with Bill C-55 on refugees. In 1948 Canada signed the U.N. Declaration of Human Rights which states in Article 14: "Everyone has the right to seek and enjoy another country's asylum from persecution". This was the first international treaty aimed at protecting the rights of individuals.
As the United Nations High Commission for Refugees wrote to the Minister on June 12, Bill C-55 would violate both that treaty and the U.N. Convention and Protocol for Protection of Refugees which we signed in 1967.
Bill C-55 would violate these laws by, first, screening out applicants because of their country of origin or a so-called "safe" country they pass through, denying them a chance to make an individual claim, second, by refusing rejected claimants the right to have an appeal or review by a central body and, three, worst of all, by sending real refugees back, directly or indirectly, to the country they fled.
I call upon the Government to honour Canada's legal obligations to the United Nations by withdrawing Bill C-55.



TAX REFORM


Mr. Bill Tupper (Nepean-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, I met several hundred constituents in Nepean-Carleton during the weekend. All welcomed those aspects of tax reform which related to agriculture, small business, and high technology which are so fundamental to the economy of that riding.
The reform initiatives were welcomed because they provide stability and incentives which are so important to the business
June 22, 1987

sector because it has created 80 per cent of all jobs, not only in Nepean-Carleton, but nationally.
The local community was also estatic during the weekend because Carleton University, Ottawa University, and 13 high technology companies, together with the Ottawa-Carleton Research Institute, were selected to establish a world-class telecommunications centre.
This decision will bring industry and universities closer together to conduct leading-edge research and to provide job opportunities for young scientists and engineers. It also reinforces Ottawa-Carleton's position as the high technology centre for Canada. Most important, it is part of a pathway to the future for all Canadians.



ABORIGINAL RIGHTS


Mr. Keith Penner (Cochrane-Superior):: Mr. Speaker, the Alliance of Tribal Councils representing 36 Indian bands in British Columbia has been patiently waiting for almost a year for the Government of Canada to fulfil its promise to provide funding for its court case with CN Rail.
The Indian bands represented by the Alliance have been forced into court because the federal Government has failed to protect their rights, because the Province of British Columbia does not acknowledge their rights, and because Canadian National refuses to negotiate in good faith.
Both the Province of B.C. and the federal Government are defendants in this case. Both Governments and CN have the resources they require for the legal action. To deny the Alliance the funding it needs to protect its rights and to participate on an equal footing with all the other parties would be a travesty of justice. At issue are aboriginal rights to fish and rights to cultural and economic survival.
Therefore I urge the Government to meet its obligations and to keep its promise-approve this funding before the summer recess of the House.



SOCIAL SECURITY


Mr. Alan Redway (York East):: Mr. Speaker, when the coming senior citizen population explosion first dawned on us,
Canadians suddenly realized that soon there would be a decreasing number of workers to help pay for our social security system, particularly pensions.
Today there are six people between the ages of 18 and 64 for every person 65 years of age and over. Before too long, however, there will be only two people of working age for each senior citizen. All of this could change in the next few years if our productivity substantially increases, or if more seniors continue to work, or if our birth rate goes up, or if we increase immigration. One thing is clear-if we try to maintain our current six-to-one portion of working-age Canadians to seniors we will have to increase our population to 54 million people, more than doubling it over the next 40 years.
Our present immigration level of 125,000 people per year will maintain and stabilize our present 25 million population, but it will not produce the number of workers we will need to pay for our social security system. The time to start planning is now.



NATIONAL PARKS


Mr. Jim Fulton (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, on May 14 the House unanimously passed a motion calling for the cooperation of the B.C. Government in setting aside South Moresby as a national park reserve. Two weeks ago Ottawa offered $106 million. A week ago British Columbia turned that down. Last Wednesday the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) promised to use every lever to persuade B.C. He has not used one yet.
The B.C. Cabinet meets on Wednesday to decide the fate of the area. Canadians from coast to coast have risen to the moment and in unprecedented numbers are calling, writing, and sending telegrams to Victoria and Ottawa. At $106 million Ottawa is offering to pay more for South Moresby than it cost for all 32 national parks in Canada.
The B.C. Premier says it's just a bunch of easterners who want South Moresby preserved. Well, I just returned from B.C. last night and support for South Moresby is everywhere. British Columbia's 28 MPs are unanimous in our support and do not take kindly to being called easterners by the man from Fantasy Gardens.
I trust that the Prime Minister will use the right lever on this issue and remember that he is Canada's Prime Minister in British Columbia and should not hesitate to go to British Columbia between now and Wednesday to find a fair and just settlement for all Canadians and all British Columbians.

June 22, 1987



EMPLOYMENT


Mr. Elliott Hardey (Kent):: Mr. Speaker, it is time this House recognized and applauded the Government's initiative in offering assistance to hundreds of communities across Canada by way of the Community Futures Program.
My riding of Kent in southwestern Ontario has now moved into the final stages of the Community Futures initiative. The excitement that comes with successful, locally administered assistance is overwhelming. New businesses that bring permanent jobs is only the beginning. We estimate $1.6 million of federal money will be pumped into Kent as new ideas to improve the local economy are considered each month by the operating committee. At that point the program will likely fly on its own as it continues to create new jobs and self-respect for my constituents.
As well, there have been megaprojects approved in communities across Canada under this program which have accessed funds up to $5 million. With this kind of incentive, and people helping people, existing businesses will expand and welfare rolls will begin to diminish. The five-point program of the Community Futures initiative covers all these areas.
To the Government, and especially to the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Bouchard), the riding of Kent says: "Thank you!" This is one government job-creation program that works.



HARBOURS AND PORTS


Mr. George Henderson (Egmont):: Mr. Speaker, I rise again to bring attention to the worsening state of our harbours and wharfs. The Conservative Government has already slashed some $10 million from its Small Craft Harbours budget. In fact, on May 12, 1987, the Deputy Minister of Fisheries and Oceans informed the Chairman of the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans that over the next five years some 150 wharfs and harbours in Canada could be closed due to a shortage of funds. This includes some 13 fishing ports in Prince Edward Island.
In Tignish, many fishermen have requested the federal Government to undertake some badly needed wharf repairs at Tignish Run. Both the north side and the south side wharfs are in deplorable shape. The old wooden structures have rotted and the concrete decks have collapsed. We cannot ignore this urgent request.
Dependable and well-maintained wharfs are absolutely essential to our communities. We must not only avoid disruption in fishing time but, more important, we must not jeopardize the health and safety of our fishermen.
I urge the Government to allocate these funds immediately.



CANADIAN JOBS STRATEGY


Mr. Dave Nickerson (Western Arctic):: Mr. Speaker, it is shameful that a large proportion of welfare recipients are employable people. Individuals suffer from lack of both income and self-esteem, and the nation from loss of productivity.
To address this problem, the federal, provincial and territorial Ministers, in September of 1985, reached the Agreement on Enhancing the Employability of Social Assistance Recipients.
The Governments of Canada and the Northwest Territories are to be complimented on putting into effect this year one of the first accords reached under that master agreement.
The diversion of Canada Assistance Plan funds into job training and development under the Canadian Jobs Strategy is something that we expect to pay dividends by permanently reducing the welfare rolls and creating a better life for hundreds of former welfare recipients.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



TAX REFORM


Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) promised Canadians a fair tax system. However, financial holding companies, such as Brascan, which was created to minimize the tax liabilities of the Bronfman empire, have created paper corporate structures for the purpose of issuing preferred shares on whose dividends there are no taxes payable.
Surely this kind of corporate tax avoidance should have been a perfect target for tax reform by the Minister of Finance. But did the Minister consider the dangerous levels of corporate concentration financed by tax-free preferred shares? No.
Did he crack down on Brascan and Hees International for using the public purse to create paper companies to avoid taxation? No.
June 22, 1987

Instead, tax reform for preferred shares starts on December 31 and only for shares created after June 18.
Why the double standard? Why will Bronfman shares, among others, continue to be tax exempt?
To explain, The Globe and Mail on Saturday quoted an investment expert, who said that Brascan and Hees are "too close to the Government".
So much for Progressive Conservative tax reform.



CAPE BRETON DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION


Mr. Dave Dingwall (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to lend support to District No. 26, United Mine Workers of America, in their fight against the Cape Breton Development Corporation, and in particular against the Government of Canada with regard to the down-sizing of the coal industry in Cape Breton.
On December 16, 1986, the Vice-President of Human Resources of the Cape Breton Development Corporation wrote to the Minister of Labour (Mr. Cadieux), advising him of terminations which were to take place on April 13, 1987, and subsequently in April of 1988 whereby some 480 individuals would be terminated, and that, notwithstanding the commitment to employment made by the Government in view of the high unemployment in Cape Breton, which is, in some areas, as high as 50 per cent.
The Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion (Mr. Cote) wrote me on May 11 last and said the following:
As you may be aware, I recently reviewed these issues with the Corporation and am pleased by the more socially sensitive direction which has been taken.
I wish to inform the House, Mr. Speaker, that this so-called "socially sensitive direction" that the corporation is now taking has led to 170 individuals being terminated at the Cape Breton Development Corporation, with additional terminations to follow.
I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that if the Government is going to be true to its commitment made in December of 1984 to the coal mining communities of Cape Breton, it change this regressive policy, a policy headed by a regressive management at the Cape Breton Development Corporation. And, Mr. Speaker, I call once again for the resignation of the president of the Cape Breton Development Corporation, effective immediately.



HUMAN RIGHTS


Mr. Andrew Witer (Parkdale-High Park):: Mr. Speaker, after spending 34 years of his life in prison in Soviet gulags, Ukrainian dissident Danylo Shumuk, whose unflagging efforts on behalf of human rights are well known, joins us here today in Ottawa.
In May of this year, the Soviet authorities at long last provided Shumuk with an exit visa, allowing him to join his family in Canada. This was a direct result of years of protest by Members of this House and the personal intervention of the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark).
Through his unbending will and personal sacrifice, Shumuk has become a symbol to freedom-lovers everywhere in their struggle for the cause of freedom and liberty for people of all nations.
Tomorrow, Shumuk will become a full participant in our democratic process as he testifies before the Standing Committee on Human Rights, giving testimony of human rights violations in Ukraine.
Today, as he gazes down from the gallery, he finally has the opportunity to observe first-hand, real democracy in action.



TAX REFORM


Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, this weekend, I met with senior citizens, families, young people, workers and business people. All of them denounced the tax reform Budget announced by the Minister of Finance and expressed their disappointment in this document.
These people would like to know why the Government has decided, unfairly and illegally, to grant $1,600 in rebates to people with an income of $100,000 or more and only $90 in to those with an income of $15,000 or more.
The poor would also like to know why this Government is allowing them only $20 a year in tax credits while high income Canadians are getting all the breaks.
In closing, Mr. Speaker, all these people were unanimous to in saying: No, no and no to the tax on food and the sales tax!

June 22, 1987
Oral Questions




Mr. Bill Attewell (Don Valley East):: Mr. Speaker, after extensive consultation with Canadians from coast to coast, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) has launched the most comprehensive tax reform in Canada's history. The theme and thrust of the reform are greater fairness.
Through the progressive conversion of exemptions and deductions to tax credits, an additional 850,000 Canadians will not need to file a tax form again. Nine out of ten Canadians, aged 65 or older, will pay less tax. Eight out of ten Canadian households will pay less tax. Over the next five years personal income tax revenue will decrease by $11 billion.
Corporate income tax will be increased by $5 billion by shutting down or reducing certain preferences. Most Canadians agree that the corporate sector, particularly banks and other financial services corporations, should be carrying more of the tax load.
The initial reaction of Canadians has been favourable. We had a breakfast meeting in Don Valley East last Friday which was chaired by Ken Stephen. Our panel of tax experts included Maureen Pappin, of Deloitte, Haskins and Sells; David Hughes of Blake, Cassels and Graydon; and Ian Young of CIL Inc. With almost 150 people in attendance, most agreed that the Government is on the right track.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister for International Trade. Only last week the Government, through the mouth of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for International Trade, again insisted that the Auto Pact was not on the free trade negotiating table.
Now we learn from a confidential memorandum, setting out what U.S. deputy negotiator Merkin told congressional staff, that the Government has in fact been negotiating the Auto Pact all along during the free trade negotiations and has in fact agreed to end Canadian auto tariffs, the only lever the Government has to ensure that Canadian automotive production and job safeguards can be met.
I want to ask the Minister how can Canadians believe anything the Government says on this or any other matter after this information from Ambassador Merkin? I ask the
Minister will she be honest with Canadians? Will she tell the truth to Canadians just this once and admit that the Auto Pact is on the table, that the auto tariffs are gone, and that 200,000 automotive jobs are at risk? Will she tell the truth on this for the Government just this once?


Hon. Pat Carney (Minister for International Trade):: Mr. Speaker, the problem with the question as put is that it is based upon something which is not true. I have repeatedly told this House-and it is still true today-that the Auto Pact has not been discussed in these negotiations. It has not been discussed in any form in these negotiations.
Canada does not intend to put the Auto Pact on the table. We believe, as I have told the House, that it is working well. If the Americans wish to make any proposals, which they have not yet done, we will look at them. If they increase employment, increase production, and increase investment in Canada, we will look at them.


AUTO PACT'S FUTURE
Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: The Minister is saying that Mr. Merkin is not telling the truth. Is the Minister not prepared to accept that Mr. Merkin said the Government is prepared to turn the Auto Pact into a skueleton, an empty shell?
Mr. Speaker, has the Government agreed with the United States to end Canadian automotive tariffs? Will the Minister answer this with a clear yes or no? Canadians deserve to have an answer on whether the Government intends to sell them out once again and put at risk, if not lose, 200,000 Canadian jobs. Give a straight answer. Has the Government agreed to end Canadian automotive tariffs?


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, I am really shocked at the ignorance-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Resign then.


Mr. Guilbault (Saint-Jacques):: She is shell shocked.


Pat Carney: I am shocked at the ignorance of the Hon. Member. He, above all, should know that there are no tariffs in effect on trade within the Auto Pact. He should know that. There haven't been any tariffs for about 25 years. I am shocked that the Member stands in this House and suggests that there are tariffs on trade in the Auto Pact that apply on automobile trade between these two countries.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, if this is the Minister's level of knowledge of the Auto Pact, she ought to resign on the spot.
June 22, 1987


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: The Minister should know that the tariffs are there unless North American automotive companies meet Canadian job and production standards in Canada. If they do not, they have to pay the tariffs.
Speaking of ignorance, Mr. Speaker, the Minister has given an example unparalleled in this House by any Minister.


CONTENT OF U S. OFFICIAL'S MEMORANDUM-FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL RELATIONS
Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, will the Government, as has been reported by Mr. Merkin, be attempting to get the provinces to agree to dismantling the Auto Pact by threatening to withhold federal revenues? If so, what are they for, medicare, housing, or day care? Why is the Government ready to make the seniors, the elderly, and the children of this country hostages to its blind, misguided desire to have a free trade pact with the United States?


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, the last question, is the federal Government threatening the provinces, is ridiculous. There is nothing to threaten them with. This Government has done more for national reconciliation than any Government in our history.
Second, the Hon. Member talks about the implementation of tariffs in the Auto Pact. I am shocked that he does not understand that the Auto Pact is operating way over the safeguard levels, 600,000 vehicles over the safeguard level-


Mr. Broadbent:: That is a different question.


Pat Carney: -where those tariffs would kick in. Forty thousand more jobs are involved with the Auto Pact as it is functioning now than in the disastrous scenario which the Hon. Member predicts.
The Auto Pact is not on the table. It has not been put on the table. Canada will not put it on the table, and why won't the Opposition accept that?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


REDUCTION OF TARIFFS-EFFECT OF NEGOTIATIONS
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Winnipeg-Fort Garry):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to follow up with the Minister on the answers that she has just given. The Hon. Minister has said that the question of the Auto Pact is not being negotiated.


An Hon. Member:: That is not it.


Lloyd Axworthy: Whatever the question may be, let's go back to the statements by the Minister. Is it not true that the Government of Canada today, with the two negotiators in town, is negotiating a total reduction of tariffs between our two countries down to zero levels? Is it not also true that if that tariff reduction to zero applies to the Auto Pact then all the conditions, guarantees and safeguards that apply to the
Oral Questions
Auto Pact will no longer be in existence? Therefore, the Auto Pact does not exist. Is that not a logical and necessary consequence of this Government negotiating away the tariffs on this matter and on all other matters? Will the Minister at least not agree to that simple and very common sense conclusion of what the Government is now doing?


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, in response to the Hon. Member's question I can point out that the negotiators are talking about a hypothetical model of taking all tariffs on everything on a broad basis, except those areas that have been identified as sensitive, to zero. Can I also point out that automotive trade under the Auto Pact now operates effectively at zero?
Can I repeat the answer I gave in the House on March 16 about the safeguards? I said then and I say now that I want to assure the Hon. Member that the automobile industry in Canada is working well above the level of safeguards. If production ever fell to the safeguard level in the Auto Pact, this country and the Province of Ontario and that Hon. Member would be in trouble. That is what I said on March 16 and that is what I can repeat today.


GOVERNMENT POLICY
Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I would simply like to point out to the Hon. Minister that there is nothing hypothetical about negotiating away the jobs of hundreds of thousands of auto workers, of agricultural workers and of workers in the food processing industry. There is nothing hypothetical about having only two and a half months to go until a trade deal has to be signed.
Is the Government basically saying that it is negotiating in the common room and not negotiating in realistic terms about what kind of trade deal we will have with the United States? Is it not time the Government quit being hypothetical and got down to practical realities? Canadian workers' jobs are at stake. We would like to know, and I want to ask specifically-


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Minister.


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, it is true that jobs are at stake in these negotiations. If we do not succeed, we could lose half a million jobs because of the protectionist trends in the U.S. and elsewhere. May I point out to the Hon. Member that all of the studies we have seen indicate that there will be an increase in jobs if we are successful in bilateral free trade with the U.S., and there will be a decrease in jobs if we fail.


AUTO PACT-TARIFF PROVISIONS
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the same Minister. 1 say to the Minister as a preface that the people of Canada do not trust the Government

June 22, 1987
Oral Questions
in general and in particular they do not trust the Government to negotiate with the United States.


Mr. Speaker:: Hon. Members know that argumentative and pejorative questions invite long and argumentative and pejorative answers. I would ask the Hon. Member to put his question, build his preface on facts and stay as far away as he can from pejorative comments.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, considering that the Minister either misstated reality completely or revealed a scandalous ignorance for a Minister conducting international trade when she said that for the past 25 years there have been no tariffs on automobiles-


Pat Carney: Effective tariffs.


John Edward Broadbent: The Minister said that there have been no tariffs for the past 25 years. Will she clarify that and admit she was wrong? Will she say that the Auto Pact requires that unless certain investment requirements are made in Canada, the automotive companies do in fact have to pay duty related to those tariffs and that is what the Auto Pact is all about? Will she admit that she was wrong right now?


Pat Carney: No,
Mr. Speaker, I do not admit that I am wrong. I said that automotive trade under the Auto Pact right now operates tariff-free. The Hon. Member is referring to the fact that a nominal tariff, the most-favoured-nation tariff, does kick in under the Auto Pact if the safeguards are not met. I can only repeat that the safeguards have been met for years. If we ever operated at that level, we would be in deep trouble.


STATEMENT ATTRIBUTED TO U S. OFFICIAL
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, one of the
reasons the safeguards have been met for years and why there are jobs in Quebec and Ontario and related jobs elsewhere is that we have a duty and a tariff structure as a carrot or a stick. The Government should understand that and keep those duties in place.
A key American negotiator, not just anyone, has said categorically that the Canadian Government has agreed to drop tariffs and, second, that the Canadian Government has agreed to get other concessions from other provinces, and this is of particular interest to the Provinces of Quebec and Ontario. Is the Minister now saying that Mr. Merkin is lying, or is the Government of Canada misleading the people of Canada once again?


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member is talking about a memo allegedly written by an American, dealing with Americans. I suggest that he ask that question of the Americans.
I can only say that when I was in Washington on my last trip I met with Mr. Yeutter, the U.S. trade representative, and we agreed that over the course of the summer there would be
garbled press reports, there would be leaked memos, there would be all sorts of garbled information, and we both agreed we would not comment on such misinformation as the Hon. Member has presented in this House.


John Edward Broadbent: If I were an American Senator I would go to an American for the answer. Just for once I thought I could go to a Canadian Minister and get the truth.
[ Translation]


AUTO PACT-REQUEST FOR GUARANTEES
John Edward Broadbent: Considering that a good many jobs in the provinces of Quebec and Ontario would be affected by Government decisions concerning the Auto Pact, can the Minister assure Canadians, Quebecers and Ontarians particularly, that the Government has not decided to abolish tariffs in the automotive sector?


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member is simply restating his question. My answer is the same. There are no effective tariffs on auto trade as it is now. If we ever fell to the level of the safeguards where you do kick in a nominal tariff we would have lost 40,000 jobs in Ontario and Quebec. We want to ensure that we have an over-all free trade agreement that creates jobs.
The Hon. Member is still raising the Auto Pact issue. I am telling him and this House that the Auto Pact is not on the table. Canada will not put it on the table. If the Americans want to put it on their side of the table, if they bring proposals forward that enhance investment, production and jobs in Canada, we will look at it.


THE ADMINISTRATION
John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister and concerns the so-called blind trust of the Minister of Public Works which appears to have 20/20 vision.
We know the Minister received at his home monthly statements of his stock portfolio, contrary to the conflict of interest guidelines. We know the Minister's friend and fund raiser was managing his portfolio contrary to the guidelines. How can the Deputy Prime Minister say that the Minister's assets were in a blind trust when he was receiving stock portfolio information on a monthly basis, and when his best friend and fund raiser was managing that portfolio? Would he not agree that is a blatant breach of the guidelines?
June 22, 1987


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Deputy Prime Minister and President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, once again the Hon. Member is casting aspersions and making insinuations about a Minister. I want to inform him and the House that the Minister is in the process of putting all the facts together and he will be making a statement to the House, either later today or tomorrow, which hopefully will clarify the issue.


John V. Nunziata: The Minister should be here today to defend himself.


REQUEST FOR COMMITTEE REFERRAL
John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, we have documents which show that monthly stock portfolio statements were sent to the Minister's home. We know as well that the Minister's so-called blind trustee is his friend and fund raiser. We know this is another case of a Tory Minister showing contempt for the conflict of interest guidelines. The Minister's blind trust is an absolute sham.


Some Hon. Members:: Question!


John V. Nunziata: In view of the facts as we know them will the Deputy Prime Minister, on behalf of the Government, refer this whole matter to the Standing Committee on Elections, Privileges and Procedure so we can conduct a full and complete investigation?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I just want to advise the Hon. Member and the House that the Minister will defend himself. He will make a statement. May I simply remind the Hon. Member that not too long ago we had similar aspersions and insinuations about the Minister of State for Fitness and Amateur Sport. They were somewhat less than in accordance with the facts. Perhaps the Hon. Member may want to reflect and wait until he hears what the Minister has to say.


CANADA-UNITED STATES NEGOTIATIONS-FUTURE OF AUTO PACT
Mr. Steven W. Langdon (Essex-Windsor):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister for International Trade. How can she say that the Auto Pact is not on the table when we have seen the pressure applied by the Governor of Michigan? I now have a letter here from the Governor of Wisconsin making precisely the same points and stressing that the Auto Pact "leans heavily in favour of Canada and the U.S. must improve this imbalance in the free trade talks". Why is the Government trying to con the people of Canada?


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, I thought I had made it clear that the reason I can
Oral Questions
say the Auto Pact is not on the table is because it is not on the table. The negotiators are meeting now and I am advised by them that the Auto Pact is not being discussed. The Auto Pact has not been discussed. As I said, we do not propose to put it on the table. If the Americans want to do so, we will look at their proposals. If they are good for employment, production and investment in Canada, we will look at them.
The only people who are trying to put the Auto Pact on the table are the opposition Members. They are putting thousands of jobs and billions of dollars in investment on the table with these red herring scare tactics.


Steven W. Langdon: The Minister knows perfectly well that Mr. Merkin heads a working group on automotive products which is dealing with precisely this issue. A memo that reports his statements is bound to have much more truth in it than anything the Minister says.


Some Hon. Members:: Shame!


Steven W. Langdon: I suggest that the Minister owes an explanation to workers right across this country, in Boisbriand, St. Catharines, Windsor-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Hon. Member will put his question, please.


MINISTER'S POSITION
Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, will the Minister give an explanation about why there is so much evidence emerging in the U.S. and Canada that the Auto Pact is being discussed and thousands of jobs are at definite risk?


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, I think I have answered that question. I can only point out that if the Americans wish to put forward any proposals detrimental to our automotive trade the Opposition is their best ally and friend in achieving that aim. I think I have made our position very clear. The Hon. Member refers to a working group on automotive trade. I can tell the House and the Hon. Member that was an information group to discuss how the trade worked now and it has not met since last November.


Mr. St. Germain:: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Mission-Port Moody.


POSITION OF OPPOSITION
Gerry St. Germain: Mr. Speaker, we have sat in this House and listened to the false-


Some Hon. Members:: Question!


Philip Derek Lewis: You get a preamble.


Gerry St. Germain: -rhetoric of the Opposition. In view of the fact that the Minister has pointed out, as stated by Mr. COMMONS DEBATES
June 22, 1987
Oral Questions
Murphy, that the Opposition are the American's best allies, are any other Canadian industries being jeopardized by this irresponsible rhetoric on the part of the Opposition?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF NETHERLANDS MINISTER OF HEALTH AND CULTURE
Mr. Speaker:: I wish to bring to the attention of Members the presence in the gallery of Mr. Elco Brinkman, Minister of Health and Culture of the Netherlands.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


PRESENCE IN THE GALLERY OF DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COUNCIL OF STATE OF POLAND
Mr. Speaker:: I also want to bring to the attention of Members the presence in the gallery of Mr. Tadeusz W. Mlynczak, Deputy Chairman of the Council of State of Poland.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


THE ADMINISTRATION
Ms. Sheila Copps (Hamilton East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the representative of the Prime Minister. We have seen seven Ministers in this Government go down under a cloud, so much so that the Prime Minister himself has stated in the House that he is responsible for the conflict of interest guidelines.
I was told this morning by the Acting Deputy Registrar General: "The matter is no longer in my hands. It is in the hands of the Government".
Given that the ADRG does not have the power to investigate, given that the ADRG admitted this morning that he did not have all the facts, and given that he said further this morning that he had not even been able to speak to the Minister in question, will the representative of the Prime Minister tell us whether the Prime Minister is prepared to conduct a full investigation and to turn that investigation over to a body of the House of Commons?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I indicated earlier that the Minister would be making a statement in the House, either later this afternoon or tomorrow, with regard to the issues the Hon. Member has raised. Perhaps she would like to wait for that statement to be made because it may enlighten her a little bit.
At the same time she may want to reflect upon the code that her own Leader has imposed upon all members of her caucus, namely, that in dealing with issues of this nature one should first get the facts, know the facts, know when you have made your case, and remember that you are not only affecting the Government but all elected Members and, indeed, the institution of Parliament. One should also remember that there are important issues to deal with rather than the sleaze and innuendo which the Hon. Member is-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, I would like to let the Deputy Prime Minister know that we have the facts, so much so that I am sure that is one of the reasons the Minister himself did not have the courage to come into the House and answer questions and why the Prime Minister is not here in the House today.


Some Hon. Members:: Order!


PRIME MINISTER'S POSITION
Sheila Maureen Copps: I will direct my question to the Deputy Prime Minister. When is the Prime Minister of
Canada-


Some Hon. Members:: Order, order!


Finlay MacDonald: That is totally unacceptable.


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


Sheila Maureen Copps: When is the Prime Minister going to take his responsibility as the Leader of the Government which has seen seven Ministers fall under a cloud with the potential now of the eighth? When is he going to take his responsibility and start ensuring that his Ministers are respecting the conflict of interest guidelines which he claims they adhere to? We do not think it is happening. We want an answer from the Prime Minister.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated, the Minister will be in the House and will be perfectly prepared to defend himself in the Chamber and outside the Chamber.


Sheila Maureen Copps: I will too, believe me.
June 22, 1987


Donald Frank Mazankowski: I know the Elon. Member alleges that she always has the facts. I hope she is accurate in her comments today because she may want to reflect upon them after she hears the details of this particular case.


Mrs. Finestone:: Oh, you already know the answers?


Sheila Maureen Copps: You know the details, do you?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: This would not be the first time that charges, insinuations and allegations were hurled across the floor, and found to be unfounded upon reflection and further examination.


Mr. Boudria:: With your reputation I wouldn't lecture.


CANADA POST CORPORATION
Cyril Keeper: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Labour. The Post Office has called for a mediator in the postal dispute. The union also wants a mediator. Why is the Government hesitating? Will the Minister be appointing a mediator? When will he be appointing a mediator? What is he waiting for?


Hon. Pierre H. Cadieux (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, if I understood correctly, the Member asked a number of questions. I will answer at least one. Yes, I have received a formal request from the Post Office to appoint a mediator and I am considering it.


MINISTER'S POSITION
Cyril Keeper: Mr. Speaker, is the Minister prepared to indicate to this House that he is willing to appoint a mediator in this dispute? Is he looking for a mediator? Is he willing to make a commitment that he is going to appoint a mediator?


Pierre H. Cadieux: As I have just indicated, Mr. Speaker, I am considering it. My hon. colleague may be assured that as soon as I make a decision this House will be informed.
________________________________7443
Oral Questions TRADE


CANADA-UNITED STATES NEGOTIATIONS-FUTURE OF AGRICULTURAL MARKETING BOARDS
Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister for International Trade. Last February 9 the Minister told this House that the free trade negotiations were not about marketing boards and that our system of marketing wheat was not subject to discussion in the free trade negotiations.
We now learn from the memo of Mr. Merkin, the deputy chief negotiator for the United States, that the free trade negotiations are addressing dairy and poultry quotas and the practices of the Canadian Wheat Board.
How can Canadian farmers believe the assurances of the Minister that the marketing boards and the Canadian Wheat Board are not included in the free trade negotiations when the United States administrator says that they are?


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, I can give the Hon. Member much the same answer as I have given in this House earlier today. He is commenting on press reports on a memo which is allegedly being circulated in the U.S. I have no idea what stories are circulating on the U.S. side of the border. I can only assure the Hon. Member of what is happening on our side of the border.
On our side of the border we are not discussing measures which will undercut our supply management system. I met with our SAGIT on agriculture last Friday when that position was again put forward.


COMMITMENT TO FARMERS
Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, could the Minister simply give a commitment today to Canadian farmers that the Government will walk away from any free trade negotiation which eliminates the quotas and border tariffs for our marketing boards? Can the Minister give Canadian farmers that commitment today?


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, I believe the commitment to Canadian farmers was made in the motion which was presented to this House, fully debated, and passed by this House. That is the commitment to Canadian farmers.


Maurice Brydon Foster: Answer the question, Pat.

June 22, 1987
Oral Questions


TAX REFORM
Michael Morris Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance concerning the impact of his tax reform and of all the other tax changes imposed by the Conservative Government since its election.
Mr. Speaker, our examination of the impact of these changes reveals that 98 per cent of Canadian families will be paying more sales taxes and income taxes in 1988 than was the case on a similar income in 1984, and that the only group of people who will be paying less are those with an annual income in excess of $100,000.
I am asking the Minister where is justice in a Conservative tax policy which reduces taxes only for the very rich and which raises them for 98 per cent of the people?


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, what is fair about Conservative tax policy is what was brought in through the White Paper on tax reform on Thursday evening. Eight out of ten Canadians will be paying less tax. Eight hundred and fifty thousand Canadians will be paying no more tax after tax reform. Nine out of ten Canadians over the age of 65 will be paying less tax.
There are other elements of tax reform which I could repeat to the Hon. Member to underscore that point. I expect he will be reading the documents and finding out exactly what is happening with regard to tax reform. I am sure he will agree with my position.


EFFECT OF PROPOSALS
Michael Morris Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, I have read the documents. I have also considered the Minister's tax reform proposals in light of the $1,300 of tax increases which he has imposed on the average Canadian family since 1984. He is now giving $300 back and asking people to feel grateful when he is keeping $1,000 of the increases which are already in place.
Would the Minister explain the double standard? Ninety-eight per cent of Canadian families earning a given income will be paying more in 1988 than they were paying in 1984. The only families that will be better off will be wealthy Canadians earning over $100,000. What kind of justice is that?


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, families under age 65 will find that the threshold level at which they begin paying taxes will be higher after tax reform than it was prior to our taking office in 1984. The same is true for senior citizens. The threshold at which they start paying
tax will also be higher under tax reform than it was in 1984. These are two elements of tax reform that I think the Hon. Member has missed.


INQUIRY WHY RICH WILL RECEIVE MORE ADVANTAGE THAN POOR
Mr. Raymond Garneau (Laval-des-Rapides):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also directed to the Minister of Finance and concerns tax reform.
On the weekend, many experts, journalists and parliamentarians did some arithmetic to find out whether the reform proposed by the Minister was fair and equitable. Mr. Speaker, I would like to refer to the analysis made by Marjorie Nichols in today's Ottawa Citizen, and ask the Minister to explain why his tax reform, which was supposed to be fair and equitable, gives Canadian families earning an income in excess of $100,000 a year a tax saving of $1,520, which is nearly $30 per week, while families earning $15,000 or less will have a tax saving of only $99. Why $1,520 for the rich and only $99 for the poor?


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, if the Hon. Member checks with the tax reform papers he will see that those earning $55,000 or more will be paying more tax as a share of our total revenues after tax reform than is the case before tax reform. Those who earn less than $27,500 will be paying less tax as a percentage of our total revenues after tax reform. We have increased the progressivity of the tax system.


FOOD TAX-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Raymond Garneau: Mr. Speaker, the Minister is saying that the figures published by Ms. Nichols are wrong. Well, I can inform the Minister that I did some figuring of my own, and while I did not come up with exactly the same results, the overall effect was the same.
If the Minister doesn't want to answer any questions about income tax, I would like to ask him a question about sales tax.
Mr. Speaker, when we look at the figures given by the Minister on page 47 of his White Paper, his Economic and Fiscal Outlook, we see that sales tax has provided the federal Government with a 94 per cent increase, in other words, the resulting revenues have increased by 94 per cent under this Government.
I want to ask the Minister: After a 94 per cent increase in sales tax revenues over five years, does it make sense for the Government to further increase those revenues by adding to the tax burden on consumers, and especially by adding a tax on food, on the bread and butter of Canadians?
June 22, 1987


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, others have done these calculations as well. If the Hon. Member wishes to look at The Ottawa Citizen, The Toronto Star, and The Globe and Mail, he will see that they have gone to accountant firms to ask them to check some of the figures in the tax reform paper. They have found that the tax savings that we have set out in the personal income tax brochure, which is available at all supermarkets and shopping centres for Canadians in all parts of Canada to see, are correct.
The Hon. Member says that sales taxes have increased since 1984. As well, there has been an increase of 840,000 jobs since 1984. That is part of the reason for the increase in sales tax, the increase in economic activity. But it also a reason why we are going to a new sales tax system. I know that the Hon. Member agrees we should go to a new sales tax system. That is the purpose of the second stage of tax reform.


FISHERIES
Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. Considering that France has decided to pull out of negotiations on the fishing dispute between our two countries for the time being, and considering that the Government claimed that those negotiations were a victory for Canada, will the Deputy Prime Minister or the Minister responsible explain to fishermen in Atlantic Canada how the Government is standing up for their rights?


Hon. John C. Crosbie (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, France has not said that it is pulling out of the negotiations between Canada and France, either on the boundary issue or on the question of fish quotas for France in Canadian waters. France has said that it does not wish to meet on June 24 and June 25 this week because apparently it is peeved that Canada has taken a position that French fishing vessels will not be allowed to use Canadian ports until such time as France agrees to observe proper and reasonable fishing quotas in Zone 3PS, the disputed zone off the south coast of Newfoundland.
When we took that action, opposition Members said that it was hypocritical and ineffective, and members of the New Democratic Party said that we should be sending out the fleet to give the French a lesson. That suggestion was made by the Hon. Rambo Broadbent.
The step we have taken has obviously been extremely effective because since then the French have been attempting to have us change our minds. We will not do so until France ceases its over-fishing off the south coast of Newfoundland.
Oral Questions


Rodney Edward Murphy: The Government said that it achieved the meeting as a result of successful pressure on the French Government. This is the only Government that would now say it is successful because the meeting was cancelled.


CANADIAN POSITION
Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, we already know from scientific study that the French over-fishing is hurting our stocks and the livelihood of our fisherpersons. What will the Government finally do to stand up for those Canadian fishermen?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, I would recommend to the hon. gentleman that he use the word "fisher" if he wants to describe both female fisherpersons and male fisherpersons.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Carnell Crosbie: This is a compromise strongly recommended by my colleague, the former Minister of Employment and Immigration.
It appears to me now that the NDP are suggesting that we should surrender to the French and readmit their vessels to Canadian ports. We will not do that. We are staying steady on the course we have taken. We will negotiate with France and come to a conclusion that is good for the fishermen of Newfoundland, the fishermen of eastern Canada, and good for everyone but the NDP who are trying to sneak in in a byelection in St. John's East.


TAX REFORM
Bill Attewell: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Chairman of the Standing Committee on Finance and Economic Affairs. He announced earlier today that the committee will be meeting with finance officials. When does he plan to meet with Canadians from coast to coast who will be very interested and have comments to improve that document where it should be improved?


Mr. Don Blenkarn (Mississauga South):: Mr. Speaker, the Standing Committee on Finance and Economic Affairs has called on Canadians to submit, for August 18, briefs and suggestions with respect to tax reform concerning the income tax portion of the White Paper. We will then commence detailed hearings in Ottawa, in western Canada and in Atlantic Canada throughout September. Hopefully we will be able to report to the House with respect to the income tax side of the tax reform by November 6. We would appreciate if Canadians would give us their views in order to have the House and Members on all sides of the House understand fully the import of the tax change.

June 22, 1987
Privilege-Mr. Mclnnes SALES TAXES-MINISTER'S POSITION


Miss Aideen Nicholson (Trinity):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance whose tax reform proposals continue his practice of assaulting the pocketbooks of middle and low-income Canadians, all in the name of fairness. Will the Minister explain to those Canadians whom he has burdened with the load of new, unreformed sales taxes, where is the fairness for them in a system whereby any reduction in income tax is followed by an increase in sales tax?


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, 1 presume from the Hon. Member's question that she is referring to the sales tax reforms which, I understand, her Party feels are necessary because of the bad tax system we have in the existing federal sales tax. The fairness comes in because there will be a significantly enlarged refundable sales tax credit paid to low and lower middle-income Canadians in advance and on a regular basis. In addition, the surtaxes for all Canadians will be removed and there will be further income tax reductions for middle-income earners. So there is a good deal of fairness in this package which will be part of Phase Two.


EFFECT OF GOVERNMENT POLICIES
Aideen Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, the Minister has said that as a result of last Thursday's budget
850.000	low-income people will be removed from the tax rolls, but he failed to say that since 1985 his policies have added nearly a million Canadians to the tax rolls. According to the Minister's own figures, now a couple with two children will begin paying tax at well below $20,000 a year annual income and a single person begins paying income tax at $6,400. Will the Minister not admit that his policies are designed to keep the poor, poor?


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, on the contrary, that is why we made these changes, to remove
850.000	Canadians from the tax roils. The Hon. Member has missed one key point. One of the reasons there are more taxpayers today is because there are 840,000 people in a better position to pay tax. They have a job which they did not have in 1984.


Mr. Speaker:: I want to advise Hon. Members that this will be the last question before the end of Question Period.


NATIONAL PARKS
James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister responsible for national parks. Last
Wednesday here in the House the Prime Minister promised to use every possible lever to obtain the co-operation of the Government of British Columbia in setting aside South Moresby as a national park reserve. As of an hour ago, the Premier of British Columbia has publicly indicated that he has had no contact with the Government of Canada regarding South Moresby. Could the Minister bring the House up to date as to why there has not been any contact between the Government of Canada or between the Prime Minister and the Government of British Columbia to this point?


Hon. Tom McMillan (Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for Skeena is correct in saying that it was the intent of the Prime Minister of Canada to call the Premier of British Columbia about the South Moresby question. I can confirm that the Prime Minister intends to do so. He may well have made his call even as I speak.
I will be talking to the Prime Minister later today to check whether the call has been made-and I expect it will have been made-after which I will brief the Hon. Member and any other interested Member on the results which may flow from the conversation if it has taken place.


WESTERN DEVELOPMENT INITIATIVE FUND
James Ross Fulton: My supplementary question is directed to Deputy the Prime Minister. It was reported earlier today as well that because there is no new money in the Western Development Initiative Fund that may be a part of the reason there is a delay in getting the co-operation of the Province of British Columbia. Could the Deputy Prime Minister advise the House whether or not linkage has been made between the Western Development Fund and the $106 million proposed for the national park reserve in South Moresby?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I am not in a
position to comment on speculative reports at this particular of time.


Mr. Speaker:: I want to advise Hon. Members that I have received from the Hon. Member for Oshawa (Mr. Broadbent) notice of a question of privilege which may take a few minutes. I have also just received a note from the Hon. Minister of Public Works that he wishes to rise on a point of personal privilege. I understand it would be acceptable to the House if we heard the Minister first.


PRIVILEGE
Hon. Stewart Mclnnes (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, on my appointment to the Cabinet in August 1985, I established a blind trust and appointed McLeod Young Weir
June 22, 1987

as my trustee. Ross Montgomery was its agent in Elalifax on this matter at the time. In March of this year the trust was transferred to Nesbitt, Thomson and Deacon Inc. where Mr. Montgomery continues to act as agent for the firm.
Since establishing my blind trust, there have been a few instances where statements or certificates were copied to me inadvertently by the brokerage firms. I notified my trustee of the error and asked that corrective action be taken. My trustee conducted my accounts absolutely independently and without involvement or direction by me.
I refer to Mr. Montgomery's statement:
I have been Stewart Mclnnes' investment advisor and broker for five years. When Stewart Mclnnes became subject to the federal Conflict of Interest guidelines, I opened a blind trust account with my previous employer. When I changed employers, a new blind trust was opened at Nesbitt Thomson. I have not, at any time, consulted with Stewart Mclnnes relative to the investments for the blind trust since they were opened. I am aware of a U.S. broker who was given responsibility to manage a small portion of the blind trust account. Inadvertently, after the fact, monthly statements were sent to Stewart Mclnnes but this practice was stopped when discovered. I am satisfied the Conflict of Interest guidelines for the blind trust account have been met.
I am disturbed by the insidious manner in which this matter has been dealt with by certain members of the Opposition. I categorically reject the innuendo and insinuations which have emerged. Everything I have done has been in full compliance with the conflict of interest guidelines. I immediately answered any and all questions with the facts at my disposal.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, I realize the Minister is rising on a point of privilege and, given that the privileges of all Members of the House relate to the question of honesty, I would like to be able to respond. I realize I cannot put a question to the Minister, but the Minister has stated in the House that in fact he had a blind trust under the direction of McLeod Young Weir which was managed by one Ross T. Montgomery. He should be aware that in fact Ross T. Montgomery has never been an official, nor has ever had any signing authority for McLeod Young Weir and therefore it would be impossible for him to individually process any transaction on behalf of McLeod Young Weir.
In fact, with respect to the Paine Webber statement, the Minister has stated that his so-called trustee asked that the statements, the secret documents coming from the United States, not go to his house when he became aware of it. In fact, we know from press reports that his so-called trustee, Mr. Montgomery-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some Hon. Members:: Come on.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Sit down.


Mr. Speaker:: I would ask Hon. Members to leave the matter to the Chair. The Hon. Member for Hamilton East (Ms. Copps), who has raised questions in the House on this
Privilege-Mr. Mclnnes
particular matter, has listened to the Minister. It may very well be that the Hon. Member for Hamilton East and other Members, in view of what the Minister has said, may want to ask questions which are deemed to be appropriate with respect to conflict of interests at another time, and there is, of course, procedures for doing so. However, the Chair feels it would not be appropriate to continue comments by Members at this time.
As I say, that does not preclude the Hon. Member or other Hon. Members from asking legitimate questions about the conflict of interest guidelines. But given the circumstances, and in keeping with the appropriate tradition of this place, the Minister made a public statement quickly after the matter became the subject of public discussion and immediately following questions in the Question Period, so I think it would not be appropriate to continue it now on either points of order or other points. The Hon. Member will have adequate opportunity to pursue the question of conflict of interest at another time.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, given that the Minister has said in the House that he is prepared to be completely open and to provide full disclosure on all matters surrounding his trust agreement, would it be appropriate, through the Chair, to seek the unanimous consent of the House to have this matter referred to the Standing Committee on Elections, Privileges and Procedure?


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: That is always something that can be done. There are, of course, appropriate ways of doing it.
As Hon. Members know, if there is a unanimous disposition in the House to make a move of that kind, or any other, it is sometimes helpful if there is discussion between House Leaders before that takes place.
I think that I will exercise the prerogative of the Chair and close off discussion on this issue at this time. As I have said, I leave it quite open to Hon. Members to raise the matter again. If there are questions that Members still have, there is of course Question Period tomorrow. Given that the questions are addressed to conflict of interest and to comments which the Minister may or may not have made, I will consider those questions when and if they are asked.


John V. Nunziata: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: I wish to ask the co-operation of all Hon. Members. The Chair has decided not to hear further points of order on this particular matter. I think that is in the interest of order and decorum at this time.
As I said, no Member will be closed off if there are appropriate questions asked at the appropriate time. We are getting into debate here and this is not the time for it.

June 22, 1987
Privilege-Mr. Broadbent
The Hon. Member for Oshawa (Mr. Broadbent) rises on a question of privilege.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker-


John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege-


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for York South-Weston (Mr. Nunziata) rises on a question of privilege. I will hear him, but I have indicated that I will hear the Hon. Member for Oshawa on his question of privilege of which I do have notice. I now have notice of another one, and I will keep the Hon. Member in mind.
The Hon. Member for Oshawa.



John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I wrote to you earlier this day concerning my interpretation of a possibility of a question of privilege. I pointed out, Your Honour, in a letter to you, that certain statements made in the House of Commons by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for International Trade (Mr. McDermid) were in flat contradiction to statements that have been attributed to a senior trade official in the United States, specifically about an agreement that is alleged to have been made about the abolition of tariffs in the automotive sector in trade between Canada and the United States.
On the one hand the Parliamentary Secretary said on June 17 in the House that the subject matter has never even been discussed. On the other hand a senior American official has said something that is in flat contradiction to that, namely, not only has there been discussion but there has been an agreement reached.
If you should agree, Your Honour, that there is a prima facie case of privilege I am prepared to move the appropriate motion to have this matter referred to the Standing Committee on Elections, Privileges and Procedure.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, this is a matter which does in fact touch upon the privileges of all Members of the House. It is very important that we be in a position to obtain clear, definite and correct statements from Ministers in answer to our questions.
I think it is a serious matter when a Minister of the Crown says, in effect, that a senior official of a friendly government, in this case the Deputy U.S. Trade Commissioner, is providing inaccurate information to the staff of the legislative body to which this U.S. official is ultimately responsible. That would be serious enough in any event, but when we are talking as we are here of what the Minister for International Trade (Miss
Carney) should be saying in a clear and accurate way to Members of this House, then we have before us a very serious matter. This is so especially when it is clear that the Minister did not make a correct statement regarding the reality with respect to tariffs on automobile parts and finished automobiles coming from the United States.
I also wish to say in that regard that the House should know that it is the obligation of each individual auto company doing business in Canada pursuant to the Auto Pact to achieve the safeguard levels set for that company. Even if the over-all levels of production for the industry are far above what is required in total, if an individual company does not meet the safeguard levels then the duties are payable by that company. This has happened a number of times even though during those times the over-all safeguard levels had been met.
I think we have issues here which touch on the ability of all Members of the House to do their work properly, based on full and accurate information from the Government. Therefore I think we have an issue which creates a prima facie case of privilege.


Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, I have two points which I would like to contribute to what I think is an extremely important point that has been raised by my Leader. The first is with respect to a statement which was made by the Minister for International Trade (Miss Carney) on March 16, 1987. This is a statement reported at page 4178 of Hansard in which the Minister said:
Tariffs are on the table because experience has shown that the Canadian economy has prospered through tariff reduction. This is so even with the Auto Pact which the Opposition keeps bringing up.
My clear interpretation of that statement is that the Auto Pact and reduction of tariffs affecting the Auto Pact are very much under discussion. That would seem to represent a clear contradiction to the statement made by the Minister's Parliamentary Secretary last week.
The second point which has to be stressed very strongly is that the memorandum, which could be tabled in the House if it were useful, is a memorandum which we ourselves checked through our office this morning in order to determine its authenticity. We checked with the organization which represents the coalition of over 200 American Congressmen and 38 American Senators who represent the Midwest and the northeastern United States. It was clear from the conversation with staff representatives of the organization that, indeed, the briefing which is reported in the memorandum did take place. It was carried out by Mr. Merkin and dealt with the precise points which the memorandum itself outlines in an abbreviated form for purposes of congressional offices.
I think that on those grounds and on the grounds of contradiction between the Minister and her Parliamentary Secretary there is a serious case here of confusion and, certainly, an attempt to avoid giving a clear picture to the House of Commons and to its Members of what is taking place. As one Member who represents a constituency which
June 22, 1987

includes thousands of automotive workers, I think this question of privilege should be allowed. My Leader, the Hon. Member for Oshawa (Mr. Broadbent), should be allowed to move the appropriate motion.


Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, as I understand the question of privilege, it arises out of an alleged contradiction in the comments made by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for International Trade (Mr. McDermid) on June 17, wherein he stated:
This Government has not requested that the Auto Pact be on the table for negotiation. To date, neither has the American side requested that it be part of the negotiations.
I am having a little difficulty piecing this together, Mr. Speaker, but as nearly as I can figure it out, I understand the issue to be that there is an alleged contradiction between the statement of the Parliamentary Secretary and a statement in a memo by a U.S. congressional staff member "who was part of a group briefed earlier this month by Deputy U.S. Trade Negotiator Phil Murphy". I could comment at length, Mr. Speaker, as to how excited we should get about just exactly where this congressional staff member is in the scheme of things, but I do not think I need do that.
The question of privilege fails on two grounds. First of all, you have already ruled on this when you ruled earlier today that there should not be an emergency debate on this matter. Failing that, I refer you to precedent.
There are several decisions and much commentary on what is a question of privilege. I refer you to the decision of Mr. Speaker Lamoureux of March 21, 1974, in relation to a claim that contradictory statements had been made by a Minister in the House, in committee, and in letters.
The issue in that case was whether or not allegedly contradictory statements of a Minister constituted sufficient cause to raise a question of privilege. The Speaker found at that time that there was not a prima facie case of privilege. I quote from the decision:
The Speaker has no other responsibility than determining whether there is a prima facie question of privilege which later on could be submitted to the House in the form of a motion.
He went on to say that while the Hon. Member may have a grievance against the Minister, there are more appropriate avenues available, either in the House or in committee.
I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that if the House were to set aside time for debate every time there is a contradictory statement between Members of this House, or between Members of this House and other Canadians, and even other congressional staff members, all we would be doing would be examining contradictory statements.
I suggest that the question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, fails on two grounds: first, that you have already ruled on it in ruling
Privilege-Mr. Broadbent
out an emergency debate on the subject; and second, that it is a matter of contradictory statements, something which has been ruled in the past, by Mr. Speaker Lamoureux and others, as not being appropriate for a question of privilege.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Essex-Windsor (Mr. Langdon), in reply.


Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, just one brief comment in reply. The contradiction in this case is a contradiction within the Government itself, between the Parliamentary Secretary, whose statement last week indicated one thing, and the Minister, whose statement on March 16 said quite a different thing. That kind of a contradiction within the Government itself is something which has not been addressed by the Deputy House Leader.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Parliamentary Secretary.


Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I perhaps should have read more completely the case to which I referred.
Rising on a question of privilege, Mr. Caouette, the Member for Charlevoix, objected to what he claimed were contradictory statements made by Mr. MacDonald, the then Minister of Veterans Affairs, in relation to the possible extension of the deadline applicable to the Veterans' Land Act. The remarks cited by Mr. Caouette in his presentation were made by the Minister on various occasions in the House, before a committee, and in letter to him. By way of privilege, Mr. Caouette sought to learn from the Minister exactly what he intended to do on this issue.
I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that there is a parallel between that case and this. The complaint in that instance related to alleged contradictory statements made by one person, and I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that alleging contradiction between two members of the Government, a Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary, amounts to the same thing.


Mr. Speaker:: I want to thank the Hon. Member for Oshawa (Mr. Broadbent) for bringing this matter to the attention of the Chair. As well, I want to thank the Hon. Member for Windsor West (Mr. Gray), the Hon. Member for Essex- Windsor (Mr. Langdon), and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Deputy Prime Minister and President of the Privy Council (Mr. Lewis) for their contributions.
Given that this is a serious matter, 1 think it would be appropriate that the Chair reserve decision on it until later this day.
The allegation is that there are contradictions not only between what is set out in a memo written by someone in the U.S. and something said by a Minister of the Government, but also an alleged contradiction between what the Minister has said and what others speaking on behalf of the Government have said on the same issue.

June 22, 1987
Tabling of Documents
Hon. Members will be aware that that makes it somewhat difficult for the Chair. While the contradictions may be very serious indeed, the question the Chair has to decide is whether the contradictions are such that they make it more difficult for Members of Parliament to carry out their duties; in other words, that their privilege has been breached.
I shall return to the Chamber as quickly as possible to render a decision on this particular matter.
1 know that the Hon. Member for York South-Weston (Mr. Nunziata) had indicated his intention to move a question of privilege. No doubt the Hon. Member has been called away on important business. I do have notice of his intention to raise a matter, and perhaps it could be dealt with at another time.


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 the supplementary report of the Electoral Boundaries Commission for the 1987 report for the Province of British Columbia.



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).
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: When the House recessed, the Hon. Member for Portneuf (Mr. Ferland) had one minute remaining in the allocated time for his speech, to be followed by 10 minutes for questions or comments.
The Hon. Member for Portneuf.


Marc Ferland: If I may, Mr. Speaker, after you interrupted me this morning, pursuant to our rules of course-people who are following the debate certainly must have difficulty understanding how a speech can be stopped right in the middle, and then you wait for two and a half hours before resuming it. So I just received the blues, and for a better understanding of the speech I would like if I may to complete a sentence, the last one, and it reads: Justice must be served and the accused must be kept awake, he must be kept alive. That is justice for society. I should say: that is retribution for society. Because as far as I am concerned, Mr. Speaker, re-instating capital punishment in this country is merely vengeance, it is abdicating before a reality, abdicating before the basic problem.
1 mentioned earlier in my speech the efforts Parliament should make, the real efforts each Member in this House should make to reform our criminal system, our youth
June 22, 1987

assistance system and our crime prevention system. As long as we do not get to the root of crime in Canada, we may discuss death penalty for years, because we simply have no real desire to get to the root of the problem, which is prevention.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I do not believe this debate is useless. It is a democratic debate. People were wondering, nearly 75 per cent of Canadian citizens have been wondering for years whether we should not revert to capital punishment. But the longer this debate goes on in this House, the longer we speak, the better we are trying to inform Canadians, and the less Canadians want us to revert to capital punishment. In conclusion, Mr. Speaker I would simply like to state that to a degree I am thankful to the Prime Minister for having allowed this democratic debate, and above all to have allowed a free vote on the matter.


Carlo Rossi: Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would like to congratulate the Member for Portneuf (Mr. Ferland) because he started his speech by saying, I remember it very well, that he did not claim to be one of the best speakers in this House. I will tell you that I have listened to every word the Hon. Member spoke and I must praise his ability to bring up the most essential points in a debate such as this. He did speak about prevention and the need for overhanding the penitentiary system; and I think he is perfectly right. I was also very much impressed by the fact, and I mention it because I share his view and everybody here knows that I was for capital punishment, that he refused to be influenced by the polls. Although it is reported that more than 70 per cent of the people are in favour of capital punishment, he spoke according to his conscience after quite a bit of soul-searching. I believe that if all those involved in this debate were to do the same, that is to decide according to their conscience, it would be almost impossible to say yes to capital punishment. Having said that, I do want to ask the Member for Portneuf, that I congratulate once again, whether in his view before calling for capital punishment, we should not think in terms of overhauling the penitentiary system and its effect upon criminals. There is one thing he mentioned I really liked and of which I spoke often when I was in charge of the Armed Robbery and Manslaughter Section in Montreal, that is crime prevention for young people 15 and 16 years old. Would he kindly develop this point?


Marc Ferland: Mr. Speaker, first I want to thank my colleague, the Hon. Member for Bourassa, for his good words. I think he is absolutely right. I have had the pleasure to discuss with many police officers, people that work in the field where the criminals are. Even they were telling me that unfortunately, because of the way our judicial system works now-they often feel they work for nothing. One particular police officer told me he had arrested the same guy three times in the same weekend for drug trafficking. Isn't it something? Three times the same person on the same street in the same week-end. Why? Because we have a system that does not punish the real criminals. How many people are considered criminals and put into jail because they did not pay a parking ticket or whatever?
Capital Punishment
How many people are in jail for as petty a crime as that while there is no room left in there for the real criminals? Because in fact one starts very young to live a criminal life.
As I have explained earlier this morning in my speech, the problems of the youth very often start at the kindergarden level. Often then they are already rejected by their family, even by society. I gave the example of a young boy who had been sent from foster home to foster home because he was supposedly very difficult to help or to raise, as we say. But that is where we have to work, that is where the problem lays, that is when a youth starts to become a criminal so that when he is 30 or 35, he will be a roughneck. How come?
The Hon. Member for Bourassa (Mr. Rossi) talked about teenagers who are fifteen or sixteen years old. In the beginning, a teenager will appear in juvenile court, and get a first warning, then a second and a third warning. A young lawyer next to him is going to tell him: "Whoop, do not talk, that policeman will try to do you in". Whereas in fact it is often the opposite, the policeman wants to try and help this person stay away from crime. And some day, the judge is going to be fed up, and he will say: Enough is enough, you get a two-year sentence. And then this teenager goes to jail for two years.


Carlo Rossi: The university of crime!


Marc Ferland: It is indeed the university of crime. They are going to learn to become real criminals, and later in this House we will call for the reinstatement of death penalty. But I think that in the first place we should restructure our penitentiary system, our justice system, particularly in terms of crime prevention.


Mrs. Mailly:: Mr. Speaker, on this same subject, I wish to congratulate my colleague both for his stand against the death penalty and for his approach in his speech. In the field of prevention, I would like my colleague to comment on the fact that statistics show that people who get hanged, who eventually become the victims of death penalty belong mostly to minorities, visible minorities, poor communities and so on. And in fact, a great expert in criminal law, Mr. Arthur Maloney, when he spoke in this House-he was the then Hon. Member for Parkdale-urged that we should insist on preventing the causes of crime rather than applying the death penalty after the fact. I would therefore like my Honourable colleague to comment on this aspect of statistics dealing with death penalty. According to those statistics, it is the poor, those who belong to minorities, who end up murdered by the State because they made a mistake.


Marc Ferland: Mr. Speaker, in reply to my colleague, I have here an article which I hope most Canadians have read. This article, which appeared on April 18, 1987, in Le Devoir, refers to a study carried out by Mr. Kenneth Avio, a researcher at the University of Vancouver, I believe, which establishes a relationship between the racial origins of people accused of murder, native Canadians, for instance, and the number who

June 22, 1987
Capital Punishment
were hanged. If I may, I would like to quote a rather important passage:
"Mr. Kenneth Avio, 44, professor of economics at the University of Victoria, reported during an interview that he had discovered many memos from the Department of Indian Affairs recommending hanging for native murderers because, in the case of Indians, for instance, there was a special need for a deterrent. There is no doubt that if you had the misfortune to be a native Canadian, there was a greater risk of being executed, notes Professor Avio, adding that Ukrainians and Eastern Europeans ran the second greatest risk of being hanged if found guilty of murder."
I am not the one to say so. This study was carried out by Professor Avio. I have no reason to question his facts. This should tell us something. We have to remember that each of us has some racist feelings and some violent leanings, and that we each control these weaknesses differently and in various degrees.
When we are dealing with the justice of men, can we make certain that the men who administer this justice will be so perfect that they can put aside all such weaknesses?


Mr. Desjardins:: Mr. Speaker, I would like to join with the Hon. Members for Bourassa and Gatineau in congratulating the Hon. Member for Portneuf for the quality and clarity of his speech. I know that he has consulted, like many Members of this House, various youth and senior citizens' organizations in his constituency and I congratulate him on his thoroughness.
I would like to ask the Hon. Member what he thinks about an argument much used by those who favour reinstatement, which argument can most effectively be described as the economic argument. According to this argument, a criminal who is in prison for twenty or twenty-five years costs the state a lot of money, and it is therefore better to eliminate or kill him to get rid of this burden on society.
I would like to know what my colleague thinks about this economic argument which we often hear to justify the killing of human beings by the state.


Marc Ferland: Indeed, Mr. Speaker, as my dear colleague is suggesting, the economic factor is raised very often and I heard it on many occasions. What is the use of spending $57,000 or $60,000 a year to keep a criminal behind bars? But the other side of the coin is the choice our society has to make: should we eliminate an individual because he is a financial burden on society?
We need only consider the many institutions where we keep the chronically ill, psychopaths, violent and extremely dangerous patients. We keep them in institutions. We do not call that a prison, we call that a psychiatric institution. Yet society is paying for this and we know these people are irrecuperable. Should we put a price on that? Are those people candidates for mercy killing?
As you may recall, Mr. Speaker, there is a certain society, there was a war in 1939-44 when certain individuals attempted to set up a new order and solve problems through racism, where people were eliminated one way or another. They tried to eliminate people who were costing society some money. Then there was the Nuremberg trial. Sooner or later we get to the point where we ask ourselves: Are we prepared to go that far? Is Canadian society reaching the point where we consider doing away with people who are costing us money? I would not think so, Mr. Speaker. What Canadians want and look forward to is something other than that.
I do not think that the monetary aspect should be taken into account in the choice our society has to make.


Mrs. Bourgault:: Just a couple of questions, Mr. Speaker. My colleague from Portneuf is known to be a very convinced and often very convincing man.
Now could my colleague from Portneuf tell me whether in his study of capital punishment he has given any consideration to compensation for the victims? You know, compensation is an aspect which comes up now and then and is the subject of many discussions. In my riding, for example, I often hear people talking about it and I am sure other Members have had similar experiences. Mr. Speaker, our constituents do not understand why an inmate sentenced to life imprisonment should be set free after seven years. People have the impression that our judiciary system is unduly permissive.
So could my colleague tell me whether he has given this matter any thought? Has he considered the possibility of finding a way to compensate the victims?


Marc Ferland: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the Hon. Member for Argenteuil-Papineau. Indeed, we must look at the matter of compensation for victims.
But when we bring in capital punishment to compensate for the murder of an innocent, I do not think that will solve the problem of victim compensation. Because I do not believe the State can revive someone after he has been murdered. That is not the direction we should be taking.
If we are considering compensating people who are the victims of crime, this is something we might have to look at. Yes, I agree we should look at that. And that is the direction we should be looking at. We should be looking in the direction of "Crime does not pay". We should have a fair justice. But not a kind of justice that will eliminate an individual, that will kill. The 282 Members in this House, the 282 individuals who share the power of life and death in this country should not imagine that by re-establishing capital punishment, man's vengeance onto man, we will be re-establishing fairness where a crime has been committed. That is not true, Mr. Speaker, it is not the solution, we should be looking at. Quite the opposite, we must work at reforming the Canadian criminal system, our judicial system in Canada. But we must never go into the opposite direction and say that we will re-establish the law of
June 22, 1987

retaliation in Canada to try and solve a problem the solution of which we have not yet found.
Mr. Speaker, I believe that in view of that, all of us in this House should be working much harder at crime prevention.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The Hon. Member for Bourassa (Mr. Rossi) for a short supplementary.


Carlo Rossi: Mr. Speaker, it is not a question, but rather a brief comment I would like to make, since I have an opportunity.
As I said earlier, Mr. Speaker, I was certainly in support, I repeat in support of capital punishment, and after a very serious self-examination, I am now against capital punishment.
I commend the Hon. Member for Portneuf for voting the way his conscience tells him.
In a last submission, I Would like to urge Hon. Members, the 282 Members in this House to stop wondering about surveys. Let us make a self-examination and put surveys aside. Surveys will not provide us with a reason to kill human beings through capital punishment.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order, please. The period for questions and comments is over. Debate. The Hon. Member for Essex-Windsor (Mr. Langdon).


Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, perhaps the greatest philosopher of our age said, "After the first death, there is no other". 1 think that captures the sense of significance, the sense of importance, the sense of very grave responsibility which faces the Members of this House of Commons as they face the question of whether to turn back the clock, of whether to change pace on the forward progress made by our civilized society and establish once more the death penalty.
I think that on many grounds, on grounds that could take us from statistics to the grounds of morality discussed by our churches similar to the excellent presentation by the previous speaker concerning alternatives to the death penalty, we can make our arguments. We can make our presentations, but fundamentally when it comes right down to it, 1 think what faces us and what faces this House of Commons is a question of whether we are committed to trying to place before the country our view of the sanctity of human life and that we as a Parliament, as a judicial system, should not have the right to be able to take the life of a human being. That, for me, is at the heart of what this debate is all about, Mr. Speaker.
I want to go through some of the statistics, some of the arguments and some of the alternatives, but I want to stress at the start that what motivates me as I think of my children, as 1 think of a society which their children and their children will ultimately inherit, is that we must look to build, as one of the
Capital Punishment
great historians of Canada said, the peaceful kingdom in this country. We cannot do that if we take this step to start, through the state, systematically killing individuals.
There are realities which face us. These realities are the homicide rates which exist in Canada. In 1975, the last year before capital punishment was eliminated in Canada, there were 3.09 homicides per hundred thousand population. Our latest statistics show that under abolition, the rate of homicide has actually shrunk in 1985 to 2.78. That is one reality.
Another reality we must face is what lies south of us. We do not live in a country that is insulated from what takes place in the rest of the world. We can look at what exists elsewhere in the world, we can learn lessons from that and we can make wiser choices on the basis of those lessons.
There are 18 states in the United States in which the death penalty does not exist. Figures for 1983 show 5.91 homicides per hundred thousand population in those states. If we compare that with those states which have the death penalty, we find that the figure is 7.66 per hundred thousand population. In other words, those states with the death penalty have a higher rate of homicide. That is a reality.
Perhaps the reality which is strongest and most powerful, the reality which we as Members of Parliament must face, is the fact that if the death penalty had been in effect in Canada since 1976, the chances are great that people would have been executed by mistake. There can surely be nothing more devastating to the humanity and civilization of a society than to wrongly execute people, for crimes they did not commit.
In February of 1977, Kenneth Roberts was convicted of murder. Just three years later, a new trial was ordered and Roberts was acquitted. Derek Cole was convicted of first-degree murder in 1978. In 1981, after a new trial, Cole was acquitted.
In 1985, John Wildman was found not guilty of murder by the Ontario Supreme Court but had been in prison for seven years for a crime he had not committed. Donald Marshall, a native Indian from Nova Scotia, had served 11 years in prison after being convicted of murder. He too was found to be innocent.
I point out to Hon. Members what they will have received from the Assembly of First Nations which has written to each of us to make the case against capital punishment. The Assembly has said that there is evidence as it sees it that First Nations citizens have been and are being punished by the Canadian state in disproportionate numbers and could be in disproportionate numbers the victims of a restored death penalty.
Canada is a relatively peaceful country, but there have been such cases outside this country. Antonio Rivera and Merla Walpole of San Bernadino, California, were convicted of murdering their two-year-old daughter. Nearly two years after

June 22, 1987
Privilege-Mr. Broadbent
the conviction the daughter was found to be alive in San Francisco. That occurred in 1974. In 1934, there was the case of Louis Berrett and Clement Molway, identified by eight eyewitnesses as the men who had killed a theatre employee. Some Hon. Members say that we will keep capital punishment for only those cases which are clear. Surely a case with eight eyewitnesses must be as clear a case as one could ask for. Yet just before the final arguments at the trial, the actual killers confessed. The jury foreman in that 1934 case was later quoted as saying, "This trial has taught me one thing. Before it I was a firm believer in capital punishment. I'm not now".
In 1922, Maurice Mays, a black man, was executed for murdering a white woman. Four years later, a white woman confessed in a written statement that she had disguised herself as a black man to kill the woman with whom her husband was having an affair. That is the responsibility carried by Members of the House of Commons if we vote to put capital punishment back into effect. We carry the responsibility of putting to death not just those who might have been guilty but of wrongly putting to death people who were not guilty. That is a reality that is very important for us to keep in mind.
I would like to talk very briefly about the way I will vote in this debate. Before I was elected in 1984, a great many people asked me about my stand on capital punishment. I told them that if the question came up in a new House of Commons, I would vote against the restoration of the death penalty. That was one promise I made at that time to my constituents. I also promised that in any debate that did take place, I would report the feedback I had heard from my constituents and I am quite pleased and willing to do that.
We sent to the households of Essex-Windsor a Householder in which, as there often is, there were questions permitting my constituents to write back telling us if they agree or disagree with the stands I take. So we asked them if they disagreed with my stand on capital punishment. Some 49 per cent of those who replied said they did. Some 46 per cent agreed. Some 5 per cent were undecided. It is quite clear that in my constituency a split exists, with a small majority who want to see the death penalty restored. However, I think that is not the issue. The issue is that we were elected to make an informed choice based on a degree of reading, listening, and consultation which the average citizen, I am certain, has not had an opportunity to devote to this question.
There are two things which have to be stressed in that informed choice. The first part has to be to recognize the concern across this country over the increase in violent crime even though that has not been evident in homicide statistics themselves. We have to do something serious in response to that concern. For example, our probation system is grossly underfunded and undersupported. I have friends working in that system and they are simply unable to carry with any kind of effectiveness the case-load they are forced to carry. We need to have a parole system with sufficient resources to see to it
that those who leave prison are given a serious opportunity to make the transition to society.
We have to deal also with sentencing and with our penal institutions. As the Hon. Member who spoke previously said, far too often our penal institutions become universities of crime. They are not rehabilitating people. We have to work at that. We have to recognize it is not just the responsibility of Members of Parliament. It is not just the responsibility of our police. It is the responsibility of communities right across this country through institutions like Neighbourhood Watch and Crime Stoppers to try and do something about the development of crime. It cannot be done from the top, it has to be done from the ground up in our communities.
Although those things are important in considering our vote on this issue, far, far more important, overwhelmingly important, so much so that it has to dominate the thinking of everyone who makes a choice on this issue, has to be reverence for human life. Obviously capital punishment subverts that reference. You cannot have a society where both respect for human life and capital punishment exist. Capital punishment in its very essence undercuts that respect for life which lies at the heart of a civilized society. That is why I will be very proud when the day actually comes to stand and vote against capital punishment. That is a commitment I believe in not just for myself but for my children and all those I love. It is a commitment I hope will be shared on that day by a majority of this House of Commons.


PRIVILEGE
Mr. Speaker:: I want to say to Hon. Members and the watching and listening public that it is not normal practice for the Speaker to interrupt this important debate, especially after hearing those speeches which expressed with great emphasis some sincerely held views. I ask the indulgence of the House to interrupt at this time to return to the matter of the question of privilege raised by the Hon. Member for Oshawa (Mr. Broadbent), the Hon. Leader of the NDP.
In the interests of ensuring that all Hon. Members and the public know exactly what this is about, I am going to read into my reasons the letter I received from the Hon. Member for Oshawa because I think it puts very, very succinctly the concern expressed by the Hon. Member as well as the Hon. Member for Windsor West (Mr. Gray). This is what the Hon. Member for Oshawa wrote to the Speaker:
The Question of Privilege arises from the complete contradiction between what the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade said in the House on June 17, 1987, about the Canada-U.S. Automotive Agreement not being a matter for discussion with the representatives of the U.S. government
June 22. 1987

and what a senior official of the United States is revealed to have asserted according to a Canadian Press story which appeared on the weekend.
He continues:
According to the Canadian Press story. Mr. Bill Merkin. Deput\ Chief U.S. Negotiator for the L.S.-Canada trade agreement, in a briefing provided for United States Congressional staff, declared that there have been discussions on the Autopact taking place in the free trade talks. Specifically, he said that auto tariffs would be dropped and that the Canadian government believes that the provinces would agree to removing dut\ remissions and could get the provinces to make other requested changes in the Autopact.
The letter of the Hon. Member for Oshawa continues as follows:
This claim by Mr. Merkin on June 4. 1987. was flatly contradicted on June 17th by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for International Trade when he said in the House: "This Government has not requested that the Auto Pact be on the table for negotiations. To date, neither has the American side requested that it be part of the negotiations".
The Hon. Member for Oshawa, the Leader of the New Democratic Party, closes off his application in writing by saying:
It it clear that if the briefing of the L.S. Congressional staff took place in the manner described by Mr. Merkin. the Parliamentary Secretary has misinformed the House.
I draw to the attention of Hon. Members that the Hon. Member for Oshawa has not said that there was any deliberate misleading or that misinformation was deliberately given. However, 1 thought that in the interests of clarity it was appropriate to read the entire written application of the Hon. Member for Oshawa because, in my view, it puts forward very succinctly the complaint and, 1 suppose to some degree, the dilemma which the Hon. Member and other Hon. Members feel they are in.
My response is to say, first, that the issue of the Auto Pact is a very serious one, not only to the Province of Ontario but. naturally, to all of Canada. I am sure there are Members on all sides of the House who are extremely concerned about any suggestions made, whether accurate or inaccurate, which lead to public discussion creating concern or anxiety w'ith regard to the future of the Auto Pact.
1 do not, therefore, minimize in any way the seriousness of the matter raised by the Hon. Member for Oshawa and others. My task, of course, is to decide whether, as important as the issue is. under the law's of procedure of this place it amounts to a breach of privilege.
The question of the issues which are or which are not subject to negotiation in the course of the free trade discussions currently taking place with the United States is one of very great importance. Questions have regularly been asked in this House on this fundamental point and Ministers have answered these questions within the context of a negotiating situation.
] stress that it is a legitimate matter for parliamentary-questions. for debate, and for the expression of anxieties which may arise as a consequence of what may appear in the press, what may be said by different parties to the negotiations, or w'hat may be said in this Chamber.
Privilege-Mr. Broadberu
With regard to anxieties, I know that Hon. Members will have noted that in the continuing debate on free trade, and especially on the Auto Pact, both sides of the House have expressed anxieties with regard to what others in this House and in other places have either said or been reported to have said.
When negotiating an issue of this magnitude varying reports have to be anticipated, some well founded and some less well founded. Some, naturally, are no more than speculation. Some reflect a particular point of view. Reports emanating from the other side which appear to contradict assurances given by Ministers are clearly the subject of legitimate debate and questions in the House.
However, parliamentary privilege exists to protect Hon. Members from obstruction or intimidation in the fulfilment of their duties. The publication of contradictory statements, it would seem to the Chair, does not in itself provide justifiable grounds for a case of privilege. The privileges of Members are not infringed by the existence of controversy, disagreement, contradiction or any of the multifarious elements which enter into political issues.
1 must add, however, that if those contradictions took such a form that there was a serious allegation that there was an intent to mislead, under those circumstances the difficulty in deciding whether there was a breach of privilege would give the Chair a great deal of concern indeed.
1 say that because if. for instance, there was a deliberate tactic on one side or another to put forward misleading information, it might well be that it could amount to obstruction in the fulfilment of the duties of Hon. Members because of the material put forward and the motivation which lay behind it. However, as 1 say, that is not the allegation before us. The allegation is that there have been contradictions. As 1 pointed out, the Hon. Member for Oshawa was very careful to confine the question of privilege to those contradictions.
As I have said, any action which prevented full debate or the free expression of views on such issues could violate parliamentary privilege. However, in this case, at least at present, there is no evidence of that kind of action and I cannot, therefore, accord this matter precedence over all other business.
1 point out to the Hon. Member for Oshawa and others that this ruling is. of course, strictly a procedural one on the narrow grounds of what constitutes a breach of privilege of the Members of this place and does not in any way minimize the very great importance of the issue. I want to thank Hon. Members again for their interventions and the attention all Hon. Members have paid to them.
In closing. 1 want to reiterate how much the Chair has appreciated the very clear and succinct terms in which the Hon. Member for Oshawa put forth the facts and the complaint in his written application to the Chair on this question of privilege.

June 22, 1987
Capital Punishment




[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Mazankowski:
That this House supports, in principle, the reinstatement of capital punishment and directs that a special committee on reinstatement, composed of 15 members, be established, hold hearings and make its final report to the House no later than three (3) months following the adoption of this motion, such report to provide recommendations on:
(a)	which offence or offences should carry the death penalty, and in what
circumstances;
(b)	which method or methods should be used to carry out the penalty of
death, and in what circumstances;
That, pursuant to Standing Order 107(1), this special committee be hereby appointed as a committee to prepare and bring in a bill no later than three months following the adoption of this motion, founded on the committee's 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).
John Martin Oostrom: Mr. Speaker, I would like to applaud the Member for Essex-Windsor (Mr. Langdon) for the eloquence
with which he presented his views and his argument. However, I do not think the Hon. Member is very consistent in his argument for preserving life at any cost. He used the very laudable words "life is sacred", and I commend him for that. However, although he pleads for the lives of the guilty, I have never heard him speak or vote in this House for the lives of the innocent. I speak not only of protecting the lives of innocent victims from serial and repeat murderers by advocating life imprisonment without parole, I am also speaking for the innocent babies about to be born. The Member, his Party, and his Leader, advocate their abortion on demand. There are over 60,000 innocent victims a year.
Will the Hon. Member at least say a few words on behalf of those babies who are innocent victims being murdered each year? Will he also say a few words in support of a life sentence without parole for those premeditated murderers?


Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, I certainly take the issue of innocent victims very seriously. It is very difficult for a family member, whether a wife or child, to deal with someone's murder. It is very difficult for a parent to face the viciousness of a murder, perhaps even a sexual murder of a daughter. One recognizes the grimness which is involved. This is not an issue on which certain people in the House have a monopoly. It is something for which all of us share a very human feeling and, therefore, I believe we have to talk about serious punishment.
We cannot talk about parole after seven years in a case where innocent victims have been badly hurt and expect them to support our justice system.
I believe with the Hon. Member that some serious change in the sentencing structure and the parole system in this country is very much required. I have made these points in my own constituency and I do not disagree with the Hon. Member in that respect.
However, I disagree with respect to the description of the New Democratic Party position as one of supporting abortion on demand. I recognize that this is not a debate about this subject, but let me briefly say that our view is that this too is such a crucial issue of life that it is inappropriate to be in the Criminal Code.
Instead, it is an issue in which the choices they face should be decided upon between a woman and her physician. I am not certain how recently the Member has gone to his physician. However, if his physician is anything like the ones I visit, I suspect that if he demands certain treatment from his physician the situation will be discussed before any action is taken.
I believe the issue of abortion does not belong in the Criminal Code. It is clear that some of us are opposed to abortion and some of us are in favour of abortion, but as I look around the House, very few of us are forced to face that choice. The Hon. Member and myself will never have to face that choice, and I think it is a question that should not be in
June 22, 1987

the Criminal Code. In my opinion, that is not saying that abortion on demand is the policy of our Party.


Elliott William Hardey: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak against the amendment before the House and in support of the original motion. The issue of the restoration of capital punishment in Canada has caused us all to search deep into our hearts and feelings. We must then try to reach a decision based on honesty and common sense.
I know that I have spent countless hours studying and researching this subject, and more hours in discussing it with my wife and family and close friends. As a Member of Parliament, I have received hundreds of letters and had many discussions with constituents. I have attended and participated in many forums in my riding, as I am sure have all Members in the House.
I have listened to arguments in the House and I recognize that there is an honest argument both for and against the motion. I listened with extreme and intense interest.
Some of my colleagues insist that where there is life there is, in fact, hope and that reform should always be considered a possibility even in the case of first degree murder.
I also recognize that this issue is one of conscience. I will respect those Members who present arguments against the restoration of capital punishment, knowing full well that the majority of their constituents probably do not agree with them.
I want to defend my colleagues who debate this issue in an honest fashion, based on conscience, regardless of which side of the issue on which they stand.
I ask the people of Canada to realize that while it is the duty and the honour of a Member of Parliament to represent the people, indeed to be servants of the people, on matters of conscience we cannot dismiss the fact that a Member is more than a delegate. When a motion or Bill is declared to be one on which there is a free vote, a Member is expected to vote according to his or her feelings after discussing the issue properly.
I am sure there is no exception that at election time all of us were asked at every candidate's meeting and in every interview our position on capital punishment. None of us should feel uncomfortable when we vote on the motion in this debate, as long as Members are being honest with themselves and with their constituents.
What bothers me the most and what has disappointed me in this debate recently is some of the cheap political shots that creep into the debate, especially from one side of the House. This is not a political issue. No one should be ranting about politics as some of my colleagues in the New Democratic Party have done.
On the first day of the debate, the Member from Regina made an argument about conscience with which I fully agreed. However, the Member went on, as did the Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson) and nearly every Member from the
Capital Punishment
socialist Party, to rant about how the barbaric Tories want Canada to go back to hanging children for stealing a loaf of bread and that the Tories dreamed up this motion for political reasons.
I am disappointed in that approach. We should be dealing in truth and paying attention to the fact that in 1984 every candidate, regardless of political connection, was asked by the people to bring a free vote to this House of Commons on the capital punishment issue. We should not speak about irrelevan-cies which create confusion in order to gain political points. We should have a free vote and not to play "Follow the Leader" or a partisan game.
The Hon. Member from Regina presented a conscience approach. By attempting to move this free motion into the political arena, even though the other two Parties are absolutely free on the issue, is a detriment to the cause he claims to promote. How can anyone take a Member of Parliament seriously when he or she debates a free motion in a partisan manner?
The motion simply asks if we believe that capital punishment can be justified under any circumstances. In my view, I justify capital punishment as a symbolic act. In the case of the most heinous crimes, society should be prepared to effect retribution by taking the life of the perpetrator. The death penalty would be a warning like a lighthouse throwing its beams out to sea. I do not feel we should allow misguided compassion to erase our concern for the hundreds of unfortunate victims of bestial crimes.
There are those who fear that the state might execute the wrong person someday and to some extent that could possibly happen. However, as far as I have been able to research the subject, although we have put innocent people in prison, we have not as yet mistakenly executed someone accused of the type of murder about which we are speaking today. We are not talking about murders of passion. We are not talking about an emotionally deranged person convicted of murder. In this debate Members continually lump all homicides into statistics instead of dealing with what we are really concerned with, and that is capital punishment for first degree premeditated murders. We are concerned with killers of policemen, prison guards or serial killers. In our Canadian history we have recorded the cases of dozens of murderers who have been released or paroled after being convicted and sentenced of first-degree murder. Surely we do not have the right to expose the innocent to this type of danger. Some Members have indicated that we can fix that problem by changing our parole system. I agree that that possibility should be examined.
This motion would trigger a change in the system, and 1 will come back to that point later in my remarks. First, I want to talk a little about the deterrent factor. There are many ways to discuss deterrence when considering capital punishment. We have already heard many times in previous hours of debate

June 22, 1987
Capital Punishment
statistics and numbers used to prove practically all points both for and against, so I do not really intend to get caught up in that exercise. I do agree with my colleague, the ETon. Member for Swift Current-Maple Creek (Mr. Wilson), that one either feels that capital punishment is a deterrent or one feels it is not. J. Edgar Hoover wrote this regarding deterrents: "Experience clearly demonstrates deterrents to crime are, first, sure detection, second, swift apprehension and, third, proper punishment". Each is a necessary ingredient.
We have the right to expect that the efforts of law enforcement officers will be followed by realistic punishment. Enforcement officers in fact have certainly proven to be very efficient as far as sure detection and swift apprehension are concerned. Many times the criminal is apprehended within minutes or hours after the crime has been committed.
Surely the accusation that no one has the right to take a human life, that a person who executes a criminal is as guilty as the one he executes, must be discussed further. I also do not want to get into the exercise of quoting the Scriptures, but I am certainly aware that capital punishment cannot be rejected on the grounds of being morally wrong in the light of the Scriptures. There are dozens of verses to support capital punishment. Surely we must realize that all law and order would soon end if this objection were carried through to its logical conclusion. It would make it wrong for a nation to defend itself against an aggressor. It would be come wrong for a city or state to maintain a police force. Logic and common sense must prevail in considering the statement that he who implies the death penalty, and in this case we are talking about the state, is actually a murderer himself.
I do want to come back to the changes needed in the judicial system. Over and over again statements have been made in this debate that we must overhaul the judicial system. 1 think all of us must agree with that because it keeps coming up over and over again. The people have lost their faith in the system. Dangerous loopholes, discovered by clever lawyers over time, have set precedents. This has meant repeated failure to demonstrate justice in our courts. Every forum on capital punishment I have attended in the last several months within minutes moves into a discussion about the lack of faith Canadians have in the system. They repeat over and over again that victims of crime must have the same rights as the accused and the convicted criminals. They do not feel that this is the case today. I have been on record in this House as voicing that concern. I am also very concerned that vigilante action is condoned by a large segment of our society.
I am sure this debate and the passing of this motion will trigger an overhaul of our judicial system. That is probably the most important point I want to make here in my contribution to the issue we will be voting on shortly. If this motion passes, a special committee will travel across the country talking to people. It will hear what the people have to say. I am absolutely positive that Canadians will continue to voice the concerns I have just described. They will present briefs and opinions that something must be done to overhaul our judicial system.
Certainly the committee would be obligated to react in its report to this House and we will be obligated to move in that direction with new legislation.
I fear that if this motion is rejected, all action in this regard will cease. In the many opinions and concerns all Hon. Members have expressed in this House on the overhauling of the judicial system, no one has really presented a way to get it started. This motion will start that process. I feel very confident about that.
I stated that I view capital punishment as a symbolic act for cases of the most heinous of crimes. The system bends over backwards to give the accused the benefit of the doubt, and it is important that that benefit continues to be part of our judicial system in order to ensure fairness to the accused.
I believe the system which would have the best chance of succeeding would be what is known as the double jury system. I will give a short description of what I mean by that. First, there must be a unanimous vote by the jury to convict. Second, the jury would then consider whether or not to impose a death sentence. A very high proportion, such as 10 out of 12 jurors, would be required to make that decision.
Records show that the most heinous types of murderers, serial killers, killers of hostages, et cetera, would likely be the ones upon whom the death penalty would be imposed. Surely, one can readily accept that the possibility of making a mistake in that type of system is very remote.
I invite all Hon. Members to consider the motion before the House very carefully. So much depends on its outcome. I particularly invite my colleagues in the New Democratic Party to participate in debate in a free fashion and to take the politics out of it. It is too important an issue to be approached in that manner.


Mrs. Therese Killens (Saint-Michel-Ahuntsic):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to speak to the motion for reinstatement of the death penalty, because I have an obligation to explain my position to my constituents and to Canadians.
Mr. Speaker, you will recall that in MacLean's my name was mentioned among the undecided. In fact, if this debate had taken place in 1979, when I was first elected to this honourable House, I would probably have voted in favour of the death penalty. At the time, I had made a survey of my constituents in the riding of Saint-Michel-Ahuntsic, and as in the response to recent polls today, the majority spoke out in favour of a return to capital punishment.
I must admit that growing up in a police family-my father was a member of the police force and was wounded on duty, my brother is retired from the police force, my son is now also a member of the police force, and I have several brothers-in-law and nephews who belong to the force as well-I often
June 22, 1987

heard stories about the wrongs and suffering experienced by the families of victims. I also share the profound concern of Canadians and of my constituents about the increasing number of violent murders being committed today.
Mr. Speaker, I was rather ambivalent about the subject for quite some time. I consulted, I listened, I read many letters and I read many papers on the subject. I prayed, I examined with my conscience, and after much thought and reflection, I have now decided to speak out against the death penalty.
I am now very comfortable with my decision, but I want to explain my change of heart.
Several serious considerations were a factor in bringing about my decision. One of the most important was a passage in a statement by the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops on the death penalty. The statement appeared under the heading: Escalating Violence. In this document, the author asked: Who is the master of life? He gave the following answer, and I quote: "If as citizens we recognize the sacred character of human life, and if, according to our faith, we believe we were created in the image and likeness of God and that God is the sole master of life, we must realize we can hardly dispose of another person's life."
I have been an active member of the Pro-Life movement for many years. I believe in the sanctity of human life from the moment of conception. How could I speak out today in favour of destroying human life through the death penalty, when I demand that we respect and protect the right of the foetus to be born? I firmly believe that human life is a gift of God and that we have a responsbility to protect it from its inception until its end. I believe violence breeds violence. How can we, as a society, claim that to avenge unlawful murder, the State should resort to a second, lawful murder?
The debate on the death penalty is part of a problem we inherited from the past. In former times, the death penalty was applied without any problem. At the time, the principle of an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, was strictly adhered to. And to better camouflage this act of collective retribution, the death penalty was said to fulfil a four-fold purpose. The first purpose is atonement for the crime; the second purpose is social example; the third purpose is deterrence; and the fourth one is the protection of society. Nowadays, we acknowledge that those aims can no longer be the basis of a moral judgement. We know that is some corners of the world, there are still people and individuals who perpetrate ancient acts of cruelty and have barbarian behaviours. However, we note that throughout the centuries and more especially since the Second World War, there is a deeper understanding of the dignity of the human being. This leads us to say as a society that behaviours who used to be considered as humane, natural and fair and even necessary to the social order have now been proven to be entirely unfair and inhuman.
It is obvious that the idea of retribution easily comes to the mind of each and everyone of us. We all have a strong urge which drives us not only to defend ourselves but also to avenge
Capital Punishment
ourselves. We have to consider ralistically our present prob-lemes, the problemes experienced in 1987 to find effective solutions for 1987 and develop preventive measures which will give greater hope to the community in the year 2000.
I should like to examine one by one the four purposes aimed at in previous centuries and which justified the death penalty. The first was the atonement for crime. I should like to remind the House the generous gesture of Our Holy Father John Paul II who, as you will remember, forgave his assailant and even visited him in jail. More recently, when she was in Ottawa, Mrs. Coretta King, the widow of the lamented Martin Luther King spoke in strong terms against the death penalty. I quote her comments before the Standing Committee on Human Rights.

"I just don't see how people can say they're Christian and murder people".
In answer to a question from the Hon. Member for Eglin-ton-Lawrence (Mr. de Corneille) Mrs. King said that she regrets her fellow Americans are moving backward, rather than forward on the issue. She also said: "I certainly think it's barbaric for a civilized nation such as the United States. I certainly hope Canada won't fall into that".
Like many other Members of Parliament I have received a letter from Lesley C. Parrott of Summerhill Avenue in Toronto who is begging us to consider her deeply-felt views and vote no to the return of the death penalty. Hon. Members will recall that although her own lovely 11-year-old daughter, Alison, was murdered at the hands of a criminal, Mrs. Parrott states in her letter:
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.
This letter weighs heavily in my decision to vote against capital punishment. I want to publicly commend Mrs. Parrott for her courage and her forgiveness.

The second purpose was the social example. The people who demand capital penalty believe that violent crime is worse than it actually is.
In a recent study by the Department of Justice of Canada, it was found that Canadians believed that violent crime was seven times as frequent as it actually is. According to a study by the Centre of Criminology of the University of Toronto carried out in 1982, almost 75 per cent of Canadians believed that at least 30 per cent of all crimes were of a violent nature. Actually, Mr. Speaker, only 5.7 per cent fall into that category-
Another erroneous perception of the problem is the following: Two-thirds of Canadians believe that the murder rate in Canada has increased since the death penalty was abolished,

June 22, 1987
Capital Punishment
while in fact, a study carried out in 1985 by the Solicitor General's Office proved there was no significant change.
The third purpose was deterrence. Figures from Statistics Canada show that the death penalty is not a deterrent for criminals. In 1975, the last year in which the death penalty was still in effect, there were 3.09 homicides per 100,000 inhabitants, while ten years later, in 1985, the number had dropped to 2.75 homicides per 100,000 inhabitants.
Like other Members, I also received a letter from the Police Association of Ontario last March, signed by its President, Mr. Neal W. Jessop, which said, and this is a partial quote:
Abolitionists continually refer to their belief that there is no evidence to prove capital punishment is a deterrent. Our simple response to that position is that there is no concrete evidence to prove that it is or it is not a deterrent and indeed it is quite likely that we will never know with certainty if capital punishment deters one who is contemplating murder. It is futile therefore to base any argument on abolition or reinstatement on the grounds of deterrence.
[ Translation]
Finally, I would say that if the death penalty is not a deterrent, all we have left is the desire for retribution. Then we get back to the principle of an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, with which, as I said earlier, I do not agree.
The fourth purpose was to protect society. Obviously, Mr. Speaker, no one in this House would question this principle. So it is not the principle itself that is so controversial but the question whether the execution of murderers by the State is the appropriate way to go about it.
What happens in case of error? We will never know how many people have been executed by mistake. I would like to recall two cases in our history where Canadians were the victims of a miscarriage of justice. Members will recall that in 1985, John Wildman was found not guilty of a murder for which he had already spent seven years in prison. The House will also recall that Donald Marshall, after being erroneously convicted of murder in 1971, spent eleven years of his life in a penitentiary in New Brunswick, until he was finally released in 1982.
I would like to add a new element to the debate, an argument against the death penalty, and I do so on behalf of those who are unable to obtain an adequate defence before the Courts. I am referring to the illiterate, the mentally handicapped, the deaf, the poor, the emotionally handicapped and minorities. During her visit to Ottawa, Mrs. Coretta King said an American study had shown that Blacks were three times as likely to be executed as Whites.
It is a fact that, in the United States, the poor, the Black and the uneducated run a greater risk of being executed than the wealthy and influential, who usually get lighter sentences. Here in Canada, six times as many Indians as white people are convicted. If the death penalty were reinstated, a greater number would be condemned to death.
The solution to our social problems does not reside in the death penalty, but rather in identifying the causes of certain behaviours in some people. Many of them are living through events beyond their control. For instance, we certainly do not consider the mental defective as being responsible for their condition. Yet, increasingly, they are being sent out in our society without the necessary resources to head an independent life.
Many other Canadians are in good mental health, but live in a hostile environment. This can be poverty, a broken home, sexual degredations or an environment where it is hard to get education or affection.
We have to remember that these are the individuals who make up the majority of our criminal classes. Someone who suffers from a psychosis is sick. He is not reponsible for his condition.
In looking for answers to the problems which lead individuals to murder, the Government should think about these figures: In 1982, 83 per cent of all murders in Canada were committed by spouses or friends. That same year, in only 2.2 per cent of cases was there no direct relationship between the victim and the accused.
I believe, Mr. Speaker, that the Government should consider the basic needs of the poor, the unemployed, the sick and the homeless and ask the following question: Can we afford not to offer rehabilitation programs to family violence agressors? What will an uneducated individual do in society on his release from prision? Probably commit another crime. Why are young first-time offenders not separated from professionnal criminals? They should not be put in prison to learn crime from hardened criminals. Why is our judicial system so ineffective? Why is there plea bargaining? Why plea bargain with criminals? Why urge a criminal to plead guilty on a lesser charge? Is it to speed up matters? The result of this is that dangerous individuals are put back on the streets when they should still be in prison.
It is against such aberrations that police officers object. They do their job conscientiously, but our judiciary system releases dangerous individuals, not to mention the fact that in too many instances the guilty are given minimum sentences by overly indulgent judges.
The entire prison system should be revamped. Too often dangerous criminals escape, and far too many paroles are granted without due consideration for the protection of society. The state must protect its citizens. The state has the responsibility of meting out punishment. If a crime goes unpunished or if the punishment does not fit the crime, the law or its enforcement loses credibility in the mind of reasonable people. Too often the punishment is not severe enough for the crime involved. In murder cases I think the state must impose life imprisonment, and the state must also restrict the right to parole.
June 22, 1987

Finally, Mr. Speaker, I maintain that killing a person only for the sake of punishment is nothing more or less than vengeance. I believe the state should have the political will to identify the causes of our society's malaises and evils, and seek preventive, non-violent solutions to new problems.
Lastly I should like to quote from a letter I received from Denise and Pierre Theriault of Peloquin Street in my riding and with which I agree. Here is what it says:
I am firmly opposed to capital punishment for the following reasons:
(1)	Capital punishment has no deterrent value, therefore it does not
protect society.
(2)	It hides the real causes of criminality.
(3)	It is inequitable, unfair and the only irreversible punishment.
(4)	Its application reinforces disdain for life ... which I consider sacred.
In a nutshell, Mr. Speaker, such are the reasons which prompt me to vote against the death penalty, and I urge my colleagues on both sides of the House to vote against the restoration of capital punishment.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Questions and comments.
Questions and comments are over. Debate. The Hon. Member for Winnipeg-St. James (Mr. Minaker).


Mr. George Minaker (Winnipeg-St. James):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to take part in this historic debate. It is probably the most serious and historic debate in which I have had the opportunity to take part in my 20 years in politics in different levels of government. I should like to say from the start that I am speaking against the amendment to the amendment and in support of the return of capital punishment.
My decision was not an easy one. I gave it much thought and carefully considered all aspects of my decision on this serious subject. As I suggested, it was not taken lightly.
In spite of the differences we may have as Members of the House on this subject, I respect the position of Members who have taken the opposite point of view in the debate. I am aware of the difficulty they may have had in reaching this decision. It was even more difficult for them because of the fact that the majority of Canadian citizens would like the return of capital punishment to our justice system. I recognize the difficulties faced by some of my caucus colleagues at this time.
In this debate we have heard statistics on both sides of the issue, dealing with crime rates, homicide rates, and many others. I know that to many they are just numbers; that is what they are-numbers. However, figures cannot begin to tell us about the pain, the horror, or the suffering which even one murder represents when it takes place.
Capital Punishment
I should like to cite the case of two-time murderer, Eli Guay, who was convicted in 1956 for murdering a Sudbury area man. He beat him to death during a robbery, and he was committed to prison for it. He was paroled four years later. In 1981, in front of witnesses, he threw his common-law wife out of a picture window, retrieved a knife and proceeded to slice open her throat. That is the reality of first degree murder- senseless brutality. In 1981 Guay's homicide was just one of 648 such offences.
We can put these criminals in prison, hopefully to rehabilitate them. However, what happens when they are paroled? I believe there are some 11 instances where first-time murderers have been paroled and have gone out to commit murder again.
It is wrong to imply that our system works just fine the way it is. I believe a return to capital punishment is a step in the right direction.
I want to be clear. I wish to state that my support for the death penalty is in its application to certain specific crimes of first degree, planned, and premeditated murder. These cases would include serial killers such as Clifford Olson, contract killers who gain personally from the crimes they commit, hostage killers such as terrorists, kidnap killers, and killers of police officers and prison guards.
There could be instances where the jury may want to find the person innocent. An example might be where a spouse has suffered mental cruelty through the years and suddenly, through pressures and so on, may decide to go out and get a weapon to eliminate or kill the spouse who caused the mental cruelty. There must be some leeway for the jury to decide whether or not the person is innocent. If it were just premeditated murder, the jury would have to find the person guilty. This is why I am specific in the particular areas where I believe first degree murder would justify the deterrent of capital punishment.
In the main motion we are proposing putting together a committee of the House of Commons to go across Canada to get the feelings of the majority of people and to find out their reaction on when they would like to see the return of capital punishment or what form of capital punishment. I believe this is the correct approach on a major decision which the Government and the House of Commons must make.
In the debate in which we are involved at this time, I do not plan on getting into the statistics, the moral insults, the religious arguments, or the"what ifs" which supply the basis of the abolitionist argument. My support for capital punishment is grounded in principles which stand on their own, regardless of statistical evidence one way or another.
First and foremost, my support for capital punishment is grounded in a belief in my democratic responsibility to respond to the will of the people. I stated my position on the issue when I ran during the election campaign, and my position remains consistent. The voters in my riding of Winnipeg-St. James and indeed across Canada have consistently supported

June 22, 1987
Capital Punishment
reinstatement with a considerable majority. As their representative I feel proud to be able to respond to their demands.
I have conducted two surveys on capital punishment in my constituency during the past two years. The first survey, which was done in April, 1985, revealed that 76 per cent supported the return of capital punishment, 18 per cent were opposed, and 6 per cent were undecided in the Winnipeg-St. James constituency. The last survey was completed several weeks ago. I might say that there is still the odd return coming in when mail is allowed to go through. The last survey was conducted in April, 1987. The results indicate that 73 per cent favour the return and reinstatement of capital punishment, 24 per cent are opposed, and 3 per cent are undecided. Basically, the majority of our area still wants the return of capital punishment to the justice system.
I intend to uphold the representation of my constituency and the voters' demands. To ignore the will of the people on this issue is to tell the majority of Canadians that their opinions do not count. I believe their opinions count, and I intend to make them count when I vote on this issue.
I also believe there is a serious imbalance in our justice system in favour of criminals. Let us consider the murderer. If arrested, he is not only informed of his rights and taken into police protection, but he is also given the counsel of a defence lawyer who protects his client's interest before a court comprised of a judge and a jury to ensure that everything is fair and proper. In addition, the defendant in the case also has the right of appeal to a higher court. Society makes a great effort to protect the rights of the accused.
Now let us consider the victim. A person, through no wish of his or her own, is arbitrarily deprived of the most basic human right-life, the right to live. There is no jury, no lawyer, no appeal; just the decision of the individual who set out to premeditate how to eliminate a life. The murderer's decision is singular and final. The penalty of capital punishment goes far in redressing the imbalance by imposing a penalty as final as the one of the murderer.
Our citizens are expecting this justice. They are taking the law into their own hands. During November and December, 1986 in Ontario, Quebec, and Alberta small store owners were arming themselves-and we saw what happened-against would-be thieves and potential killers.
In a matter of five weeks there were five attempted or successful armed robberies, two deaths had occurred, and three thieves were recovering from wounds. Are these citizens crying out for the right to be protected from the potential killer who seems to have no fear of the law or a serious penalty for his dastardly deeds?
As Members of the Parliament of Canada we cannot condone such behaviour. We have sworn to uphold the laws of the country and to make new laws. Surely we can return their confidence in our system of justice. If we cannot condone this
action, we should at least return their confidence in our system of justice.
The fundamental questions of capital punishment are, is it deserved and is it appropriate? I believe that capital punishment vindicates the moral standard that it is wrong to murder and that the murderer deserves to die for his crime. I believe the only moral justification for capital punishment is that it is deserved and it is a just penalty. Either it is or it is not. Capital punishment is necessary to protect society and social order and should be available as an option in sentencing. As the situation currently stands, we are not adequately protected. The killer who has been jailed for life has one option to prison, that is, escape.
As a former Minister of Corrections in the Province of Manitoba, I knew of the difficulties in our prisons and penal system. Those people who argue that a term of life imprisonment is an appropriate alternative to the death penalty should recognize what is happening in our penal system. The crime rate in our prisons across Canada has risen by some 400 per cent since the abolition of capital punishment in 1976. There is an average of some 11 murders every year in our penal system. What we are doing is transferring the problem into our penal system. In the environment existing within our institutions, the convicted murderer has nothing to lose if he kills again. Will a longer sentence really make a difference to someone already serving a life sentence? Do we really want the Clifford Olsons out on the street again? That is a question we must ask ourselves. Do we really want an individual like that walking around in society knowing what he had done to his 11 victims some years ago?
Those are my reasons for supporting capital punishment. I believe that we, as part of the parliamentary system, have to recognize that the reality of first degree murder is senseless and it is brutal. Where there is no question that an individual has committed the ultimate crime, give the jury the opportunity to decide whether capital punishment should be imposed on that individual so that we can protect society and bring reality back into our justice.


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a brief question to the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-St. James (Mr. Minaker). In the course of his remarks he listed a number of types of murders which he believed warranted the use of the death penalty. Let me point out to him that all those types of murders occur in Great Britain. Not only that but Britain is faced very frequently with murders created by terrorists of various types. Yet, just a few years ago, the British House of Commons with a large majority of Conservative Members of Parliament in which the Prime Minister, no shrinking violet, is a strong supporter of capital punishment, voted by a substantial majority against a proposal to reintroduce capital punishment.
June 22, 1987

That situation is not peculiar to Great Britain. Virtually every democratic country in the world, with the exception of the United States, has now done away with capital punishment, and countries in which capital punishment is found are the communist countries, without exception, and most of the right-wing military dictatorships.
Why does the Elon. Member prefer to associate himself and this country with the communist countries and the right-wing military dictatorships and not take an example and lesson from the democratic countries which, as I have pointed out, with the exception of the United States, have all done away with capital punishment?


Clement George Minaker: Mr. Speaker, let me reply through you to the Elon. Member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow). First, I am not familiar with the resolution that was before the British Parliament but I understand that the last resolution which was defeated was confusing. I think it said basically, "Are you in favour of the return of capital punishment for murder?" Obviously I am not in favour of capital punishment returning just for murder, but for specific crimes, premeditated homicidal crimes.
I might throw the question back at the Hon. Member. Why would I vote like a communist country or like the United States? Why would the Hon. Member not vote like the majority of his constituency wants him to? Why will he not do what the people of Canada want? Is the Hon. Member against democracy?


Mr. Benjamin:: Read Sir Edmund Burke.


Clement George Minaker: In my riding, 73 per cent of the people in the last survey wanted the return of capital punishment. Let the juries decide whether they want to apply it. Why would the Hon. Member go against the wishes of his constituents? I told the people of my riding how I was going to vote on the question of capital punishment during the campaign. I stayed with that decision. I believe in it. It is something that is just and will help deter homicidal crimes.
The Hon. Member says statistics do not apply. Let us go back to 1962 when we actually had the last hanging. That is when statistics should start. People do not pay attention when something is passed by legislation. They read in the newspaper how many people were or were not hanged when crime rates go up. You have to look at the year 1962, not the year 1976 when using statistics. We can throw statistics back and forth. I know what I believe in and I think that is what the majority of people of Canada believe in. I am proud that I will be able to vote on their behalf here in this House. I hope the Hon. Member will consider that when he casts his vote.


Mr. Nystrom:: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-St. James (Mr. Minaker) said that in his riding the majority of people said that they wanted capital punishment and that he is now going to follow the wishes of his constituents. He said he wanted to be consistent and represent the
Capital Punishment
people. If that is the case, will he be consistent and resign and call upon his Party to resign since according to the last Gallup poll 76 per cent of Canadians said that they did not want the Conservative Party as the Government of Canada?


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Obey the wishes of your constituents.


Clement George Minaker: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member throws out something that has nothing to do with the issue with which we are dealing.


Cyril Keeper: It has to do with democracy.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order, please. I realize this is a very emotional debate.


An Hon. Member:: He walked into this by himself.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I hope that the Hon. Member will have an opportunity to rebut whatever statements other Members may make. We still have another few minutes for questions and comments. The Hon. Member for Winnipeg-St. James (Mr. Minaker) has the floor.


Clement George Minaker: Mr. Speaker, when the Hon. Member talks about the most recent poll, that poll will change, and it is changing right now. One of our mandates was to bring forward the debate on capital punishment. We are doing that. Another was to deal with pornography. We are dealing with that. Another one was free trade. We can go on and on. Those are the mandates our Government was given and we are going to provide them for the people of Canada. When they see where the New Democratic Party is on these issues, then we will see where the popularity of the New Democrats is. You can only straddle the line so long. When they have to make decisions and vote in the House, the people of Canada will see where members of the New Democratic Party stand on these issues. The Canadian people will see where those Members stand and then they will decide who they want for government. I am confident that they will decide they want the Progressive Conservatives returned.


Carlo Rossi: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member just mentioned that the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) decided to bring the issue of capital punishment back in 1984 because capital punishment was actually abolished in 1976. I would like the Hon. Member to explain why the Prime Minister brought back the issue of the reinstatement of capital punishment as promised but today is against it. Why did he do that?


Clement George Minaker: Mr. Speaker, I guess the Hon. Member was not listening very carefully. I said that one of the promises made was that we would bring back the debate on capital punishment. I think it was very clearly understood that the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) is opposed to capital punishment but he is a Prime Minister who will allow the Parliament of Canada to debate the issue. He believes in democracy, so there will be a free vote on this issue and I am proud we have a

June 22, 1987
Capital Punishment
Prime Minister who will allow that. The promise that was made during the 1984 election campaign was to bring back the debate on capital punishment, not to return capital punishment. It was to let the House of Commons decide that issue, not that we will decide it right now.
Obviously members of the New Democratic Party do not believe in democracy. I do not know if they have free votes over there on that side. I do not think they have free votes on any issues. The Hon. Member for Churchill (Mr. Murphy) depends on free trade. The majority of the workers, 7,500 workers in Churchill, depend upon mining and export, but the Hon. Member cannot vote for free trade. He must oppose it. That is the kind of democracy they have in that Party. When members of the New Democratic Party talk about democracy, we know where they stand on a free vote on any issue.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, I would like to advise my hon. friend that free votes originated in our caucus in 1933. I heard the Hon. Member say that the people of Canada have a right to feel protected from murderers. I do not want to put words in my hon. friend's mouth, but-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order, please. I do have difficulty hearing the Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin) because there seems to be a crossfire exchange going on. The Hon. Member for Regina West has the floor.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, is the Hon. Member saying that every citizen of this country would then automatically become suspect as a potential murderer? I believe I heard the Hon. Member say, and I believe I heard him correctly, that the people of Canada want to be protected from murderers. Therefore, every citizen of Canada is suspect because it could happen to any one of us. The hon. gentleman could snap and he might kill somebody tomorrow, who knows. Does he want to have all of us examined and watched? That is the logical result of what he said. I wonder if he could enlarge upon that statement.
As well, could the Hon. Member tell me if he has ever read Edmund Burke's address to his constituents-


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: A good Conservative.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: He was a good Conservative, by the way. He spoke of a Member of Parliament owing his constituents diligence, the fullest consideration of his constituents' opinions and maximum work on their behalf, but he is not their delegate but their representative and does not owe them his conscience. Has the Hon. Member ever thought of that?


Clement George Minaker: Mr. Speaker, I do not know where the Hon. Member's logic comes from. I do not know if he was sitting in the House or he was in the lobby watching me on television or what, but 1 cannot follow the logic of what he has suggested about what I said.
I said that naturally people want to be protected from murderers, but the reference I was making was that I believe that the return of capital punishment will be a deterrent. I firmly believe that. In that way, there will be some protection from first degree premeditated murder.
I would suggest that the Hon. Member read the statement of Edmund Burke to his constituents because I would think that in Regina-


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: I did.


Clement George Minaker: The Hon. Member has said that he did. I think he had better keep reading it-


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: When they were mad at me.


Clement George Minaker: He knows that the majority of his constituents want the return of capital punishment in order to let a jury decide if it wants to apply it. That is the key. Perhaps juries will not apply it but at least, if we follow through on this, we have said that if a crime is committed that deserves this punishment, a jury can use it. That is what we should provide to the citizens of Canada. That is what they want in our justice system.


Mr. McCurdy:: Mr. Speaker, I heard the Hon. Member from the "PCP" Party talking about consistency. Let us rephrase the question and steer it away from the matter of free votes, although I am puzzled as to why he should have raised the issue of free votes. There has been no clear demonstration on the government side that they have any particular commitment to free votes. After the shenanigans of the last couple of weeks, it is entirely doubtful.
Having committed himself to follow the dictates of the majority of his constituents, will the Hon. Member always do that? That is question number one. Question number two is a little different from others he might anticipate.
Among those of us opposed to capital punishment, there are those who are concerned about the problem of judicial error. The Hon. Member may remember an occasion on which someone was made a victim of capital punishment as a result of judicial error. That victim said: "Forgive them, Father, for they not what they do".
I wonder if the Hon. Member would not see some inconsistency between that statement made by an historic victim of erroneous capital punishment and his own position on capital punishment.


Clement George Minaker: Mr. Speaker, I could read a number of lines from the Bible indicating that capital punishment is correct, if he wants to get into that type of debate. Perhaps the Hon. Member heard me say earlier that I did not wish to get into religion when debating this issue. I said that that is what I believe in and what a majority of people in Canada believe in.
I believe that it is right for that type of crime.
June 22, 1987

The Hon. Member asked if I have always done what a majority of my constituents want. No, I have not always done that but I am fortunate in this instance. I am on the side of the majority.
I will be looking forward to seeing how members of the New Democratic Party vote on this. I cannot understand why my good friend and colleague from Winnipeg Centre is voting the way he is. I am sure the majority of his constituents are in favour of the return of capital punishment. If they are not, they are living in a pocket in the middle of no-man's land. I know that the majority of Winnipegers support capital punishment. It will be interesting to see how the Hon. Member votes.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Questions and comments are now terminated. Debate.


Howard Douglas McCurdy: Mr. Speaker, I will vote as I will always vote on any resolution before the House to restore capital punishment. I will vote against such a resolution or motion.
I will not be guided by polls. I will attempt to follow logic and principle. If you follow polls you are in great danger. A Decima poll published in Maclean's today indicates that the percentage of Canadians in favour of capital punishment has dropped from 72 per cent to 61 per cent, with only 38 per cent absolutely convinced of its necessity. There is a lesson there. Polls should not be the final determining factor in the actions we take in this House. Parliamentarians have an obligation to consider an issue of this sort with great care.
There are people paying a great deal of attention to what we say. That is an argument against any notion the Government may have in this free vote to impose closure on this House in order to stop debate and thus deny the Canadian people the opportunity to consider this question with great care.
The essential question in this debate is why Canada should be poised, in the view of many in this House, to be the first civilized western nation to restore capital punishment having once abolished it. Is it because Canada is overwhelmed with the violence which characterizes the televised portrayal of America? Is it because ours like U.S. cities are under seige by criminals? Is it because Canada is so overwhelmed with poverty that there is no alternative to crime, for which this measure is seen as a solution to the problem in the U.S? Is it because we have found, after years without capital punishment, that the deterrent effect has been lost and there is a great upsurge in the homicide rate? Is it because we have a system of justice so perfect that there can never be an error? Or is it because we have absolute equality with no possibility of discrimination which would deny to the Indian, the black, the Ukrainian and the Francophone equal treatment under the law? Or is it because we have a Government under seige and looking for an easy way to enhance its popularity and is intent on doing so by resorting to the views of its most primitive
Capital Punishment
Members who seek simplistic answers to the fundamental and complex questions facing this land?
I have listened with attention to the declarations of those who advocate the restoration of capital punishment, and I am not convinced. It seems to me we are listening to many people with simple answers to everything. It also seems to me that if we restore the most absolute and irrevocable of punishments, we had better be prepared to advance the most absolute and irrefutable arguments in support of it. We may make those arguments on rational and intellectual grounds. We may seek to demonstrate that the existence of the threat of capital punishment deters the murderer. We may seek to demonstrate that it deters the husband who, in a fit of anger, kills his wife. Or the person playing cards with friends or relatives who, in a fit of passionate anger, decides to attack someone and as a consequence kills him or her. Or that it deters the person who, in the process of robbing a corner store, becomes momentarily frightened and shoots someone. All of those people, I am sure, are standing or sitting there carefully considering the consequences of such an act.
Do we see in statistics some justification for capital punishment where it exists as opposed to where it does not? If one examines those countries without capital punishment we see no evidence that its absence has led to an increase in homicide. We do not see that murder is deterred in the U.S. as compared to Canada. We have not seen in the last 10 years a vast increase in the rate of homicide in Canada.
The fact that in Illinois they kill people who kill people has not made Illinois a safer place with a lower homicide rate than Michigan where they do not kill people who kill people. If you look at the 13 states with capital punishment you will find they have a higher rate of homicide than in the 37 states which do not kill those who kill. Furthermore, we have the interesting statistics from Florida and Georgia which show that immediately after the restoration of capital punishment the rate of homicide increased. We have to agree with the president of a police association who said that to try to win the argument for capital punishment on the basis of its deterrent effect is futile. It is indeed.
It seems to me that if we are going to resort to capital punishment we must be convinced that our system of justice is infallible. It can never be in error. I would simply ask the ordinary citizen out there, when he or she is stopped for a traffic offence, whether they would want their lives to depend on the infallibility and fairness of the system which confronts them on the street when they receive that ticket. The evidence is abundant that unless we have infallible people we will not have an infallible system of justice. That system of justice is least infallible when it affects the poor, the racial minority, or a man as opposed to a woman. One has to assume infallibility in a system which mirrors our society and all of its frailties. We have to assume a system each stage of which will ensure that justice is done. Yet we know justice is not always done. We know that in the last century at least 25 innocent people were executed in the U.S. for murder. There is a legion of

June 22, 1987
Capital Punishment
reports about those who came within moments of losing their lives for crimes they did not commit.
One particularly relevant example of that is the case of Donald Marshall. I know that his was not a capital offence, but it was murder and it is a sufficiently dramatic example to bring forth as an illustration. An error was made and was compounded by the fact that we were not dealing with one of the winners in society, one of the well-to-do whose chances of dying for a capital offence in the United States are very slight as compared to those of the poor. He had one other characteristic which condemned him. He was an Indian in Canada.
I refer those who think that the unequal application of justice to those who are racially or nationally different is unique to the United States and cannot happen in Canada to the studies of Dr. Avio which demonstrate that even in Canada if you were a Ukrainian, a Francophone, black, or a poor person, your chances were far greater than those of your fellow citizens, if you were found guilty of murder, to be killed for such.
In the arguments of those who advocate capital punishment we cannot see an intellectual or rational basis in the infallibility of our law and the prospect that the application of that law would be error-free. I suppose that if you were looking for nice, neat, rational, intelligent and intellectually-based arguments for capital punishment, you might resort to the ultimate, that it is a lot cheaper to kill them. Never mind that you might make a mistake and kill an innocent person, thus causing our nation to become guilty of murder. Surely it is a potent argument that we could relieve the burden upon our prisons of having to incarcerate so many of those who are guilty of homicides and save the taxpayers some money.
The fact is that in New York State at least the cost of the judicial process necessary to bring about the death of a murderer would be equal to the cost of keeping that individual in prison for almost 100 years. Therefore, the argument of getting off cheap is not one for the restoration of capital punishment.
I suppose one would have to resort to the essentially emotional, moral, or ethical argument that the punishment must fit the crime. That is the familiar argument of an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. The Member was talking earlier about consistency. If this most extreme form of violent crime must be met by the most extreme form of violent action by the state, it follows, therefore, that all violent crimes should be punished by violent action.
I have not heard that argument advanced so far, although I am sure that those who advocate capital punishment may be tempted by the simplicity, clarity and logic of it. It has been pointed out by a number of commentators that this is the primitive solution of a more primitive society, that there must be some standard to limit the punishment or there would be no
way of keeping control over the populace as they attempted retribution.
Does that make it appropriate? Should we return to the state of the Old Testament and before? Or should we listen to that great historic victim of capital punishment administered as a result of judicial error? Should we take an eye for an eye and and a tooth for a tooth, or shall we listen to that early victim and say, "Forgive them"?
God said, "Vengeance is mine". God said that because only the absolute could understand all of the conditions, all of the factors, and all of the environmental influences on someone who kills. There can be no justice if we do not know all of those things which led to an event. I know that some of the more simplistic advocates of capital punishment believe that they have a closer alliance with God than the rest of us, but most of us think that we are by our nature limited in our capacity to understand, to bring about symmetry in the administration of justice, and to ensure that justice does fit the crime. This requires the weighing of factors which only God, only an absolute intelligence, could ever understand. Yet we would advance ourselves as final judges on something so absolute in its consequences.
No, Mr. Speaker, I am not prepared to see Canada revert to a primitive state. Canada abolished capital punishment as a sign that it had become an advanced civilized nation. This is something that de Tocqueville recognized many years ago. He said that the severity of a nation's punishment is least when its sense of social equality is greatest. It is a measure of the maturity of its democracy, the level of its civilization. The same man who is full of humanity toward his fellow creatures when they are at the same time his equals becomes insensitive to their affliction as soon as that equality ceases.
One hundred and fifty years ago de Tocqueville recognized what is evident now. It is in the least democratic and most regressive nations of the world that capital punishment exists-the U.S.S.R., Iran, Saudi Arabia and South Africa. Those who look at America will see that it is the contempt for equality that underpins capital punishment there.
It is no accident that it is the southern states of that nation which have rushed so quickly to capital punishment. In the southern states a black has about 10 times the chance of being a victim of capital punishment that a white does. Only in that nation, and I hope never in this country, would a Supreme Court argue that while there is discrimination in the application of capital punishment it is of no judicial relevance.
No, Mr. Speaker, I do not want this country to revert to that model of nationhood. From the message of de Tocqueville from many years ago one inevitably reaches the conclusion that those who advocate capital punishment have a considerably greater sympathy for the kind of nation which he portrayed than the kind of nation that we have become. As I said before, those are the people who see the simple answers. They have the simple answers on abortion, drugs and the poor. They look back on almost everything. They are the ones who
June 22, 1987

would seek to return to gallons while the rest of the world is going to litres. They do not represent the best in this nation. They do not represent our regard for social equality.
The records of those who most strongly advocate capital punishment will show that their vision is flawed compared to our vision of a country in which equality is the imperative.
I am not prepared to engage in a debate on whether the punishment should be hanging and whether we can tolerate that some people may survive hanging, with the only certitude being if their heads are ripped off. I am not prepared to consider someone being injected with a fatal fluid knowing that they are about to die in agonizing pain before witnesses. I am not prepared to argue whether the electric chair which burns the flesh is better.
I am only prepared to respond to irrefutable arguments which would support absolutely this absolute punishment. Without that, free vote or not, New Democrat or not, I will vote against capital punishment now and forever.
[ Translation]


Mr. Hudon:: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a question to the Hon. Member, whom I respect very much for the positions he takes.
What I always find disappointing in this noble Assembly is that, when we take difficult positions for or against something, people generally try to make those who hold different views from their own feel guilty, and this is happening now as abolitionists are falling in exactly the same trap as those who are in favour of the death penalty.
In my opinion, my hon. colleague made some good points, but his weakest argument was to criticize those who are opposed to his own views.
First, Mr. Speaker, there is something on which the Hon. Member might not have insisted enough. The criminals we do not want to see out on the streets are not necessarily those who have committed a first premeditated murder, because such murderers are generally kept in prison for a very long time. Those who are the most dangerous and who really destroy our society are those who have certain criminal activities, such as drug trafficking, and who are sentenced to five, six or seven years in prison and find themselves out on the streets two years later with an urgent need for money. They got used to a comfortable way of life and they are the ones who are dangerous.
However, what we are now discussing is imposing the death penalty to those who have killed. We might not be targeting the right people.
According to the figures, of 140 individuals found guilty of premeditated murder who obtained their parole between 1920 and 1975, that is over a fifty-five year period, only eight committed a second murder.
Capital Punishment
Saying that we want to kill people because they have killed is therefore besides the point. This should be our first argument.
Second, people always say that the death penalty will give the criminals a lesson. In my opinion, this is not the way to go about it. If we really want to give people a lesson, executions should be televised. As we do not want this because we are a civilized nation, then we should simply not have any executions.


Howard Douglas McCurdy: Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to forgive those who disagree with me on this issue because it is obvious that they do not know what they are doing. Beyond that, however, I believe the rest of what the Member says weighs heavily upon all of us.
There is a great deal of concern among people that the justice system does not deliver, that punishment is not sure and swift, and that some are released from prison too soon. All of that is true. If the Hon. Member wishes to pursue that matter, there is the report of the Canadian Sentencing Commission.
Unquestionably, this is the single most important concern among the people. It is a concern which causes some to see relief in capital punishment. I was engaged in a debate about capital punishment.
We gauged that about two-thirds or three-quarters of the audience favoured the restoration of capital punishment. As we argued the issue, we decided collectively that the two most significant problems were the treatment of victims and the certainty and speed of punishment. If those concerns were met, then capital punishment was not supported.
In fact, after addressing that issue, at the end of the discussion, 100 per cent of the audience and 100 per cent of those participating in the discussion, including those who initially advocated capital punishment, agreed that it should not be restored.


Mr. Hamelin:: As indicated by my colleague, Mr. Speaker, I was impressed not by the first part of the speech of the Hon. Member for Windsor-Walkerville but rather by his other arguments which he put forth brilliantly. He refers in particular to this image of a modern society, of an evolved society, so I should like to direct two questions to my colleague concerning his vibrant discourse on the need for an evolved and modern society. Would he be able to sell this line to the wife of the convenience store who has just been murdered? Would he be able to sell the same line to the parents of the young girl who was raped in a moment of madness, and then killed to hide the first crime? Would he be able to sell the same line that we in Canada are an enlightened society-are we not?- where our prisons are nothing short of sieves, where indeed we no longer kill anybody, right? Can you decently sell this line of Canada's enlightened society to these people? For me personally it is not a matter of exemplary nature, I know that capital

June 22, 1987
Federal Sales Tax
punishment scares people like you and I, criminals could not really care much less. But the point is a matter of responsibility. Indeed, are you in a position to utter the same remarks? And you said briefly, Mr. Speaker, that one cannot render justice because God alone knows the facts-God alone, you said, knows the facts. If we were to carry your argument to its logical conclusion, since we never know all the facts we should also close down our prisons. That is the question I want to ask the Hon. Member.


Howard Douglas McCurdy: First, Mr. Speaker, I must pose a corresponding question to the hon. gentleman. Is he willing to be a participant in the application of the death penalty to someone who is innocent? Is he willing to share in that guilt? Is he willing to play God?
In addressing the issue of capital punishment, I have already indicated that the logic of the Hon. Member's argument must inevitably lead to the imposing of corporal punishment in all cases of violence. In each of those cases of violence one would have to face the victim and justify how that person is sitting in jail eating meals and so on. The depth of the tragedy that anyone might experience as a result of the murder of a husband or child is not going to be addressed by killing the murderer. That does not solve the problem. What will solve the problem is for the guilty to be brought to trial quickly, the punishment a certainty and proportionate to the crime, but not irrevocable, as execution certainly would be.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The time for questions and comments has now terminated.
It being 6 p.m., 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.


PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS-MOTIONS   THE DISABLED AND THE HANDICAPPED ADVISABILITY OF FEDERAL SALES TAX REDUCTION
William Tupper: That, in the opinion of this House, the government should consider the advisability of introducing a measure to provide for the reduction of the federal sale tax for disabled persons.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am delighted this evening to rise in my place and share with the House some thoughts about Motion M-72, that in the opinion of this House, the Government should consider the advisability of introducing a measure to provide for the elimination of the federal sales tax for disabled persons.
I have been interested in the welfare of the handicapped community for a long time. I am not alone in that objective. As I have come to know my colleagues here in the House of Commons and beyond, I have found many share this interest. I believe that our objective is to provide mechanisms which will allow all handicapped persons to enter as fully as possible into the mainstream of Canadian society. That is my objective and I am confident that it is the objective of this House. What I have to say this evening is with that in mind.
Some 14 per cent of all Canadians are handicapped. In Canada that amounts of some 3.5 million persons. For reasons which are not clear, the rate of disability tends to be higher in rural areas than in urban areas. Tragically, the rate also seems to be higher among females than among males, and dramatically, tragically, about 80 per cent of the handicapped persons in Canada are not in the workplace. Of the 20 per cent who are working, most are employed by Government, federal, provincial, municipal and their agencies. Not all that many are really employed in the private sector. Furthermore, some 54 per cent of disabled persons who are in the workplace earn less than $10,000 per year.
I could go into a long process this afternoon, telling Hon. Members everything about the handicapped, where they come from, what their handicaps are, and about the difficulties they have in facing life. However, I will forego that. They are indeed an underprivileged group in educational achievement, in their earning power and by the numbers who are in the workforce. Their opportunities in life are highly restricted. There has been a great deal written about the handicapped in Canada. Perhaps the best outline available to me is entitled Profile of Disabled Persons in Canada. It was written by the Department of the Secretary of State and published in November of 1986. I commend it to all Hon. Members to gain some insight into the handicaps of the disabled.
At the same time, I know that much has been done for disabled persons in Canada by this House and by other jurisdictions. The funding for the Disabled Persons Participation program has been increased to $16 million for the coming four or five years. These moneys will be used for a variety of projects to help disabled persons meet their objectives. In addition, the housing renovation program has been changed so that a subsidy of $5,000 is available per unit to upgrade and modify housing units for the handicapped. There has been improved access to federal and other Government buildings and to the universities. Employment opportunities for the handicapped have also been enhanced.
As a part of tax reform, the special deduction for disabled persons will be replaced by a federal tax credit of $550 starting in 1988. The disability tax credit is not to be refunded to the taxpayer, but the unused portion will be transferable to the disabled person's spouse, supporting parent or grandparent. I think that is a welcome initiative.
Furthermore, the present law provides for a deduction of nearly $2,900 in 1987 for disabled persons whose impairment
June 22, 1987

is markedly restricted or is expected to restrict their activities on a daily basis and for a continuous period of some 12 months. The amount of the disability deduction has recently been increased and the deduction was extended to a much larger segment of the population. As a result, the tax assistance now benefits approximately 250,000 persons in Canada.
Elowever, more needs to be done, and more can be done. I originally took an interest in one particular aspect of the motion I put before the House. That relates to the purchase of motorized transportation by handicapped people. I found that a significant number of my constituents were confronted with the need to buy specialized transportation equipment. The more I looked into it, the more I found that a wide-spread aspect of the handicapped community across Canada had the same problem. For instance, you and I, Mr. Speaker, could probably go out and purchase an excellent automobile for $15,000 or less. However, my information would suggest that the handicapped person is required to purchase a specialized vehicle, perhaps a van, with equipment for egress and entry into the vehicle and for special equipment which would allow that person to drive the vehicle in a safe and secure manner. When the original cost of the special vehicle, plus the cost of the special equipment, is totalled, one can see the handicapped person is confronted with an extraordinary expense, and these persons are much more financially deprived than you or I, Mr. Speaker.
In fact, as I pointed out earlier, 80 per cent of the disabled are not in the workforce at all and are dependent on society or on their family for support. So we can see how difficult it is for handicapped persons to make expensive specialized purchases. In all fairness, I must bring to the attention of Hon. Members that there are provisions in the Excise Tax Act for the disabled. For instance, chapter E-13, Schedule III of the Excise Act, item 13 has exempt provisions for invalid chairs, commode chairs, walkers, wheelchair lifts and similar aids to locomotion, with or without wheels, including batteries especially designed for the use thereof. Another tax exempt item is found in Section 5.1 in chapter E-13, and I quote:
Buses or vans specifically equipped for transporting handicapped persons when for use by public organizations or institutions exclusively for providing transportation to the handicapped, and that would have been capable of carrying 12 or more passengers if equipped in the normal manner.
In bringing that to your attention, Mr. Speaker, I do so only to point out that the House and other governments have already recognized the problem. I would also like to bring to the attention of Hon. Members this evening the report Towards Equality with which many Members will be familiar. Recommendation No. 69 of the report states:
That the Income Tax Act be amended so that disabled persons are entitled to a deduction for the cost of special aids and devices, including extra transportation costs incurred because of their disability and necessary for their employment.
That is the problem I am trying to address this evening. In conjunction with that, but quite separate from it, I need to share with Hon. Members that there is now a move in progress
Federal Sales Tax
by the Disabled Council of Canada to approach all provinces toward the reduction of provincial sales tax on items that would relate to the handicapped. I share this with Hon. Members because it is dramatically important that this approach is gathering momentum across the country and that there will be initiatives taking place in the next while in each provincial legislature.
I point this out to Hon. Members because it is quite independent of what I am attempting to do here this evening. Although the two are related and have a common goal, my own initiative started before I was aware of the initiative of the Disabled Council of Canada.
I have had substantial correspondence with the Department of Finance over the past year and a half in which I have tried to convince the Department, through normal powers of persuasion, argument and, hopefully, with appropriate evidence, that what I was attempting to do was something for which it could provide the lead. I have not been successful in that endeavour. Thus I have turned to the venue of Private Members' Business, hoping to find a solution here in Parliament and to have a thoughtful debate on the topic with my colleagues.
The principal objection raised by the Department of Finance at the time I focused in on correspondence with it was as follows. I was told by the Department that all of the items accorded relief as aids to the disabled are goods designated for or capable of use only by those persons. It was made clear to me that no relief has ever been provided for goods such as automobiles which are capable of use both by the disabled and by able-bodied persons. The arguments go on but, effectively, that is the point the Department made with me.
I have to confess and share with all here this evening that when I started my research into this matter my intent was, let us say by way of example of specialized automobiles for the handicapped, that the tax relief would apply to both the automobile and to the specialized equipment that would be attached or affiliated with it for the handicapped person. However, in discussions with representatives of the Department of Finance and with my colleagues in the House, I have changed my stance now so that the reduction relative to my motion would only apply to the accessories that are required by the handicapped person, only to those materials that are essential to the handicapped person and not to the routine things in that person's daily life.
I have spoken to many of my colleagues in the past three or four weeks about this motion. I was delighted to see how concerned they were for handicapped persons in Canada. They expressed a deep and sincere concern. I very much hope that that concern tonight will translate itself into the adoption of my motion.


Mr. Pierre H. Vincent (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity

June 22, 1987
Federal Sales Tax
to take part in the debate this evening, and I would like to start by stating that the tax relief with respect to sales tax requested by the Hon. Member in his motion is already in place. Furthermore, recent proposals of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) on tax reform will, as you know, Mr. Speaker, benefit the disabled, especially those on low incomes. Finally, since 1984, the present Conservative Government has made substantial improvements in programs designed for the disabled. Perhaps I may expand on each of these points in my response to the Hon. Member's motion.
The disabled presently enjoy a measure of tax relief in that certain products for their exclusive consumption are exempted from federal sales tax. To that end, a broad spectrum of medical goods for the exclusive use and sole benefit of the disabled is already exempt from federal sales tax. Such goods include, for instance, hearing aids, wheelchairs, artificial limbs, pharmaceutical products and all goods purchased by public hospitals or institutions for the use of the disabled. The list is much longer, but these examples should suffice to demonstrate that the disabled already enjoy a measure of tax relief.
However, the list itself already indicates a major problem inherent to the exemption method. As medical technology progresses, new equipment to help the disabled is developed and must be added to the list of tax exempt goods. This ad hoc method was criticized in the recently published document on federal sales tax reform because of its complexity and its arbitrary nature. As mentioned in the document, it is often hard to draw the line between what goods should be taxable and what goods should be exempt. For instance, Mr. Speaker, we have a court ruling on fluoridated toothpaste which, according to the Department should not be exempt and which according to the courts should be exempt because it has therapeutic benefits and should not be taxed as a cosmetic.
The fact remains that despite their short comings, exemptions are in place to provide tax relief from sales tax for the disabled. Furthermore, financial assistance is not restricted to sales tax exemptions. The disabled also receive assistance through the income tax system.
This disability deduction, which is $2,890 in 1987, is available to individuals who are seriously incapacitated for an extended period. The disability deduction recognizes that a handicap implies fixed costs, and this is generally taken into account. The deduction is transferrable to the spouse or supporting parent. And as you know, Mr. Speaker, it benefits some 250,000 individuals who are seriously handicapped.
Medical expenses cover certain products and medical services and certain items designed to help the handicapped lead a normal life. Generally, those items are clearly identified as reserved to the exclusive use of the handicapped individuals. The expenses include allowable medical expenses incurred by the taxpayer or a spouse on behalf of a dependent handicapped individual where the amount is more than 3 per cent of the
taxpayer's net income. In 1985, some 4.4 million taxpayers claimed such expenses, for a total of about $2 billion.
On the occasion of tax reform, the needs of the handicapped have not been overlooked, quite the opposite. For that reason, tax reform will bring significant benefits to the handicapped. Generally speaking, by converting deductions to credits we are able to direct increased help to low-income taxpayers. Since the handicapped in general are low-income people, they will benefit significantly from that provision.
In the case of the disability deduction, it is proposed not only that the deduction be converted to a credit, but also that the tax benefit be significantly increased. The conversion from a deduction to a tax credit meets the main concerns of handicapped groups concerning the deduction. The tax benefit provided by a deduction favours higher income taxpayers, even though low-income handicapped people, who have greater need of tax assistance, may have incurred equivalent expenses. The $2,890 disability deduction is being converted to a $491 tax credit for a 17 percent tax rate. However, it is proposed to set that rate at $550. The unused part of the credit will be transferrable to the handicapped person's spouse or supporting parent or grandparent. That improvement helps handicapped individuals buy the goods and services they need by reason of their handicap, and is the second similar improvement in two years. In 1986, the deduction was increased by $250.
The second major component of tax relief granted to the disabled, the deduction for medical expenses, has also been converted into a tax credit for expenses in excess of three per cent of net income. On the whole, the tax reform has solved one of the problems of providing tax relief for the disabled: the regressive distribution of benefits under the present system. The new disability credit provides the same tax relief for all disabled persons, whatever their income. The credit has also been increased to provide a greater measure of tax relief to all persons benefitting under the system.
Mr. Speaker, I would also like to draw the attention of Hon. Members to the many measures that have been introduced since 1984 to benefit the disabled. The most important measure is undoubtedly the decision to expand the definition of a disabled person, effective as of the 1986 tax year. All taxpayers with a serious disability are now entitled to claim the deduction, and, of course, to take advantage of the improved disability credit in 1988. This is a break with the previous, more restrictive definition under which the disability deduction was granted only to the blind or to persons who were bedridden or confined to a wheelchair. By expanding the definition, tax relief can be granted to 180,000 more disabled persons or their spouse or parent or grandparent who provides for their care; in 1988, Mr. Speaker, it is expected that 250,000 persons will be able to take advantage of this provision.
Furthermore, as of the 1987 tax year, which is this year, Mr. Speaker, the list of goods eligible under the heading of medical expenses has been expanded to include: van conversion accessories enabling persons confined to a wheelchair to enter
June 22, 1987

and drive such vehicles unassisted; Braille printers and large-print devices enabling persons with severe visual handicaps to use home computers; speech synthesizers enabling the deaf to speak with the help of a portable keyboard, TV closed-caption decoders for the deaf; monitoring devices to be attached to babies identified as being susceptible to the crib death syndrome.
Furthermore, since 1986 the federal Government has increased amounts paid to individuals receiving disability benefits under the Canada Pension Plan. In 1986, the maximum disability pension was $455.64 per month; in 1987, it will go up to $634.09, an increase of $178.45 per month, or 39 per cent. Some 15,000 people will be able to take advantage of this increase in the Canada Pension Plan disability benefits.
Veterans' pensions and allowances have also been increased. Once more, nearly 150,000 pensioners will benefit.
These measures clearly show that the Government is concerned about the ability of the disabled and those on whom they depend for financial support to pay taxes.
In summary, Mr. Speaker, devices for the specific and exclusive use of the disabled are now exempt from the sales tax. In addition, medical expenses are now deductable and will be the subject of a tax credit after the reform. Finally, the disability deduction, which will be transformed into a tax credit, has been considerably improved. Taken together, these measures are of considerable benefit to the disabled. The initiatives taken since 1984 to improve these benefits show that this Conservative Government is concerned about the needs of the disabled. This commitment is also reflected in the tax reform proposals. While other improvements may be necessary, those are achievements of which all Canadians can be very proud.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, I rise to express general support and even sympathy for the resolution of the Hon. Member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Tupper). However, with all respect, I think he is attacking the problem in the wrong way.
Whether it is people who are disabled, war veterans, or old age pensioners who are eligible for the guaranteed income supplement, surely our tax laws should provide that they have an exemption. I realize that it is difficult to keep track of; I mean, we do not want to be handing out special identification cards like the KGB and the SS used to do.
I recall the last Budget of the present Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Turner) which implemented a 10-cent per gallon excise tax on gasoline. In committee of the whole I moved amendments to exempt senior citizens who were eligible for the guaranteed income supplement, war veterans, and the disabled from that tax. The then Minister of Finance, the present Leader of the Official Opposition, was kind enough to
Federal Sales Tax
send me a note across the floor asking me to resubmit an amendment providing for a rebate of the 10-cents per gallon gasoline tax for the disabled.
Like my hon. friend, I have a number of constituents who have specially equipped cars. The municipality or charitable organizations run buses, vans, or specially equipped station wagons. It provided them with an opportunity to make application for a full refund of that 10 cents per gallon excise tax on gasoline.
It worked during 1977 and 1978. I wish my hon. friend- and I really think he has a good idea in his motion-would talk to his own colleagues first. The 1979 Budget of the then Minister of Finance, the present Minister of Transport (Mr. Crosbie), cancelled the 10 per cent rebate of the excise tax on gasoline for the disabled.
We have done enough playing around with this sort of thing. Even the tax reform announcements of last Thursday did not cover old age pensioners who are eligible for GIS-and surely they must be the poorest of our elderly-those on war veteran's pensions, and those who are disabled, in any so-called sales tax reform. I do not think there is any disagreement about it among all Parties in this place. There should be no argument. It should not require a motion from a member of any Party. It should not require a Private Member's Bill or a Private Member's Motion.
I point this out, not to be vindictive, not to try to make political points, or anything else. It seems to me that there should be no argument or question about the matter. It should be automatic in the head space of Ministers of Finance and those guys in the nether regions of the Department of Finance and the Department of National Revenue. No discussion should be necessary.
In part my hon. friend's motion says that "the Government should consider the advisability of introducing a measure". I do not think anyone in this place would argue against that. However, why should we be required to present it? It should be a matter of course, no matter what political Party is in power.
I hope my hon. friend's motion passes because it carries the weight of all Members of this place. I hope that he and his colleagues can have some influence on the people who advise and do White Papers et cetera, et cetera for the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson). The real test of any society is how well it treats its sick, its old, its veterans and its disabled.
If you examine countries all around the world, you will find that Canada does not do too bad a job, Mr. Speaker. In fact, we do fairly well. But what about this sitting around resting on our laurels with paltry sums? What about those who are maimed from birth, maimed by accident, those who have occupied hospital beds since the Second World War and/or those who have earned their retirement and who only get the Old Age Pension and the Guaranteed Income Supplement?

June 22, 1987
Federal Sales Tax
Surely no civilized society, and I think no Party in this place, will plead it is so hard up for dollars that it has to chisel on them. It is just not necessary. It does not amount to enough to upset or cause outrage or do violence to a Government's fiscal or monetary policy.
It means that this Parliament says that they are special people. That is all. They are special and they will receive special consideration. If we unanimously have to argue in favour of that special consideration, fine. But I make my point again that it should not be necessary. There need not be any debate or argument about it. I would urge that there be a unanimous voice vote now to pass this motion. We can then go out, have a sandwich, resume the debate at seven o'clock, and maybe have a 25 minute break. I want to assure my hon. friend if he wants to speak-


Don Boudria: Yes, I do.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Bless his heart. I hope he does not take any longer than I do. I think this question could be put. It could pass unanimously and then it would be on the Government's head. We have had this kind of discussion every year since I have been here. It is neither necessary nor needed. I urge the House to accept this motion as quickly as possible and then let us see what happens with it.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, it gives me pleasure today to take part in this debate on Motion 72 standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Tupper).

The motion presented to us is indeed very worthy of our support. I am quite pleased, as one Member, to give it my full endorsation. The motion to provide a reduction in sales tax for disabled persons is something which governments should have done quite some time ago as suggested to us by our colleague, the Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin).

Mr. Speaker, it is too bad that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) does not read the Orders of the Day, because if he did, he would have known that his colleague, the Hon. Member for Nepean-Carleton, wanted to move such a motion, and he would presumably have taken into account the suggestions of his own colleague in preparing the pile of documents which were tabled last week supposedly as a tax reform and which we all recognized as a Budget of the Conservative Party.

One of the elements introduced in this budget of last week, which is called a White Paper by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson), is yet new taxes that affect a large number of Canadians, including the disabled. I give you an example of what I am referring to, Mr. Speaker. There is a tax proposed in last week's budget called tax reform which will affect in a very particular and dramatic way rural Canadians. It is, in
fact, a tax on rural Canada. I say to my colleague, the Hon. Member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Tupper), who I respect very much, that the tax proposed by the Minister of Finance on telecommunications is having a serious effect on rural and disabled people. This new telecommunications tax which has been brought forward is a tax on rural Canada. Here is why, Mr. Speaker.
The tax presented by the Minister of Finance is outlined in the little paper I have here in my hand which says:
Extending the sales tax to telecommunications services at a rate of 10 per cent; the basic service charge for a private residential line will be exempt from this 10 per cent tax.
If you live in a rural area, the basic service is about $5 or $6 a month-somewhere in that neighborhood-depending on the area in which you live. If you live in an urban area, you pay approximately $15 or $20 for the basic telephone service. If you live in an urban area, say greater Ottawa or Montreal, you can phone approximately one million Canadian citizens without paying any long distance charges at all. For handicapped people who cannot get out, there is a method of access which is not there for others. But what if you live in the rural part of my riding or in the rural part of the riding of the Member for Nepean-Carleton? 1 think it would be the same in his case as it is in my riding.
Let me use the example of a farmer, which example could also apply to a handicapped person. The farmer may have a telephone in his home and one in the barn. Because only the basic service is tax exempt, the extra line in the barn is taxed. If he has a private line, which is extra in a rural area, that too is taxed. In a rural area you have to pay an additional amount of money. I believe it is in the order of $2 for every quarter mile from the nearest village to where you live if you have a private line. The cost of that private line is taxed under the measure introduced last week.
I was speaking with a group of farmers last weekend and they told me that their telephone bills are in the order of $75 per month in rural areas. Of that, $5 will be tax exempt and the other $70 will be taxed. This tax applies only to rural Canadians, and it applies in a most unfortunate way.


Mr. James:: Seventy-five-dollar telephone bill?


Don Boudria: I think a Tory is heckling from across the way, but it is probably irrelevant. The Hon. Member across the way says that farmers do not pay $75 monthly telephone bills. I would like the record to show that the Hon. Member indicates that that is not so and that is fine. All rural Canadians who have to pay those fees will know the view of the Government. If government Members want rural Canadians to be taxed to death, that is fine. That is their opinion, but it is not mine.


Kenneth Albert James: I'm a farmer and I know what farmers pay.
June 22, 1987


Don Boudria: If he is a farmer, he should know better than to make the ridiculous statements he has been making in the House.
People living in rural areas phone long distance regularly. Even the Hon. Member opposite who is heckling should know that it is sometimes long distance to phone to the nearest village. If a handicapped person who lives in St. Isidore de Prescott has to phone a doctor in Rockland, Hawkesbury or any other community, he has to pay a long distance charge because that is the way it is. There is no choice in the matter. I am sure you know that, Mr. Speaker. It is too bad some Hon. Members opposite do not. I will speak a little slower so that they will understand.

Mr. Speaker, I want my friend the Hon. Member for Nepean-Carleton to know that I wish him every success with his motion, but I must say that at the very moment when he moved this motion in the House, his colleague the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) had himself taken a big step backward, and imposed a heavier tax burden on those who are least able to pay, I mean the disadvantaged, the handicapped and all Canadians residing in rural areas. In my opinion, it is because of this ill-advised tax on communications which was introduced last week and should be withdrawn.
Having said that, Mr. Speaker, I want to say again that I support the motion moved by my friend the Hon. Member for Nepean-Carleton. I know that if the Minister of Finance does not understand anything, at least the Hon. Member for Nepean-Carleton understands that a taxation measure should be fair and honest. It is quite unfortunate that his colleague the Minister of Finance does not seem to understand anything, while the Hon. Member for Nepean-Carleton understands everything so well. I wish him every success with his motion and I dare hope that the House will adopt it and especially that the Minister of Finance will listen to him.


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be able to join in debate in private Members' hour and to speak in favour of the motion put forward by my colleague, the Hon. Member for Nepean- Carleton (Mr. Tupper), to the effect that the House should consider the advisability of introducing a measure to provide for the reduction of the federal sales tax for disabled persons.
If I understand correctly the thrust of the motion, it has been proposed because my colleague has a long-standing interest, as many Hon. Members do, in the welfare of the handicapped and disabled. He is seeking to secure the removal of federal sales tax on certain aids to the disabled and handicapped which, to my surprise, indeed do bear sales tax.
I have noticed that over the past several years the Government has taken a number of initiatives for the disabled, particularly from a taxation point of view. The disability deduction has been increased to the point where $2,610 in the
Federal Sales Tax
last taxation year was the amount that was allowed to the handicapped in computing taxable income.
The May 1985 Budget enlarged and extended this deduction. In effect, it widened the definition of handicapped under the Income Tax Act to include individuals with severe cardiorespiratory failure, mental retardation, profound bilateral deafness and a range of other severe disabilities. Indeed, that deduction was increased by $250 in the 1986 taxation year. Those changes raised the number of persons who would qualify for a disability deduction to about 185,000, an increase of some 60,000 over previous years.
I would certainly like to concur in the direction the Government has taken. I notice also that very recently the Department of Finance and the Minister released a communique indicating that certain new devices would qualify as tax deductible medical expenses. Five recently developed devices designed to assist individuals with physical disabilities and other medical impairments now qualify for the medical expense deduction under the Income Tax Act.
Those items that will qualify as eligible medical expenses that will be deductible when total medical expenses exceed 3 per cent of net income in a year are conversion kits to modify family vans to permit persons confined to wheelchairs to gain independent access to vehicles and to drive them, synthetic speech systems, Braille printers and large-print devices that enable persons with severe sight impairment to utilize personal computers; electronic speech synthesizers that enable nonspeaking individuals to speak using a portable keyboard; television closed-caption decoder for the deaf which deciphers special television transmissions and shows on television screens a script of the program; and monitors attached to babies identified as being prone to Sudden Infant Death Syndrome, commonly known as crib death, which sound an alarm when babies stop breathing.
It is my understanding that these measures are being taken to ensure that people who require these devices are treated fairly and equitably. Quite frankly, I was not aware of the fact that sales tax applied to any or all such items. If it does, I am certainly in complete agreement with my colleague from Nepean-Carleton that devices of this nature or similar ones which assist the disabled and handicapped should certainly be free of sales tax. I think we should move in that direction.
I believe it is important, however, that we view the matter in the context of the over-all tax reform White Paper which was released just last week. In phase two of that reform, the sales tax will be examined in great detail. Regardless of which of the three choices is made after consultation with all Canadians, it is apparent that decisions will have to be taken on the application of the tax. Will it apply to all goods, services and devices of this nature or will there be certain exemptions?
It is the opinion of some and, I believe, of Finance Department officials that for a sales tax to be as equitable, fair and reasonable as possible, it should apply to virtually all goods and services within the economy. Having a base as wide as that

June 22, 1987
Federal Sales Tax
would then permit the lowest possible sales tax rate to be applied to items in order to generate the amount of revenue required as part of the comprehensive tax reform system.
If on the other hand we are to have exemptions within the system, that would have the effect of narrowing the base. The result of that would be that the rate of the sales tax would have to be increased because the higher rate of tax would apply to fewer products. That of course creates the kind of distortions and unfairness we have seen in our sales tax system in the past, something which tax reform is trying to get away from.
I would like to say that I find myself in complete agreement with the sentiment and thrust of the motion put forward by my hon. colleague. I might also compliment the Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin). His heart is in the right place on this matter. We have to look seriously at it. I believe if we are going to have any exemptions at all under the new sales tax, one of the first should be items of assistance to the disabled and handicapped. I want to compliment my colleague for bringing this matter to our attention.
As a member of the Standing Committee on Finance and Economic Affairs which will be involved in detailed hearings on all aspects of tax reform, 1 undertake that this matter will be raised in those hearings. If exemptions are to be allowed under a comprehensive sales tax, I will bear in mind what my colleague has said. It is a sensible and reasonable suggestion.


Mr. Claude Lanthier (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take the floor this evening in this important debate which involves both the social situation and the financial situation.
Mr. Speaker, I should like to review briefly the main components of what we call the Canada Assistance Plan implemented pursuant to agreements concluded with the provinces and the territories. And, as of 15 days ago, we can say all the provinces of Canada, Quebec included. We are very proud, our federal Government now shares 50 per cent of expenditures incurred by all provinces and municipalities to provide the following through the Canada Assistance Plan-assistance to the needy;
-the plan helps provinces and municipalities provide social welfare services for the needy or others who would probably need them if they had no access to such services;
-in addition, Mr. Speaker, the plan offers work activity projects designed to improve the working skills of people who experience unusual difficulties to find or keep jobs or undergo training leading to employment.
This is now available in all ridings throughout Canada, including the beautiful constituency of LaSalle-Emaid.


Carlo Rossi: Make the best of it, you are not going to be there much longer.


Claude Lanthier: Notwithstanding the untimely jeers of the Opposition, we are still in good humour. Mr. Speaker, the Canada Assistance Plan offers help to the needy as follows:
-items to meet such basic needs as food, housing, clothing, heating fuel, public services, household equipment, and services for personal needs;
-in addition, the plan provides assistance to the needy to obtain items required for a trade or other employment: operating permits; tools and equipment; items required for the safety, well-being and rehabilitation of a needy person, for instance, necessary home upgrading and repairs, as well as essential items which the handicapped cannot do without;
-the plan also helps the needy obtain certain welfare services such as day care as authorized by an organization or at the request of an organization approved by a province;
-the plan helps the needy obtain care in special homes, for instance, senior citizens' homes, rest homes, child care institutions, and shelter homes for battered children and women.
Mr. Speaker, since April 1st, 1977, most of the federal costs related to long term care of adults in institutions are paid out of the Extended Health Care Services Program under the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements and Established Programs Financing Act, 1977.
I appreciate particularly the interest of the opposition for that question. All this to say that the Canada Assistance Plan provides help to needy persons and pays for costs, for example drugs and dental care, neither covered by the universal health care programs of the provinces, nor paid through general financing under the Fiscal Arrangements Act of 1977, between Canada and the provinces, which also provides for postsecondary education and health care.
Mr. Speaker, that same Canada Assistance Plan, still in force and unaffected by the white paper, helps needy persons to pay for children in foster homes. In Canada, what is meant by "needy person"? Under Canada Assistance Plan provisions, a person in need is defined as someone who, regardless of the cause of his needs, is deemed to be unable to provide adequately for himself and his dependants. Eligibility for social assistance is determined on the basis of a special needs and means test administered by the province. This tests takes into account the material needs of the applicant, as well as the income and resources he has to meet these same basic needs.
Mr. Speaker, a "person in need" is also defined in the Canada Asssitance Plan as a child who is the ward of an authority responsible for his social welfare. A person in need in Canada can also include all children in foster homes.
Under the Canada Assistance Plan Agreement, each province has agreed not to require a period of residence in the province or in Canada as a condition of eligibility for assistance. The agreement also requires that each province shall provide, by law, for a procedure for appeals from decisions
June 22, 1987

made with respect to applications for assistance and the granting of benefits.
My point is, Mr. Speaker, that our Government has recently set aside a budget of $4 billion for the Canada Assistance Plan Program, of which $1.2 billion is directly paid out in the form of direct or indirect assistance to the disabled. I therefore welcome this opportunity to help explain the principle that has led our Government both in the recent White Paper and its usual programs, which is that of giving more to those who need it. There are two ways to do this: first, by not giving to those who do not need it and second, possibly by getting the money from people with a larger disposable income as the recent White Paper suggested and reducing the tax burden on those who are not in need, so as to provide a better service through our Canada Assistance Plan.
Mr. Speaker, I think this is a progressive measure, and one that all Canadians will be prepared to accept once they look at the White Paper. It is understood that the disabled, those who are in need, and all those people about whom we and the Minister of Finance are concerned, whatever the Elon. Member opposite, who just a minute ago was trying to establish a contradiction between the mover of the motion and our valiant Minister of Finance it is understood, Mr. Speaker, that our Government is going to produce a White Paper that will ensure that the disabled and the needy in this country receive their rightful share.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The hour provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired. Pursuant to Standing Order 42(1), the order is dropped from the Order Paper.




[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;
Capital Punishment
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).
Right Hon. Brian Mulroney (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak to the motion on the reinstatement of capital punishment. I want to say to the House, without reservation and without qualification, that I do not support the motion to reinstate.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: I will be voting against capital punishment on moral and logical grounds. I believe that it is wrong. This is a subject on which Canadians hold strong views and speak from very deep conviction. It is an issue on which a periodic review of public policy should be undertaken in the public interest.
That was the commitment that I made in the last election campaign, namely, that a free vote would be held on capital punishment during the course of our present mandate. That is the intent of this motion, to permit debate and a free vote on the question of capital punishment.
For obvious reasons, none more important than the participation of everyone in this House today, this is a debate that should be conducted on the highest level and with genuine

June 22, 1987
Capital Punishment
respect for opposing views. I tell you, Mr. Speaker, that I enter the debate today with that sentiment.
This is more than a matter of conscience, although it is that indeed. It is a matter of how we see ourselves as a nation and how others see us among the nations of the world. It is a matter of seeking justice, not revenge.
All of us share in the tragedy and sorrow of the taking of a human life, whether criminally inspired or from anger or passion. All of us want justice in full and swift measure. A society without respect for the law and acceptance of order is a society at risk.
We must be vigilant and firm in applying the law and in dealing at all times with those who violate that law. The legal system, the judiciary, the law enforcement agencies constitute a cornerstone of freedom, a guarantee of our liberty. Without them and the values that they represent, our democratic concepts would, in my judgment, be quickly and irreversibly eroded. There must be law and there must, in a civilized society, be respect at all times for that law.

But for those who would change the law in such a fundamental manner, the onus is upon them to make a compelling case. For myself, Mr. Speaker, I am not persuaded. I am not persuaded the death penalty works as a deterrent. Nor am I persuaded it is appropriate as a punishment. On the contrary, I believe it is repugnant, and and I believe it is profoundly unacceptable. It is wrong to take life, and 1 can think of no circumstance excepting self-defence to justify it. I have held these views since I was a young student and I still hold them today.
More than quarter of a century ago, a great Canadian lawyer, Arthur Maloney, stood in this House and defined the issue for all parliamentartians of all parties:
"There is no question, he said, of revenge or retribution that enters into the thinking of any of us in this House ... the only question we are called upon to decide is this: Is the penalty of death the only effective deterrent available to stamp out the crime of murder or is there another alternative penalty that is equally effective and less drastic?"
These speeches by Arthur Maloney, a man of great dignity and compassion, are still vivid in my mind and remain an enduring appeal for reason before passion, for justice rather than revenge, and for an enlightened society whose criminal justice system admits both the possibility of error on the one hand, and forgiveness on the other.
We begin in this country from a legal system that combines two of the world's enduring legal traditions-British common law and French civil law. By these traditions, we are a nation of laws, not individuals. And we hold for the sanctity of human life.
That remains a responsibility of the state that must not be set aside even in judging those who disregard human life.
We often hear from those who would limit the power of the State.

The effect of this resolution, if enacted, Mr. Speaker, would be to confer upon the state the ultimate power, that of executioner. Moreover, if this motion were carried, the state, in the exercise of that responsibility, could indeed put to death an innocent man or an innocent woman. I refuse to contemplate such a possibility, much less support a resolution which would strengthen the likelihood of such an occurrence.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: We must admit to the possibility of error, of executing an innocent person wrongly accused and wrongly convicted.
John Diefenbaker spoke in this House in a memorable address on this issue on April 4, 1966. In addition to political experience, Mr. Diefenbaker, one of our greatest Canadians, had vast experience before the criminal bar throughout Canada, and particularly western Canada.
He said:
From my experience at the bar I say that anyone who says an innocent man cannot go to the gallows is wrong, because I know differently. It is a frightful thing when a man you believe to be innocent and whose attitude is, Don't worry about me, God will not allow it, walks to the gallows and months later the truth comes out.
Mr. Diefenbaker was speaking from personal experience and his knowledge of cases heard before the courts of Canada. Imagine the unspeakable horror of this happening to the relative of a Member of this House, a child, a nephew, a brother, a friend, or a neighbour.
As Mr. Diefenbaker said, because laws and systems are made of human beings, they are essentially, by their very nature, susceptible to error. If that error had that result, imagine the overwhelming horror that would be felt by every Member of this House.
We know, regrettably, that our judicial system can indeed be imperfect. We know also, unless we are wilfully blind to certain realities, that the scales of justice can weigh more heavily on the poor and the disadvantaged. These imperfections would loom large indeed when human life is at stake.

Mr. Speaker, while acknowledging the imperfections in our criminal justice system, we are constantly striving to improve it and to enhance the public's confidence in it.
In this regard, the Law Reform Commission and the Canadian Sentencing Commission have been doing important work to improve the quality and administration of justice.
But before all else, we uphold one simple principle: the inherent dignity of a human being, the inherent worth of a human life. I will resist with all of my strength, all of my life,
June 22, 1987

any action that would diminish that reality and would lessen that value.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: I realize that there are many arguments and many considerations. One, of course, deals with the empirical evidence. Let us deal briefly with that empirical evidence.
No executions have been carried out in this country for a quarter of a century. The death penalty was legally abolished more than a decade ago, in 1976. Ten years later, in 1986, the homicide rate in Canada reached a 15-year low. Last year the murder rate declined by 20 per cent. First degree murder charges have declined by nearly 25 per cent in the last two years.
What about the argument that the fear of execution will deter would-be murderers? That goes to the fundamental notion of those whom I respect but hold views different from mine. When one sees the incredible crimes that are inflicted upon young people and the elderly across this country, other Members articulate that concern of the deterrent. In the United States, the highest murder rates are in states such as Texas or Florida where capital punishment is enforced. In the State of Florida, the murder rate has increased by 30 per cent since the restoration of capital punishment.
As Lord Parker, the Lord Chief Justice of Britain said at Westminster in 1965:
The great deterrent to crime is not severity of punishment but certainty of conviction ... I have agreed with John Bright when he said, "a deep reverence for human life is worth more than a thousand executions in the prevention of murder".
I am not persuaded by this argument of deterrent. The burden of proof for the restoration of the death penalty must rest, and must rest very heavily, on those in favour of it.

Mr. Speaker, one of the reasons frequently advanced for the reinstatement of capital punishment is the supposedly high cost of keeping a prisoner incarcerated for life.
But in Canada, we do not and should not engage in a "cost benefit analysis" when it comes to questions concerning the value of a human life.
No matter how it is administered, capital punishment terminates human life. No matter how thorough the evidence, the possibility of executing an innocent person remains.
Mr. Speaker and dear colleagues in this House, for me, this is unacceptable and abhorrent in a civilized society.

Let there be absolutely no doubt about what this resolution is all about. If it is adopted, the House will be voting in principle for reinstatement of the death penalty. This debate is in and of itself an instrument of democracy in which the voices of the people are heard through their elected representatives. I
Capital Punishment
commend the thoughtfulness with which people have intervened on all sides of this issue in terms of the parliamentary debate.
The views of our constituents are, of course, very important, but in the final analysis, the most demanding constituency of all in this regard must remain our consciences. This is a matter on which the House of Commons owes the country its independent judgment and this is a matter on which each Member owes the House of Commons his or her moral leadership.
For all of these reasons, I shall be voting against the resolution, against restoration, against capital punishment. But most of all, I shall be voting against it because I believe it is wrong.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Kaplan:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Every Member who speaks on this resolution is subject to being questioned by other Members of the House after he concludes his remarks. I realize that under the rules the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) is exempted from that requirement. However, he is participating in this debate, which is not a government measure and which requires a free vote. He is participating as a Private Member.
Therefore, I wonder if he might agree and there may be unanimous consent to have the normal question and answer period that has applied to all other Members?


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, on the same point of order, I also want to ask whether the Prime Minister would be willing to answer a few questions with the unanimous consent of the House. In passing, I must congratulate the Prime Minister for his eloquent speech. What I want to ask the Prime Minister is this: When this debate concludes, will the Government make a commitment to bring in Bills and programs to reform our penal system so that we might discuss practical means of improving the situation and preventing crime?


Mr. Clark (Yellowhead):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Members of the Liberal Opposition are seeking to have extended to the Leader of the Government a practice that I understand did not extend to the Leaders of the two other Parties. The Member who has just put a question in the context of a point of order has, in effect, tried to have things two ways. He seeks to have the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) respond to comments and questions because he is a Private Member but then, using that excuse, he raises questions concerning government policy.
The Hon. Member cannot have things both ways. I submit with the greatest respect that the rules that were agreed to should be respected.

June 22, 1987
Capital Punishment


Mr. Speaker:: I think in the interests of informing all Hon. Members and the public which is watching and listening to this debate, that it should be made very clear that under the rules, for Party Leaders and the Right Hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney), there is no mandatory provision whereby the usual following 10 minutes of questions and comments would be directed at the Right Hon. Prime Minister, unless of course it was with the unanimous consent of the House. I think it is quite clear that there is not unanimous consent. Resuming debate.


Mr. Roland de Corneille (Eglinton-Lawrence):: Mr. Speaker, first I want to take this occasion to express my gratitude to the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) for his helpful observations and his excellent speech on the subject of capital punishment. We all listened to him intently and find his reasoning to be most helpful to us.
I also want to commend the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner) for his contribution, and the Leader of the New Democratic Party. In this case, all three Leaders gave us the same leadership and word, so I wish to commend them in this regard. Even though it is true that we come here as Members of Parliament to speak as individuals, nonetheless, as Leaders of their Parties, they have certainly given to us the direction in which we may look.
One principle in this debate on capital punishment on which all Members of Parliament can unite is our abhorrence of murder. We all agree it is the worst of all crimes and it is especially heinous if it is premeditated, if it is planned ahead of time and then carried out. We all feel horror, anguish and revulsion when multiple deaths are involved or when children are victims of murder. We all share the anguish for the innocent victims and for their bereaved families. This unites us all. But where this House is divided, and many people of Canada are divided as well, is on whether the death penalty should be restored. Should we kill someone who is convicted of having committed murder of whatever kind, and perhaps kill someone who might in fact be innocent?
What I hope and pray is that through my thoughts and words I may be used by God to speak to at least one Member of Parliament, or one Senator, who is presently in favour of capital punishment and speak in such a way that they will hesitate and give the matter further renewed consideration. Since the debate began in the House of Commons on April 27, public opinion has moved in the direction of being less and less in favour of the death penalty. This is not just because the debates have taken place in this House. After all, up until last week, only some 20 people had a chance to speak. Rather, I suggest, the reason that opinion is shifting is because we have been seeing through the media and through our discussions the facts, realities and truth being brought more and more to the attention of the public. Then, too, almost all of the experts and opinion makers are lined up against capital punishment.
It is said there is still a majority of Canadians who favour it in one or another special circumstance, but this majority is dwindling. Surveys of opinions of Members of Parliament definitely show that their views are also changing. I suggest again the reason is the same. Great leaders and parliamentarians of the past have struggled and agonized over this issue. They have weighed the evidence and have eventually concluded that capital punishment in all its forms must be totally abolished.
We have more reasons than ever before to come to the same conclusion. However, I suggest that one of the most persuasive reasons for our leaders in the past and, indeed, for our present parliamentarians is that every country in Europe, except Turkey, has voted out the death penalty in totality is because they realize that being concerned about the potential victims of murder and their families is the most important of all priorities and that capital punishment in fact distracts us from getting at the root problems of violence.
It is because I believe that everyone of us is, or should be, most concerned about how to prevent murders, that I think we can all unite and vote against capital punishment and deal with these real issues. We know the death penalty does not prevent murder. As long ago as 1966, the Right Hon. John Diefen-baker said: "The argument is that hanging is a deterrent but history does not support that argument". I quote Mr. Diefen-baker because he is a former leader of the Conservative Party. I hope his opinions, and the opinions of succeeding leaders of the Conservative Party, will have their influence on Members of that Party, as indeed have the words of the various leaders of the Liberal and NDP Parties upon their constituents.
The statistics in Canada, in the United States and elsewhere, support the idea that capital punishment will not deter, discourage or prevent the number of murders which take place. Simply put, capital punishment does not prevent murders. What we do know is that killing the alleged killer can serve only one purpose. It satisfies the hunger for revenge, of vengeance, of making the victim's relatives, friends or society feel that something was done about it. Of course, we find that this is not always the case. In fact, some of the most publicized cases of people who have spoken against capital punishment are those whose relatives were in fact victims of murder. I remember that Pauline Maitland was quoted in this Parliament by Andrew Brewin in 1976 as having pleaded as the wife and widow of a policeman who was murdered that the capital punishment of his alleged murderer should not be carried out. In the case of Lesley Parrott, whose daughter Alison was abducted and murdered last year, her plea was the same. One could go on with any number of cases both in this country and throughout history where the relatives of the victims have realized the futility of such an act and have not wanted revenge in that form.
By killing in revenge, one can perhaps feel something was done to get rid of the existing anger, frustration and feeling of loss, but it is a primitive way of dealing with murder and murderers and a very ineffective way. It only provides an
June 22, 1987

emotional quick fix. That is what militant advocates of the death penalty want to give to their constituents who are frustrated, a quick fix, a solution which appeals to a shallow politician. Elowever, parliamentarians I know in this House would not find that an appealing conception. Real parliamentarians will look for a real solution and make decisions because he or she is wise and moral rather than because they look for what is popular and momentarily satisfying.
I said we should join together to vote against restoring capital punishment. What I mean is that restoring capital punishment is a quick fix. The real challenge is to come to the real issue. The real concern should be to prevent murder and to provide greater safety for the enforcement officers and all those who have to deal with the social work in the community. It is misleading, distracting and a primitive diversion to beat the drums for capital punishment or to try to buy off a society by giving it revenge. It is a backward and regressive move which delays us from the tough demanding issues we must face.
All of us, I suggest, are truly outraged at violence and murder. Instead of having a group of Members of Parliament travelling around the country to ask for opinions on how to kill a human being, as this motion which is before us suggests, what about having a committee which deals with asking how to prevent murder? What if we were to replace a committee which goes around the country asking which one shall we kill and how are we going to put them to death with one which seriously addresses the real issue and asks how to deal with the matter of preventing murder? Should we not be taking another look at how we are sentencing people who commit their first crimes and what we can do more effectively to rehabilitate and to redirect them? Should we not take another look at what we do with people who repeatedly commit violent crimes?
What about our sentencing and parole system? Is it fair? Is it adequate? Is it effective? What about our halfway houses, probationary assessment, psychiatric assessment and care for the violent and mentally ill? Is it adequate? Do we really seriously feel we have done an adequate job in this area? Instead of talking about capital punishment, should we not ask whether or not the courts are overcrowded and whether justice is too long delayed? A quick fix of having capital punishment after a murder is not even as good as locking the barn after the horse is stolen.
What about our justice system? Is it adequate? Do police have enough latitude in cases of doubt to protect themselves? Do police and law enforcement officers and those who work in penal institutions and in halfway houses have enough staff and enough safety? Do they receive enough respect, appreciation and rewards from the community? Will capital punishment solve that or will it not in fact provide us with a false sense of security and, by revenge, a feeling of satisfaction which will distract us from these our real problems?
Capital Punishment
What about the problems associated with drugs, poverty, alienation, unemployment, mental illness, child and wife abuse, of hunger in slums and illiteracy, all of which make certain small pockets in our country the major breeding grounds for most of the homicides that do take place? Will capital punishment prevent those violent crimes from occurring? We know it will not.
What about the entire phenomenon of violence in our society, the way our media deals with it, its commercialization and mystique? It is not only government that has a responsibility, not only the House of Commons and politicians, it is the people of our country. Do they tolerate perhaps and even encourage violence in sports and entertainment and in relation to our environment? Will the quick fix of capital punishment not distract us as Canadians from dealing with the violence which is the breeding ground of murder and so many other tragic criminal acts?
To kill an alleged killer is to provide a scapegoat instead of dealing with the issues. We know that it is not a deterrent, that it will not save lives, that it will not prevent murder. Morally, we know that capital punishment is absolutely wrong. It brings to risk the possibility of killing an absolutely innocent person. Even if the person is guilty it is still, in any case, immoral.
While the evangelical Baptist churches and a number of some of the independent churches have indicated their support for capital punishment, and I would be inaccurate not to mention this fact, the overwhelming opinion of all the major religious communities in the country and throughout the world condemns capital punishment. Within the Christian community in Canada I only need to point to the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops, the Anglican Church, the United Church, the Presbyterian 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, the Religious Society of Friends, the Salvation Army, and so on. These institutions, these churches, these leaders have absolutely and completely condemned capital punishment as being immoral and cruel.
I go on to point out that not only are these Christian organizations expressing their views against capital punishment but a multitude of religious communities throughout the world that are not Christian, and which are also in this country, are also expressing their views. They include, for example, the World Jewish Congress, the World Muslim Congress and other organizations that are involved in human concerns on behalf of religious people such as the World Young Women's Christian Association, the World Student Christian Federation, the World Federation of United Nations Associations, the World International Zionist Organization, the Union of Arab Jurists, Amnesty International, and the list goes on and on.
The world community of people who work in the area of religion and in terms of alleviation of human suffering

June 22, 1987
Capital Punishment
understand and explain that capital punishment is not acceptable. So do all the organizations of social workers. So do most lawyers working with criminals because they know of the fallibility of the trial system. So do all human rights organizations here and throughout the world.
Of course, there are other reasons to reject the death penalty other than that religious communities are against it. I would very rapidly like to cite just a few of them.
First, we know that juries and judges are less likely to convict a person if they know that the consequence is to condemn that person to death. They would hesitate because they would not be completely and totally certain that their decision would be entirely and certainly right. So they might withhold what might normally be a judgment to imprison the person because it looks as if he has committed a crime, and rather than condemn that person, they might dismiss that person if we have capital punishment. One danger of bringing back capital punishment is that there will be a failure to bring about what would normally be a correct conviction.
Second, we know that the tragedy of torturing a prisoner on death row with a verdict of death which is often delayed, sometimes commuted and even reversed by acquittal sometimes on the basis of new evidence, is another reason we should be very strongly hesitating to pass a motion for the return of capital punishment. We also know that the poor are more likely to be executed than are the rich. The visible minorities are more likely to be executed than are others.
Because of these and many other reasons we know that the only use capital punishment serves is to provide a scapegoat and a distraction from dealing with the real problems in our society, in our country and in our world, problems that are crying out for difficult and soul-searching solutions.
As one who is working in the field of human rights, I want to remind Hon. Members as effectively as I can that only in nations such as the Soviet Union, Saudi Arabia, Turkey and certain other non-democratic African and Asian countries does the death penalty still survive. The one anomaly in democratic countries is the United States where some states still have capital punishment.
Because the death penalty is still used for purposes in the world other than murder in those nations, such as theft, adultery, black marketing and disagreeing with the government, every effort is being made, with some success, by human rights organizations and by the United Nations to eradicate the death penalty. Canada's example until now has been salutary and most helpful.
In the name of God and for the credibility of human rights abroad as well as at home, let us vote against capital punishment. Let us strengthen Canada's hand in bringing justice to other countries, rededicating ourselves to dealing with the real issues that lead to violence and murder.
Jesus Christ taught: "You have heard that it hath been said 'an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth' but I say unto you
that you resist not evil, but whosoever shall smite thee on the right cheek, turn to him the other also". Saint Paul said: "Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath; for it is written, 'Vengeance is mine, I will repay saith the Lord'."
To my fellow Christians I say, please look upon the face of a man who was charged, properly and legally tried, and executed; look at the face of Jesus and look at the Cross; think of what it might mean if you vote for capital punishment because He from the Cross asks us, as we risk again and again the execution of an innocent person, "Would you crucify me again because inasmuch as you do it unto the least of these my brethren you do it unto me".
I would maintain that the only excuse for taking a life is self-defence for oneself or on behalf of others about to be killed. That is the usual justification for war-self-defence on behalf of one's nation or of others in another nation.
It seems strange to me that some who would advocate capital punishment would demand of our soldiers a higher discipline during war than they would of themselves in our country in peacetime.
For this reason I should like to conclude by reading part of a letter written by a 53-year old Dutch Canadian, living in Guelph, Ontario, whose name is H. J. Dyckman. Mr. Dyck-man recounts September of 1949 when the Netherlands was liberated and says:
I was 11 years old when Canadian infantry men stormed the house I lived in on April 4, 1945, after a three day battle. It has been a tremendous pleasure for me over the last two years to locate, to meet with and to talk to those members of the Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry Highlanders Regiment, who liberated us. Sharing stories has brought us close. I have gained a much better picture of the life of a foot soldier in war time through them. How much they suffered!
One of the hardest things for the men who had to deal with the enemy face to face was to accept that as soon as a Nazi soldier dropped his rifle and raised his hands, he had to be spared, no matter what had happened minutes or even seconds before that. No soldier was allowed to shoot or torture a prisoner of war, an unarmed man, no matter how cruel an enemy he had been.
I was told of an infantry man being spat in the face by a young Nazi fanatic. I was told of a soldier taking captive a gun crew, which had just blown up his own brother.
Even in times of war, in such horrendous times of anger and pain, the law was strict: no unarmed man was to be killed! How strange, now, in peacetime, it might happen again, sanctioned by the law. Something is going wrong.
Canadians fought and died, that democracy might be maintained and civilization restored in the Netherlands, in Canada, in the world. Are we remembering our soldiers well, if we return to the practice of deliberately killing defenceless human beings, in the name of justice?
"But those people are not human beings", I hear some people say. "They are monsters, to kill them is justice".
I do believe I understand the rage we all feel when monstrous atrocities are committed. It is that helpless, powerless rage we experience when confronted with a senseless and brutal act of violence. As a child I lived in a nation that was ruled by monsters. Yet I am firmly convinced that it is not justice, to put such a so-called monster to death because by doing that I would commit a senseless and brutal act and I would become a monster also.
June 22, 1987

If the death penalty returns to Canada, I will no longer live in a civilized nation. I chose to come to Canada, I married one of its daughters, I have learned to love this country and I will continue to do so whatever Parliament decides.
But returning the death penalty is turning back the clock of civilization and in my opinion it is doing a dishonour to the memory of the men who died for that civilization. Please, Members of Parliament in Ottawa, do not force me to commit premeditated murder against my will.


Mr. Kindy:: Mr. Speaker, I have somewhat of a comment to make. It is a known fact that we have democracies in the world and that we have dictatorships. One of the functions of the state is to defend its own people against dictatorship. This is why we have wars. People in the Second World War fought against the Nazis because they wanted to preserve liberty.
Article VII of our Constitution guarantees legal rights to life, liberty, and security of person. The state has an obligation to preserve the security of the individual. If we have a war, the armed forces go out to defend the security of the state. When they go out they fight and they kill to preserve democracy, to preserve the security of persons, to preserve it from tyranny.
The Hon. Member talked about Nazi Germany and about the Jewish people. I think Canada and other free countries were involved to destroy Naziism because it was killing people.


John Martin Oostrom: Six million.


Alex Kindy: Yes, six million Jews, and I am not counting the 20 million in eastern Europe who were killed. The state has an obligation to preserve life and to preserve liberty.
On the other hand, we have terrorists that work within the country, so the state has its obligation. It has a police force to preserve liberty of the individual so that terrorists do not take over. We have the mafia and we have the criminal killer.
If we follow the logic of the Hon. Member, we should disarm the police forces; we should disarm the army and just give up or succumb to dictatorship and to anarchy inside the country. This logic is difficult to follow.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I would hope the Hon. Member would come to his question. This is questions and comment period.


Alex Kindy: It was a comment, but my question is: Would he propose complete disarmament so that nobody would be killed? That is my question.


Roland de Corneille: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to reply to my colleague. I am glad he is asking questions, as we all should ask one another, on a matter as serious as this one.
First, the quotation I took was from a man whose name is Reverend H. J. Dyckman, a Christian clergyman living in Canada, who is recounting his experiences in the Netherlands as a child.
The objective of his letter was to point out that when we send out our men to fight against an enemy, we tell them that
Capital Punishment
when the enemy throws down his arms, no matter what they have done until that point, we must not then kill them, we must not then torture them. At that moment they must obey that understanding. He said that if we follow that, even with the atrocious killers as took place with some of the Nazi soldiers in some of the Nazi activities, if we tell our soldiers to do that, can we do any less for ourselves as parliamentarians? I think that was the first question, and I think that is what he was asking about.
Second, my colleague also raised the question of war. I think I indicated that we use war, that in fact we kill in self-defence. Self-defence is the only kind of action which I think people in civilized countries and civilized societies would hold to be the time when they would take up arms to kill someone.
Of course when Canada went to war with the Germans, with the Italians, and with the Japanese, it was a war to prevent murder, a war in self-defence. Canada sought no aggrandizement of territory. Canada sought no plain ordinary war just to fight. Canada fought in self-defence with other nations that they might survive. It was not a war of aggression. It was a war of defence. I hope Canada will never undertake any wars of aggression. It is not in our interest to do so. We enter into war only to defend ourselves and other people throughout the world from the horrors of dictatorship, to which my colleague quite rightly pointed.


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, I was struck by the statement of the Hon. Member from Calgary who reminded us that six million Jews were slaughtered by the Nazis before and during World War II. I would like the Hon. Member for Eglinton- Lawrence (Mr. de Corneille) to confirm my understanding that the State of Israel, where so many of the Jews who survived the Holocaust have settled, has abolished capital punishment and that when Israel wanted to put Adolf Eich-mann, who was responsible for the killing of so many Jews, to death it passed a special law for just that case. There is no death penalty for any other murderers, including terrorists who are so active killing people in Israel.


Roland de Corneille: Mr. Speaker, I would confirm what my hon. friend has pointed out. Not only is this true in the case of Israel, but as Reverend H. J. Dyckman from the Netherlands, who has lived and worked in Canada all these years and is now a Canadian pointed out:
Reinstatement of the death penalty happened in the Netherlands in 1940, about 60 years after it had been abolished. It was a Nazi Government which restored state executions after a brutal invasion. Civilization ended in the lowlands then, barbarism returned for five long years.
In the spring of 1945 my country of birth was liberated. In September of that year a new, democratically elected parliament in a free nation voted to abolish the death penalty again.
In other words in the Netherlands it was only during the era of Nazi brutality that in the last nearly 100 years we saw capital punishment in that land. It was with the driving out of

June 22, 1987
Capital Punishment
the Nazis from that country and the restoration of civilization that capital punishment was eliminated.


Mr. Winegard:: Mr. Speaker, I have a comment in terms of the discussion of the Hon. Member for Eglinton-Lawrence (Mr. de Corneille) concerning prisoners of war. It is quite true that once an enemy was unarmed the general rule was that you would take no action and you would treat that life as sacred until-and this is the important thing-you found out whether that person had taken any action which, even under the rules of war, was considered an atrocity. If under the rules of war, that person had committed an atrocity, that person was liable to execution and sometimes was executed.
I think we have to remember that one was dealing with the same kind of thing, the same kind of freedom, liberty and respect as soon as that unarmed soldier appeared, but he had to go through a trial if it was thought that something had been done wrongly, even under those conditions.


Roland de Corneille: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the observations of my colleague in terms of the way in which people who were convicted of military offences were dealt with.
What is important in this context is that in our country, as 1 have pointed out, we have the responsibility to deal with all of the problems to which I have referred in trying to prevent murder. I suggest that bringing in capital punishment will not direct our minds as much to the correction, the elimination and prevention of murder, as it will to having felt that we have dealt with the subject. But far from dealing with the subject, the matter of violence is so rooted in our society that it seems to me that we have a lot to deal with that should occupy the minds of this House if we really care about the victims of murder and crime.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Questions and comments are now terminated. Debate. The Hon. Member for Edmonton South (Mr. Edwards).


Mr. Jim Edwards (Edmonton South):: Mr. Speaker, as has been remarked so many times, this is a painful question. It is a question which has been probed during these many hours of debate very thoroughly. I rise to state my view on the issue and to give some indication as to how I have arrived at that view and to give for those who elected me intentions as to how I will vote.
My own involvement with this issue began in 1959 when, as a young delegate to a national convention of my Party, I presented a motion calling for the abolition of capital punishment in Canada and calling for the appropriate amendments to the Criminal Code in order to see that carried out. I presented it with all of the conviction that I could summon. When I had completed my presentation to the resolutions committee, I was congratulated by one or two people. They said that I obviously felt that point of view very strongly. I am not making light of what then happened, Mr. Speaker. I must tell you that I was not in favour of the resolution that I was
presenting although I saw it as my duty to present it with all of the conviction that I could muster.
In the election of 1984 most of us, if not all of us, were called upon to give our views on this issue. Some of us have altered our views. Others, I suppose, are listening attentively to this debate, praying for the wisdom that will give them guidance as to how they will ultimately vote.
As I think all Members have, I have done my utmost to inform myself, to study the issue, and to be aware not only of the facts but of what thinkers have said on the matter, including a number of thinkers who are Members of this House and who have been Members of this House. This involved considerable reading and study. It involved discussion and consultation with Members of the clergy. In the course of my preparation, I met with representatives of most if not all of the major denominations of the Christian clergy, with Jewish clergy and with others of less widely held persuasion. I met with a panel of criminologists from the University of Alberta who put together what I think is one of the best and most cogent positions opposing the death penalty.
I have heard, as we all have, from a great number of constituents on the issue and, indeed, others who are not constituents but who are caring Canadian citizens. I wish to quote very briefly from two of those letters just to dramatize the intensity of the views. These were both received in my office within the last week, and are both from constituents of mine.
Dear Sir:
I am writing to voice my concern over the possibility that the Canadian Government may reinstate the death penalty.
I object to the death penalty because I do not feel that it serves any useful purpose. Extensive studies of the deterrent effect of the death penalty indicate that it does not serve as a deterrent; in fact, in Canada in the ten years after the death penalty was abolished in 1976, the homicide rate actually dropped.
I do not feel that the death penalty can be justified on the grounds that it would prevent murderers from murdering again because in the history of Canada only four people have been paroled for murder and then murdered again. Furthermore, assuming that a person will repeat an offence also contradicts one of the basics of the Canadian justice system, namely, that people are innocent until proven guilty.
1 feel that our money and efforts would be better spent trying to discover why people murder and cycles of violence can be stopped instead of debating whether or not we, as a nation, should return to the barbaric practice of state-sanctioned violence.
The only issue that I would take with that letter at this point is that this resolution is not a resolution of the Canadian Government. It is not the Canadian Government which is proposing to reinstate the death penalty.
On the other side of the issue, I just received another letter from a constituent, and it reads as follows:
Dear Mr. Edwards:
As the debate on capital punishment drags on I think so often of a young friend of ours who was murdered in cold blood.
June 22, 1987

Our friend whom I will call "Rick" was in his early 30's. He had been a gold medalist at U. of A. and had his own consulting firm.
He and his wife and three small children were asleep in their beds in a good area of Calgary when Rick awoke about midnight to realize that there was an intruder, armed with a knife, in the bedroom. Rick told his wife to run for help; as she passed the assailant, he slashed her. Rick struggled with him and was stabbed to death. If you had seen your wife wounded and knew your three small children were also in danger, how would you have reacted?
The murderer was apprehended and given 13-1/2 years imprisonment. He had entered that home quite prepared to kill. I maintain that the death penalty would have caused him to think twice before committing the crime.
Rick's mother has lost her only son, his wife has lost her husband, the three children have lost their father. Yet in a few years the murderer will be free; even now he sees the sunrise and the sunset, the greening grass, and hears the birdsong. Is this fair?
Please vote 'yes' for capital punishment. Lethal injection would be my choice.
In the course of the examination of these issues, because there are many sub-issues in this very fundamental one, I have received some interesting proposals. I have heard variations on conventional thought. One of them was that when a person has been convicted of murder, then a panel of distinguished legislators of all people should examine the record of that person's life and should determine whether he or she has been a good person, whether or not there was, I suppose, an extended life-long mens rea. I received the following idea from Liverpool, Nova Scotia under the heading "Capital Punishment, A Middle Position".
I advocate the death penalty on the Second Capital Crime by the same person separated from the First Crime by time and distance.
This position would:
1.	Eliminate the danger of punishing by death the wrong person.
2.	Allows us as God fearing people to forgive the first crime after suitable punishment.
3.	Strengthen our prison guards positions in dealing with first time convicted murderers.
In order to try to get some kind of focus on what my constituents thought of this issue, I held a town hall meeting on May 16 which went on for three and a half hours. Our objective was to shed as much light and to radiate as little heat as possible. I think in that ambition we succeeded.
There were four panelists present, a chaplain from the University of Alberta, a criminologist, the founder of Victims of Violence who happens to be the stepfather of one of the child victims of Clifford Olson, and the Acting Chief of Police of the City of Edmonton. There were many views expressed during that three and a half hours. There were statements from individuals who had lost loved ones through crimes of violence. There were statements, passionately felt statements, that it is not up to the state to take a life. However, the one common denominator emerging from the day's deliberations was that we must, whether or not we have the death penalty, improve the criminal justice system so that those who are to be set free in society at some point will be at the least risk of repeating their crimes or indeed of harming others.
There have been numerous references to statistics through the course of this debate. The criminologists to whom I
Capital Punishment
referred earlier have drawn up a chart entitled "Homicide and First Degree Murder Rates per 100,000 Population, 1961 to 1985, Source, Statistics Canada". The chart clearly shows that the rate of homicide or deaths caused by others deliberately increased dramatically from 1961 to 1976 when it began to gradually decline. However, the same chart also shows that the rate of first degree murder has been on the steady increase since 1976 to the present.
There is the question of religious objection to the death penalty. Does capital punishment violate the law of love? Believers are admonished to love their enemies, to turn the other cheek. I submit, though, that to use this argument against capital punishment is to overlook the fact that two different matters are under consideration. One is personal, the other is official. The judge functions as an officer of society and has a different relationship with the criminal than does the individual who has been wronged by the criminal.
Another objection to capital punishment that is sometimes held is that no one has the right to take human life except God. This idea is related to the belief that the person who executes a criminal is as guilty of murder as the one he executes. It is, I know, not always constructive to quote at random from the Scriptures, but I would cite Romans 13:1-7 and I Peter 2:1317 to indicate that God does approve of certain individuals being his instruments of justice on the earth.
So the question comes up, does the state have the right to put aside the duty? Does the state have the right to inflict the death penalty? A noted theologian has said:
I do not think one can deny to the state, as the moral person responsible for the common good of society, the right to exact the death penalty if it is deemed necessary for the common good, just as anyone has the right to self-defense and the state has the right to engage in defensive war.
When then should the state intervene, if at all? After giving this question considerable thought and after examining the views of others, I have come to the conclusion that the state should reserve the right to intervene in the most extreme cases. In just a moment, Sir, I will cite those cases.
Finally, in my research, I went to the views of the public in my own city. Last year, in 1986, 82.9 per cent of the adult population of Edmonton said that they favoured capital punishment. That in itself, Sir, is not the principal reason why I would vote for this motion because I do believe that there are certain issues on which we as elected Members should reserve the right to go by our own consciences, and this is one of those issues.
I want to be fair and so I will give a brief breakdown of that 82.9 per cent. When it is analysed, this apparently strong position fractures somewhat.
Four questions were posed. First: I am opposed to the death penalty under any circumstances. Some 6.9 per cent responded yes. Second: I am opposed to the death penalty except in a few cases where it may be appropriate. Some 24.1 per cent

June 22, 1987
Capital Punishment
responded yes. Third: I am generally in favour of the death penalty except in a few cases where it may not be appropriate. Some 40.1 per cent responded yes. Fourth: 1 am strongly in favour of the death penalty as an appropriate measure. Some 28.9 per cent responded yes.
This whole process is beginning to cause Canadians to think more profoundly about the issue and indeed to use the light rather than generate the heat. However, there are certain situations when society demands that the state take the most extreme action. I quote Simma Holt, a former Member of this House, who said:
Five of us-myself, two ex-Mounties, and two lawyers-fought to save a very bright but notorious western safecracker/bank robber charged with a Seattle holdup-murder we knew he did not commit. As a result, he was acquitted. Subsequently, he became my "adviser" on the justice system from his perspective. When capital punishment was taken from the books he told me: "We never carried bullets in our guns in our holdups because we knew if someone got killed we would hang ... 1 tell you, Simma, capital punishment kept a lot of us from firing real bullets.
I predict loaded guns will appear in robberies now."
In conclusion, 1 believe imposition of the death penalty can best serve justice in the most extreme cases. 1 believe the case of greatest degree is when the entire nation is threatened. That would be treason committed in time of war. Second is first degree murder. Third is murder while committing an indictable offence.
Thank you for this opportunity, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Questions or comments.


Sheila Finestone: Mr. Speaker, I think everyone in this House respects the right of each individual to his or her own opinion. Certainly I have great respect for my hon. colleague. However, he made a statement which raises a question in my mind.
1 listened very carefully to the Prime Minister's (Mr. Mulroney) speech a little while ago. He said that the rate of first degree murder had declined by 25 per cent over the last 25 years. In particular, 1986 was a 15-year low. I wonder if the Hon. Member could reconcile that with his statement that the rate of first degree murder has gone up.


James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: Mr. Speaker, I have great respect for my hon. friend from Mount Royal. I also have great respect for the Prime Minister's research. My statistics are taken from a study compiled by five criminologists at the Centre for Criminology, Research Centre of Sociology, at the University of Alberta, who to a man, and they are all men, opposed capital punishment.
I listened, as did my friend, to the Prime Minister's remarks. The statistics I have indicate there has been a rather steady increase since 1976 in the incidence of first degree murder in Canada. From 1984 to 1985 there was a levelling off, not a decline, a levelling off. I stand by my statistics, which as I say were derived by these noted criminologists from StatsCan figures.


Mr. Crosby:: Mr. Speaker, in his excellent and even-handed presentation my colleague from Edmonton referred to polls and the opinions of Canadians taken over a period of time, particularly those expressed by his constituents. The point I want to make to Members of the House, indeed to all Canadians, is that this is as much an exercise in democracy as it is an exercise in decision-making on a given subject. We in Canada believe that the will of the majority governs, and it is very difficult to deny that will when it is so clearly expressed by so many people who have a right to express a view on a subject like capital punishment. This is not a question dealing with monetary policy which requires expert knowledge and experience. It is a subject on which any Canadian can rightly express his or her view. I compliment the Hon. Member for recognizing the importance of the view of his constituents and the general public on this subject.
In expressing that view in the House of Commons does he not recognize, as I have said, that this is an exercise in democracy as much as an exercise in decision-making? What does he think about those in the House of Commons who would deny the Canadian people an opportunity to express their views to a parliamentary committee? They would deny the House of Commons the opportunity to send a parliamentary committee across this country to elicit the views of Canadians so that we can develop a consensus, not the elite view of sociologists, or a view that denies the right of other Canadians to express their views.
We have a motion before us which would construct a parliamentary committee to give Canadians the opportunity to express their views. We are not making a decision here and now on the issue of capital punishment. We are not voting to execute anyone. We are simply voting to decide on a process. I would like the Hon. Member to comment on the process involved here.


James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to clarify my views on that. In the first instance, I hope I made it sufficiently clear to the House and my hon. friend that there are certain, very few but certain, very fundamental issues on which I think we would all, certainly I would, respect the right, indeed the duty, of individual Members to go against what they perceive to be the opinion of their constituents. On this issue I do not believe I have that difficulty, although I have many, many constituents who feel at odds with me on this issue and whom I love dearly and whose judgment I respect. I have great empathy for my colleagues in this House who will be voting with their conscience when they know it goes against the strong majority view in their constituency.
To get to the process, my friend raises a very significant point. The resolution put before this House provides for a joint committee of the two Houses to travel the country to ascertain the view of Canadians on this fundamental issue. I think it is put in such a way that we would learn rather than be inflamed and we would be enlightened rather than antagonized one against the other. I think that is a healthy part of the process. I
June 22, 1987

listened with great care to what the Prime Minister said on that subject. While he and I disagree on the basic issue, it is an important part of Canadian democracy to review these very fundamental questions from time to time. The Canadian people demanded that in 1984. I am pleased that the Government is permitting, although not initiating, the process which will discharge that commitment.


Roland de Corneille: Mr. Speaker, I have both a question and a comment. I think this kind of debate and dialogue is very helpful. My hope is, of course, that I would be able to persuade my colleagues about some of these issues.
The questioner and the speaker have said that this allows us to discuss the subject of capital punishment and that the public is given access to that opportunity. If we vote upon and pass this resolution, will we not be saying that this House supports, in principle, the reinstatement of capital punishment? In other words, our decision will then be made. We will not wait for the committee to go across the country and report back. When we vote on this motion we will be voting in principle.
Second, the committee is not being asked to listen to people's opinions on capital punishment but, rather, will be sent across the country "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". Those are the words in the actual motion we are debating.
If, as the Hon. Member suggested, this committee would be able to travel across the country and, for example, have the benefit of hearing those criminologists in Alberta of which the Hon. Member was talking and explore the statistics further as a committee, that would be one thing. However, I understand that if this motion were to pass, God forbid, the committee will not be going to discuss capital punishment but, rather, how to do it and when. Would the speaker like to clarify his views on that?


James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: Mr. Speaker, I think my hon. friend opposite is missing the essential point of the resolution. The essential point is that this committee would determine under what circumstances, if any, capital punishment should be brought back. That does not mean, as I suggest my hon. friend might be implying, that an affirmative vote will mean the reinstitution of capital punishment. The Member, who has infinitely more experience than I, knows that the process is much more laborious than that.
There would first be the activity of the committee, the reporting back of the committee, and the formulation of a Bill which, I imagine, would be a Bill to amend the Criminal Code of Canada. That Bill, like any Bill in this House, would be subject to a majority vote for approval. I understand very clearly that the vote at that final stage would be a vote permitting amendments and all the other privileges that are
Capital Punishment
available to this House and its Members. Finally, that would be a free vote.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Questions and comments are now terminated.


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, this will be the fifth time since I became a Member of Parliament that I will be voting on this question. As I have on the four previous occasions, I intend again to vote for abolition and against the reimposition of capital punishment.
While it is the fifth time I will be voting, it is the first time I will have participated in the debate. A substantial part of the reason I am participating in the debate is that I am appalled by the threats which have been made to impose a form of closure on the Members of this House. If I remember correctly, in the debate in 1976 there were over 100 speakers. If this question is as important as those who are so passionately committed to the reimposition of capital punishment believe, then surely they ought to be the first to accept the idea that every Member of Parliament who wishes to put his or her position on the record should have the opportunity to speak.
The Government decides the order of business. It could have brought this proposal forth a long time ago and provided sufficient time for every Member who wished to speak to do so. We ought not be rushed into making a decision because we are coming close to the summer adjournment.
The view which I have just expressed was supported in the 1976 debate by the former Member of Parliament for Yukon, the former Deputy Prime Minister, Erik Nielsen, with whom I very seldom, if ever, agreed. During that debate he said: "I do not endorse the point of view expressed in one of the newspaper editorials tonight that closure should be imposed. I believe Members should have an opportunity to speak". I too, Mr. Speaker, believe that Members should have an opportunity to speak.
I have not taken a poll of my constituents but I am willing to accept the reality that the majority of them, like the majority in every constituency in Canada I think, support the imposition of capital punishment. I did not come here to vote because a poll on any particular subject has been taken and tells me what to do. I told the people of my constituency my beliefs on the major issues with which we would probably have to deal. I have reported to them regularly on the position I have taken. They have known that after each debate on this subject I have voted for abolition. That has not affected me adversely at all.
I have told my constituents who believe very strongly in capital punishment that when deciding who to vote for I would like them to look at the record of how I had voted and what I had said on all the issues which come before Parliament. If they believe in capital punishment and believe that I was wrong to vote against it, they have the democratic right to vote for someone else, to elect another person to be their Member of Parliament. I have survived four of those votes and am confident that I will survive a fifth.

June 22, 1987
Capital Punishment
1 remind those Members who say that they are going to vote for capital punishment because their electors tell them that that is what they should do, that the last four Leaders of the Progressive Conservative Party have been abolitionists. John Diefenbaker, Robert Stanfield, the present Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) and the present Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) were and/or are abolitionists. In voting against the reimposition of capital punishment they will be ignoring the views of their constituents because they believe that the principle is so important that they have the duty not to follow the views of their constituents.
I listened to recent arguments of some Members who support the imposition of capital punishment and base their position on their readings from the Bible. I respect their right to express their views, but I remind them that the leaders of all the major churches in Canada, including the Roman Catholic bishops; the former Primate of the Anglican Church, Ted Scott, the Moderator of the United Church; the leaders of the Presbyterian, Lutheran, Baptist and some of the Mennonite Churches, and the Canadian Jewish Congress in its convention, all have opposed the reimposition of capital punishment.
What are the reasons for supporting the reimposition of capital punishment? I suppose the major reason is the belief of some people that capital punishment acts as a deterrent to murder. The record is clear. The facts are there for anyone who wants to see them. Since capital punishment was abolished in 1976, the incidents of murder or manslaughter per
100,000	people in Canada has declined. It was 2.9 per 100,000 in 1976 and went down to 2.6 per 100,000 in 1977, to 2.4 in 1978 and in 1982, the last year for which we have figures, it was 2.4 per 100,000.
If capital punishment does not act as a deterrent, why should we even be discussing whether it should be reimposed as part of our justice system? We are told that we should permit capital punishment for the killing of police officers or prison guards. The Hon. Member for St. Catharines (Mr. Reid) received a letter from a member of the Ontario Police Force, Richard Bagley. He said in part:
-I am a resident of your riding, 1 am a police officer with the Ontario Provincial Police, and 1 am also against the restoration of the death penalty.
He went on to say that a silent majority of the police officers agree with him.
The Member for Edmonton South (Mr. Edwards) quoted from a letter in which it was claimed that a murderer was released from prison after thirteen and a half years. The fact is that for first degree murder in Canada the penalty is 25 years of incarceration before parole can even be considered.
If I heard the Hon. Member for Halifax West (Mr. Crosbie) correctly, it seems he suggested that for monetary matters Canadians need the advice of experts and implied that on the question of the taking of a life we do not need that expert advice. That seems a strange approach, if I heard him
correctly, that money is more important than life. It is certainly not a view that I could support.
I ask Members to consider what happens in other countries in light of a question asked by the Hon. Member for Edmonton South about whether the state has the right to impose capital punishment. Let us look at what happens in other countries.
Capital punishment has been abolished in all the democratic countries except the United States, which I believe to be a special case. Capital punishment has been abolished in Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Holland, Belgium, France, West Germany, Spain, Portugal, Australia, New Zealand and Israel.
I want to talk about two countries in particular. Great Britain is a country that frequently faces murder as a result of terrorist activities. In the last couple of years, they again debated and voted on the question of capital punishment. Despite the fact that there was a substantial majority of Conservative Members in the British Parliament and Prime Minister Thatcher is a strong believer in capital punishment, the House of Commons rejected reimposition of capital punishment by a substantial majority.
Mention was made of the State of Israel. I remind Hon. Members that the State of Israel, if not daily, certainly faces almost weekly terrorist attacks which result in the murder of some of its citizens. It has abolished capital punishment, and when it tried Adolph Eichmann, who was responsible for the murder of tens of thousands of Jewish people in concentration camps controlled by Nazi Germany, it had to pass a special law which permitted it to execute him.
I ask Hon. Members to consider which countries still use capital punishment. Essentially, there are two types of countries: the first is communist countries such as China and the Soviet Union, and the second is the military dictatorships of Africa, Asia and South America. There are too many such dictatorships even for me to try to list.
If I have to make a choice of an example of the right way to proceed on this question, I want to associate myself with the democratic countries rather than the communist countries and those with military dictatorships.
1 want to conclude by relating an experience I had in 1976 when we last debated and voted on this question. One day I came out of the union centre in Winnipeg on Portage Avenue and Main Street. I was confronted by an executive member of my constituency NDP association who was also the president of his local union. This man, who had been a strong supporter of mine, challenged me as he was completely committed to the idea that this country needed capital punishment. We discussed the question for an hour and a half as he tried to convince me that I was wrong and should support the imposition of capital punishment, and I tried to explain to him why I was against it and would vote for abolition.
It became obvious that there was no way in which we would change our opinions, and so I sought a graceful way to end the
June 22, 1987

conversation before I would lose my temper and begin to shout at my old friend.
The thought I expressed to him, and which I commend to Members of the House, is that there was one thing on which we could agree, that this was a great country. One of my constituents could harangue and harass me for an hour and a half, telling me in so many words that I was wrong and stupid, while knowing that he could go home that afternoon and not be arrested for expressing his views which were so contrary to mine. He would not be evicted from his house. He would not lose his job. These things would have happened to him in many countries which do not permit democratic views to be expressed and do not permit the challenge of authority. I knew that the worst that could happen to me because he and I disagreed was that in the next election, if he so desired, he could vote for a candidate from another Party.
I told him that if my record and the position I have taken on issues such as unemployment, housing, inflation and all the other questions parliamentarians deal with, a position with which that person agreed, were less important than the single question of capital punishment about which we disagreed, he should exercise his democratic right and vote for another candidate, one who believed in capital punishment.
I do not know whether he took my advice, and voted for or against me. I do know that I was re-elected and I have been reelected several times since then. So I say to you, Mr. Speaker, that I intend to vote for abolition and against the reimposition of capital punishment.
I have been pleased with the debate to which I listened today. The arguments presented by Members who have spoken on both sides of the question have been thoughtful and conciliatory, not like some of the debate I heard in earlier days. I say again that I intend to vote for abolition and against capital punishment on this occasion as I have on previous occasions.


Mr. Mantha:: Mr. Speaker, I respect the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow) for his comments on the question of capital punishment. However I would like to ask him a question. Given that we now have better high-tech in medicine and all the life-saving devices, would the Hon. Member not feel in his heart that the lower statistics on death per population from stabbings, shootings and so on, are possibly because we have better equipment and knowledge now than, say, 10 or 15 years ago? Is that not the reason why the figures are down?


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, I must admit that I have not researched the reasons. I do know that one reason we have a fantastically lower rate in Canada than in the United States is that we have not adopted the insane idea that every person should be entitled to carry and implicitly to use a gun. I think we have fewer murders in the whole of Canada than there are
Capital Punishment
in the Cities of New York and Detroit. I am quite happy that this is a fact. I certainly hope that direction will continue.
I cannot say categorically why we have fewer deaths than before, but I can say that it certainly proves that we do not need capital punishment as a deterrent to murder.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The Hon. Member for Eglinton-Lawrence (Mr. de Corneille) has the floor, and then I will recognize the Hon. Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson).


Roland de Corneille: Mr. Speaker, I have a comment, then a question for my colleague. We were looking previously at the fact that there is a need for the Canadian public to be able to debate not only capital punishment but, it would seem to me, the causes of murder, which is really part of this whole question of deterrence. One of the reasons people have expressed for wanting to adopt capital punishment is that it is a deterrent to murder. They are also concerned about people getting out of prison too soon. Would it not seem wise for the Government to allow the people of Canada, through a committee, to discuss whether or not they believe in capital punishment? Most clearly we would vote only in principle for the reinstatement of capital punishment, and we would only be discussing the terms of reference of the committee, which are strictly limited to what offences carry the death penalty and what methods should be used. It is commanded on the basis of that to prepare a Bill to carry it out. It is not recommended here to discuss the subject of capital punishment.
Would it not be more democratic to ask the Government to consider amending this resolution so that it would have as its first principal clause that the committee discuss with the Canadian people whether or not there should be capital punishment, and if so what offence would carry the death penalty and then what methods would be used? That probably would have received more sympathy.
Second, I ask my colleague, would it not be helpful if in fact we were able to discuss in that same committee, and hear the views of the Canadian people, on how we would be able to improve the things they are concerned about, the sentencing, the violence and all those things which would lead to capital punishment?


David Orlikow: The Hon. Member asked a good question but he is asking it of the wrong Member. The suggestion he made was contained precisely in the amendment proposed by my friend and colleague, the Hon. Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson). Unfortunately, the House voted against that amendment.
Yes, we ought to give a great deal more thought and study to the reasons for violence, the reasons for murder. We ought to look very carefully at the one democratic country in which some states have brought back capital punishment, namely, the United States. If we did, we would see that the vast majority of the people who have suffered the penalty of the death sentence in those states are people who are poor, non-

June 22, 1987
Capital Punishment
white and poorly educated. It is my belief and my fear that if we were to reimpose capital punishment in this country, we would have a very similar situation. Of those who committed murders, the poor, the uneducated and the non-white might suffer the final penalty.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I will recognize the Hon. Member for Burnaby, and then the Hon. Member for Halifax West (Mr. Crosby).


Mr. Robinson:: Mr. Speaker, I will be brief. I know my colleague, the Hon. Member for Halifax West, wants to speak as well. My colleague, as he has indicated, has participated in four previous debates on this issue. I would like him to comment on an event which occurred last week when the national leaders of the youth wings of Canada's three major political Parties issued a joint statement urging the Parliament of Canada to vote against the reinstatement of the death penalty. I, as a Member, was not present in this House in 1976 and during previous votes on the death penalty, but to the best of my knowledge, this kind of statement in which the youth wings of the national political Parties speak out in unison, calling upon this Parliament not to take this step backwards as a society, is unprecedented. The statement was signed by Elaine Fox, the chairperson of the Youth Steering Committee of the New Democratic Party, Jonathan Schneiderman, President of the Young Liberals of Canada, and Irene Porter, President of the Progressive Conservative Youth Federation.
To the best of my colleague's knowledge, does this extraordinary statement from the leaders of all three of Canada's political Party youth wings not represent a very fundamental and profound statement, which indeed is unprecedented in the history of debate on this very important question?


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for Burnaby is correct. This is indeed a profound change and a very significant statement coming as it does from the leaders of the youth wings of the three political Parties. I want to say to the Hon. Member that I was not only impressed by that, but I was impressed by statements made by the leaders of all the major churches, to whom I referred earlier, and profoundly impressed by the large number of letters from individuals and individual congregations of all churches. I am referring not just to the leaders of those churches who are speaking out, but to a broadly based coalition of local residents speaking through their churches. Certainly, we have seen what I believe is the beginning of a major change in the thinking of Canadian people on the subject.


Howard Edward Crosby: Mr. Speaker, fortunately for us all the official report Hansard records our remarks, and they are there to be read by all. My remarks stand on their own merits.
Let me explain to the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Oriikow) what exactly I said and what exactly I meant when I drew comparisons between capital punishment and the
International Monetary Fund, since the result is the exact opposite of what he indicated in his remarks.
The International Monetary Fund is not something on which most Canadians are knowledgeable. It can be left to experts. We can rely on the expert opinions to form the basis for our decisions. But capital punishment is an issue that belongs to each and every Canadian. It is not for an elite few to decide what to do with capital punishment. It is not for sociologists, the clergy or professionals-it is for every Canadian. We ought to regard the view of every Canadian on this issue. That is what I meant.
The Hon. Member is totally wrong if he frames those remarks in any other way. What is at issue here is the opinion of all Canadians on a matter on which all Canadians have an opinion.
I simply want to say this to the Hon. Member. Although the point is made about voting in principle, if the motion passes, then all Canadians will have an opportunity to express their views. In that process a consensus can be formed on the issue of capital punishment.
Because the Hon. Member does not agree with capital punishment and because he has decided for himself that he is against it, does he not want that process to take place, a process that can bring about a consensus on the issue that may result in a negative vote in the House of Commons against capital punishment, which will be satisfactory to all Canadians?


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, first, let me say that if I misunderstood the Hon. Member's comments earlier then, of course, I apologize. I have no intention, nor have I ever had any intention or desire, to misinterpret any Member's statements.
On the question of the views of the Canadian people let me say this. There are countries, and I will use the example of Switzerland, which have built into their democratic systems a procedure whereby if a certain percentage of the people want to have a referendum on any question, then they prepare a petition and obtain enough signatures so that that question goes on the ballot at the time of the next election. That is a part of the democratic system in Switzerland, and I respect it. If we had that in our system, then I would accept it. But we do not have that. We have a system in which Members of Parliament are elected to do and to say what they believe and to vote the way they think is correct. The penalty for them, if their electors think that they did wrong, is that they will not be re-elected.
I ask the Hon. Member for Halifax West (Mr. Crosby) why he and his friends say that we should follow the views of the people of Canada on this particular question because it is what the polls state. Why have they not said-and I am not saying that they should-that Members of Parliament should vote on the question of abortion or on the question of price and wage
June 22, 1987

controls which we had imposed some years ago, or on any other question because the polls say it?
I say to the Hon. Member that I am not prepared to have him or anybody else choose the subject on which 1 or any other Member must follow the dictates or advice of the Canadian people because there is a poll.
What was the question asked in the poll? Who decided that that was the question to which every Member had to pay attention and had to follow? I say to the Hon. Member that if he really believes that the views of the people as expressed in polls should be followed by Members of Parliament, then let him propose a fundamental change to our system of representative democracy, such as in place in Switzerland. If we debate that topic, approve of it and put it into our system of democracy, then and only then would I be prepared to follow the views as expressed in polls. But I am not prepared to let the Hon. Member for Halifax West, or any other Member, or the general public, say to me that because on one subject or another the polls state that I must do this or I must not do that I should be prepared to accept that as a valid reason for voting for or against any question.


Hon. Walter IVIcLean (Waterloo):: Mr. Speaker, in entering this debate and in speaking against the motion on the restoration of capital punishment I would like to say that I do so this evening speaking in concurrence and, indeed, in support of the position outlined by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) in his speech in this debate a few moments ago. I come to this decision because I believe that the right to life is the most fundamental human right. I believe it is a gift of God. I strongly believe that it is the state's foremost duty to protect this right for all citizens, not to take it.
I do not believe that men and women have the right to decide who should live and who should die. As the Anglican Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr. Donald Coggan, said in 1975: "-there is an ultimate sense in which justice must be left to God". I oppose capital punishment not because I do not recognize the monstrousness of murder and the need to mete out appropriate punishment but because I believe in the absolute sanctity of life.
I know that my colleagues who have spoken so eloquently against capital punishment share the same abhorrence for all crime, and murder in particular. But let me emphasize that no one has gone soft on crime. I was particularly encouraged a few weeks ago, in fact on May 15, to see in The Globe and Mail that my colleague, the Hon. Member for Ottawa West (Mr. Daubney), outlined very succinctly five points to consider in rejecting the death penalty. He laid before the Canadian public some of the importance to the moral fabric of our country behind this debate.
He asked questions and invited us to consider whether the death penalty is a genuine deterrent to murder; the effects on juries; the brutalization effect; the risk of executing the innocent; and the matter of retribution. 1 think that what the
Capital Punishment
Hon. Member for Ottawa West was underlining as he wrote and spoke of his growing convictions and those of an increasing number of Canadians is that a 20th century society such as ours cannot seek solutions to social problems by returning to past history but rather should do so by looking to today and on to tomorrow. I cannot accept the logic of a morality that teaches that the state should commit murder to demonstrate that murder is wrong.
Clearly, I believe that restoring capital punishment would be a retrogressive step. By performing such an act I believe we become less than human, proclaiming not only the worthlessness of the offender but of ourselves as well. Capital punishment debases and brutalizes all society, in my experience.
Executions draw the interest of the morbid and can have a criminogenic effect on unbalanced minds. I believe the goal of a civilized society should be to reform and to deter criminals, not to cry out for vengeance.
Sociologists, psychologists, and other experts have suggested that the causes of murder lie in a multiplicity of factors. They tell us they lie in the slums, broken homes, poverty, drug addiction, and drunkenness, along with the lack of opportunity and education. The effects of these backgrounds on individuals are heightened by the general affluence of our society and by television depictions of violence as being acceptable.
As those who are watching by way of television switch their channels in the evenings, they can ask themselves tonight how many people they have seen blown out of the water or blown off the streets. How acceptable are the pictures across our channels of violence? Such explosive combinations of course produce cataclysmic results for our society.
The vast power and resources of the Canadian state should be utilized to find ways and means of dealing with the fundamental issues of social dislocation. Canada's Catholic Bishops, in reaffirming their opposition to capital punishment, have called for an improvement of our correctional systems. They have called for an attack upon the social factors which spawn delinquency and crime. The Bishops, Canadians will have noticed, rejected the four reasons which are often given as a justification for capital punishment-retribution, an example to society, deterrence, and protection of society.
According to the Bishops, and I quote:
It is now recognized that these reasons are problematic and cannot serve as a basis for moral judgment. Solutions that people once considered natural, just, and even necessary for social order, have thus come to be seen as radically unjust and inhumane.
The Bishops recognized the following:
The death of a murderer cannot make good the suffering that crime brings, as it destroys lives, ruins families, and crushes the hopes of innocent people.
Many churches-and this has been alluded to by many Members who spoke in the debate today-including my own

June 22, 1987
Capital Punishment
Presbyterian Church have adopted a similar position. I believe we should listen to them.
In leafing through information materials which were sent to all Members of Parliament, I came across a poster which has the picture of a hand with a stone in it. Interestingly enough, the poster, sent by the Mennonite Canada Victim Offender Ministries in Kitchener, has this thought-provoking caption for those who would use scripture pro or con in their debate: "Jesus was once asked for his support of the death penalty. His reply was: "Let one who is without sin cast the first stone".
For some of us capital punishment has a horrifying reality. It evokes memories that we wish to forget. However, in these circumstances I wish for a moment to share with the House my experiences, because as I have listened and monitored the debate, to date it has been largely theoretical.
1 lived in Nigeria, West Africa from 1962 to 1967. I returned to Nigeria in March, 1976. At that time 34 very senior military officers who had been accused of plotting the assassination of the head of state were sentenced to death by firing squad. I should explain that the head of state in question, General Murtala Mohammed, was a popular leader indeed.
His assassination in a botched up coup attempt touched a raw nerve in the country. The death sentences quickly passed on the accused were designed not only as a fitting punishment but to serve as a deterrent. The executions became a public spectacle. People were invited to Bar Beach near Lagos where the executions took place. There was full press and television coverage of the event.
I can still see in my mind's eye the clergy giving the last rites, then the shooting of the firing squad, and the bodies as they lay slumped against the poles to which they were tied. An officer went about poking the bodies to finish off those who were not dead. I said to myself then, as I say it today: What a cruel waste. It achieves nothing. It is the wrong medicine for societal illnesses. It satisfies only animal instincts of humankind.
Yes, the Nigerian State had exacted revenge, but it had also alienated many people. The families, the friends, the extended families, and the relations of the executed persons suddenly became enemies of the state, not friends. The violence had achieved nothing. It had not stopped people from employing violent means to win power.
Those who support a return to capital punishment suggest a public consultation about the method of execution. Somehow it is a very antiseptic and far from personal experience. We will be asked to weigh firing squads versus the noose, the electric chair against lethal injections or perhaps stoning, as is done in some societies. While we are at it, they will probably decide, in order that it should be an effective deterrent, that executions should be held in public for all to see. To follow this logic, why not here on Parliament Hill? After all, if we are to look at the
past record, executions were staged publicly before Confederation.
I find dehumanizing all this discussion about the best way to kill a man or woman. The whole idea is that we are somehow here to find a humane way of doing the inhumane. There is nothing humane about killing. Indeed a humane society, which is what we claim to be, will not consciously kill a human being. It will affirm the sanctity of life. Capital punishment is, I suggest, against our Canadian way of life. It is against the very principles of our existence as a free, a caring, and a civilized society.
One issue which to my mind the proponents of capital punishment have not adequately addressed is what happens if the system makes a mistake and we execute a completely innocent person. According to Amnesty International, there have been 28 cases of mistaken executions in the United States since 1900. Who, I ask, takes the blame for such monumental injustice? I have heard the argument that Canada has never recorded one such case of mistaken execution since Confederation. I am happy to hear that our record is so unblemished, but that is as far as it goes.
Tonight in his speech the Prime Minister was reminding us of the grave reservations of Prime Minister Diefenbaker about this whole matter in his criminal legal experience. The fact that we have not made such a mistake in the past does not mean that we cannot make it in the future. What if it does happen? Can anyone imagine the consequences of such an act?
I received in my mail today a letter dated June 19 from a Douglas E. Moore living in Thornhill, Ontario. In his letter he outlined his own experience and he described the horrifying circumstance when it was determined that a mix-up had occurred at the hospital and that the bullet fragments were found in the tissue samples from another unrelated case after two and a half years of his life being upside down.
Let me emphasize that other speakers before me addressed the several arguments against capital punishment. I fully endorse these arguments. However, even for those of us who strongly oppose capital punishment, there are legitimate public concerns about crime and our penal system which must be acknowledged and with which we must deal.
There is no doubt that ordinary citizens are terrified by rising crime and violence in our North American society. They are perplexed by what they see as the condoning of crime by the criminal justice system. There is a real fear in our streets and in too many of our homes. The rising tide of vigilante-ism and the public support for capital punishment are the manifestations of this fear. This has not come just out of a vacuum.
People come to me from across Kitchener-Waterloo and ask why the law appears to favour criminals and not the victims. There is a perception that law-abiding citizens are not receiving adequate protection from the law. It seems that the
June 22, 1987

law is more interested in the rights of criminals than it is in victims. These are legitimate fears and questions to be addressed. I perceive that these are questions of which people on both sides of this debate are seized as Members of Parliament in Canada.
There was, for example, a report on the television program 60 Minutes recently about a notorious murderer known as Austin Choker who murdered a string of women by choking and then beating them mercilessly. He was caught and sentenced to a term totalling 123 years. After eight years, a parole board released him on a two to one decision. He went to Houston and immediately resumed his trade. He attacked two women. Fortunately, he was caught and is now back behind bars. In interviews, the two victims expressed horror that such a notorious killer could be paroled after eight years. Their conclusion was that the law did not care about them as law-abiding citizens. This happened in the United States, but people in Canada relate to these things and worry about them.
The only way to assure people that the law is on their side is by example. Those on the front line in the fight against crime-police officers, prison officers and others-must be given adequate protection, even it means changing the law. Training techniques need to be vastly improved. We are lucky to be a nation of great scientific and technological achievement. We can avail our law enforcement agencies of the latest techniques in crime fighting.
I hope that this debate will underline the fact that our criminal justice system needs to be improved. But we need not become an inhumane society in the process. Criminals can be dealt with firmly and effectively. And, if need be, our parole system should be strengthened. Those who have expertise in the field can study this system and bring us the necessary changes. We should not encourage types like Austin Choker. Perhaps it may be in our interest to have judges or representatives from the Justice Department sit on parole boards.
The range of new ideas is limitless. I suggest that we explore them, that we use the scientific and social resources of our fast developing nation, of this vast knowledge explosion, that we begin to understand how much we have moved in behaviour modification and in the whole understanding of our society in the last decade, to say nothing of the last quarter century.
It is interesting, and Canadians will be aware of this, that as this debate has gone on through the media and here in Parliament through many months, polls are changing. I find again and again that men and women in conversation agree on what is the problem and what is the medicine. Because of this fear, concern and anxiety, capital punishment has suddenly become the cure-all. I plead that out of this debate we may have a renewed resolve to use the technological and the sociological tools available to us to support those who seek to bring law and order into our community and to maintain it. I, with others who will vote against this motion, obviously wish to be on the side with all parliamentarians in building a better
Capital Punishment
Canada, in seeking to light a candle rather than to curse the darkness.


Alan Redway: Mr. Speaker, I listened very attentively and with great interest to the Hon. Member for Waterloo (Mr. McLean), for whom I have the greatest respect. I was taken with his comments, particularly about his ideas of strengthening the criminal justice system as an alternative to capital punishment.
I too am one who believes that this is an important objective and one that we should not only be investigating wholeheartedly, but turning into something positive so that we can reassure the people to whom the Hon. Member was referring, those who are afraid, who have concerns, who are perhaps terrorized by the reports that they receive when reading about violent crime, particularly murder. I must say, however, that I have become very discouraged about the potential of reassuring people by strengthening the criminal justice system in other ways.
I would like to refer the Hon. Member to a situation which occurred a very few weeks ago in Canada, not in the United States. This is not the case of an Austin Choker, this is the case of a Rheal Chartrand.
As the Hon. Member will recall, Rheal Chartrand was convicted of first degree murder of a police officer at a time when capital punishment was the penalty for first degree murder of a police officer in Canada. Of course, capital punishment was repealed while Mr. Chartrand was awaiting the ultimate penalty. He was then sentenced to serve the full penalty for first degree murder under the present law, namely, 25 years imprisonment. Recently as the Hon. Member is aware, Mr. Chartrand applied through his lawyers to a jury in the community where the murder had taken place to ask for the right to apply for parole after serving some 15 years of his sentence. The jury, which knew all the facts relating to this man awaiting execution, who had his sentence commuted to life imprisonment, decided that he should be eligible for parole and granted him the right to apply. We do not know whether that parole will be granted by the National Parole Board, but we know now that he has that right to do it.
Does the Hon. Member agree with that process? Does he believe that someone convicted of first degree murder of a police officer in those circumstances should be entitled to parole after 15 years? If he does, does the Member think that that is the way we will reassure the citizens of Canada and return their faith in our criminal justice system?


Mr. McLean:: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the Hon. Member for York East (Mr. Redway) for his very helpful question and illustration. One of the obvious needs is the question of confidence building measures in the population. The question of strengthening criminal prevention has to do not only with the perpetrator of crime and the victim, but also with the community.

June 22, 1987
Capital Punishment
I have been particularly impressed in the community in which I live with the work which has been done largely by the leadership of the Mennonite community on victim-offender reconciliation and the question of beginning to build across communities an understanding of what is the societal part in anti-social behaviour and what is the appropriate and necessary restraint, the necessary prevention required.
In my comments I had thought that such a question might arise. I suggested that since each case would need to be looked at on its own merits that we might well want to begin to move to having people from parole boards, the judiciary, the Departments of Justice as well as communities and others represented so that when these decisions are made, they are not sudden and offensive to those who have been victims of crime, but rather some sense of participation in the decisions will have been experienced.


Alex Kindy: Mr. Speaker, I was astounded to hear the Hon. Member for Waterloo (Mr. McLean) say that he was pro-life. It is nice to be pro-life. I looked up Hansard for June 2, the day we voted on the motion of the Hon. Member for Grey- Simcoe (Mr. Mitges) which read as follows:
Everyone including a human foetus or unborn being has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.
Looking further to the record of the vote, I note that the Hon. Member for Waterloo voted against that motion. I find it astounding, not to use a stronger word, that he would say that he is pro-life.
I believe that whether one is unborn or is living, one has the right to life. As it was so well stated, this is in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice. I believe an unborn child has the right to life. However, as I said earlier this evening, the state has the right too to protect its citizens against forces outside the country during war, and that is why we have the Armed Forces, and forces inside the country, and that is why the police carry guns. If someone murders someone else in a way that is detrimental to the interests of the entire community, the state has the right to take that person's life.
My question is simple. How can the Hon. Member explain that he says he is pro-life but voted against the motion of the Hon. Member for Grey-Simcoe?


Walter Franklin McLean: Mr. Speaker, I understood that the motion this evening was on capital punishment. I have been seeking to address that and I will be quite happy on another occasion to address that other matter with the Hon. Member.


Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, I was impressed with the speech made by the Hon. Member for Waterloo (Mr. McLean) and I would like to commend him for it. I think he made the argument very well that capital punishment is not really a deterrent to murder. We need only look at the statistics down through the years and certainly those since 1976 to realize that
in that 10-year period, the removal of capital punishment did nothing to increase the number of murders in Canada and that in fact they have dropped quite dramatically. When one looks around the world, one sees that there are more homicides in the City of Detroit, for instance, than there are in the entire country of Canada.
Likewise, another point that it is important to make is that people who are convicted and hanged if capital punishment is utilized are always the poor, the weak and the minorities. Clearly on death row in a State of the United States which has capital punishment, it tends to be the poor, the weak, minorities, blacks and members of other groups. Rich men seldom if ever are convicted of murder.
I believe the most important point the Hon. Member made was that there is tremendous concern in Canada over public safety and this point was made very forcefully to me by the police association in my riding. It was pointed out that we need a reform and improvement in the parole system, the sentencing system, crisis intervention centres and family assault centres because the prevention of murder and violence is more important. Unless we address that, I do not think that this debate can really accomplish very much. I certainly hope the Government will look into those aspects of public safety because that is what we are trying to achieve.
We may disagree about whether or not capital punishment is a useful mechanism for achieving that goal, but I do not think anyone disagrees that improving the sentencing, plea bargaining and parole systems and our systems for assisting young people with drug and alcohol problems and families suffering from violence is very important in preventing violent acts such as murder.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I suppose that that was just a comment. Questions and comments are now terminated. Debate.


Sheila Finestone: Mr. Speaker, the issue of capital punishment is a subject on which I have done a great deal of soul-searching. I do not support capital punishment and I vigorously oppose this resolution. I intend to vote against capital punishment.
The issue is an important one to all of us. It is not important simply because Canadians say it is important but because it deals with the sanctity of human life. I am opposed to capital punishment out of moral conviction and out of a deep reverence for human life. In my view, human life is sacred. It is my belief that no person other than the Creator should determine the life of an individual.
Second, I am not in agreement with those who say that the reintroduction of the death penalty for selected Canadian citizens would give additional safety to police officers, prison officials or private citizens. It is simply not a fact that the death penalty acts as a deterrent. When the death penalty was abolished in Canada, the murder rate actually declined. The
June 22, 1987

Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) pointed that out earlier this evening in his address.
Third, the interlinking between social and economic factors in Canada as well as the administration of our criminal justice system needs to be more closely understood, defined and applied. Most particularly, we need to revise, review and find creative answers to our systems of sentencing, plea bargaining and parole.

Mr. Speaker, at the risk of repeating the comments of Members who have already taken part in this debate, I wish to add my voice to all those in this House and throughout Canada who are vigorously opposed to reinstatement of the death penalty. 1 must say that I am in good company as, apart from the civilized nations which voted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948, including this country, which declaration recognizes in article 3 that-
Everyone has the right to life-
-there are also many abolitionists in Canada, including the Coalition Against the Return of the Death Penalty, which includes thirty-two different organizations, such as the Canadian Council of Churches, the Canadian Jewish Congress, the Canadian Association of Social Workers and Amnesty International.

The leaders of our three political Parties have taken a strong position against capital punishment. As well, there is the most unique situation of the three presidents of the youth wings of our three political Parties, the Liberal, Conservative and NDP youth presidents, who jointly expressed their ongoing concern and, in a vote of solidarity, their wish not to see this motion carry.

Mr. Speaker, I think I should say from the start that many ordinary Canadians have wanted to express their views on this issue, as shown by the great number of open letters to the newspapers. With very few exceptions, including the noteworthy one of Guy Brouillette, professor of philosophy at the College Maisonneuve in Montreal, they are vigourously opposed to the reinstatement of the death penalty. Many editorial writers, both francophone and anglophone, have also taken a stand against the old principle of an eye for an eye and questioned the use of resuming a debate which seemed to have been concluded once and for all in 1976. They have also expressed surprise at the fact that the Prime Minister did not see fit until the last moment to take part himself in this debate to express his abolitionist views, that he did not see fit to join personally in a debate which he will surely describe as being historic, as he does everything from an annual meeting with the President of the United States to a Constitutional Conference.
Capital Punishment
Editorial writers, along with Members of this House, will not easily forget the mean spirit of the Conservative Government which promised an open and full parliamentary debate followed by a free vote, only to then try and choke off debate by calling for closure. The Government tried that trick not once but twice. This is a matter of life and death. The motion calls for the return of capital punishment and the very act of trying to force closure shows how the majority Government is trying to suppress what it considers to be minority opinion on this very sensitive matter. The Government proposed the motion and it should have better managed its legislative calendar. The Prime Minister, who gave a very moving address this evening, talked about genuine respect for opposing views. He said we need periodic review of public policy and that this debate is the instrument of democracy. I do not call it democracy when you try and choke off the debate. When you use the threat of closure on a motion of this kind, that cannot be called straightforward.
Neither is the motion itself straightforward. It does not call for the death penalty, it calls for a decision that this House supports in principle the reinstatement of capital punishment and then directs that a committee be formed to deal with the issue. If the Government calls for the reintroduction of capital punishment, then it has taken a position even though its Leader and other Ministers are against it. I suggest that is not a very strong way to lead. Normally the Government would introduce a Bill for debate, send it to committee for amendment, and then pass it. The method the Government is using in this case is not very democratic. This is not leadership. This is hiding behind the skirts of a committee which is supposed to go out and find out what people want. I am not interested in how people wish to kill and I think the Government should have taken its responsibility a little more seriously.

Admittedly polls report that a majority of Canadians favour restoring the death penalty. What does that mean exactly? In an excellent article published in the May 1987 issue of L'Actualite magazine, Mr. Jean Pare expressed serious doubts about a poll in which 78 per cent of our fellow citizens said they were for capital punishment. That poll, he wrote, needs much finer interpretation. Moreover, he said, and I quote: "That opinion is volatile as is shown in the experience made in 1975 by two sociologists, one from Massachusetts and one from Ontario." In their samples, the support for capital punishment fell from 51 to 38 per cent, after the reading of a report offering factual arguments against the death penalty. When moral and social arguments were added, the support fell from 72 per cent to 42 per cent. Quoting one of the authors, Mr. Pare adds the following: "Most people are badly informed on the issue. When they know the facts, they tend to take a stand against."

June 22, 1987
Capital Punishment
Results of a survey published on May 7 last in several newspapers of this country confirm that statement.

Proponents of capital punishment are often reported as proclaiming that the people should be allowed to decide. Over the last few months people from my riding, indeed from all over Canada, have spoken to me about this issue. I have heard from them by letter, telephone, and postcard. They have sent me speeches, news clippings, and have even come to see me in person. These people have been doing a lot of soul searching and I would like to take a few moments to share with this House the sentiments of a few who have had a strong impact on me.
First I heard from Mr. Edwards of Toronto who said "Let us not demean ourselves or our nation by resorting to violence to control violence". Then there is a Mr. Epp, the former chief keeper at a Saskatchewan prison who in 1965 had in his prison an inmate who was convicted of murder and sentenced to death by hanging. He asked at that time why we were killing this man. Presumably it was to teach people that killing is wrong. That seemed very strange to him since we do not steal from thieves to teach that stealing is wrong. We do not assault violent people to teach that assaulting people is wrong. We do not rape people who have raped in order to teach them that raping is wrong. The Reverend Charles Eddis of the Unitarian Church of Montreal wrote to protest against capital punishment. He said it only brutalizes us all and cheapens the value of human life itself. Then there was the father of a young Ottawa girl, Celia Rygrok, who was a murder victim. He said nothing can give him his daughter back. Killing another person would not make him any happier. I have had hundreds and hundreds of postcards from across this country telling me that they oppose the death penalty. They say: "Don't kill for me". We have been told continually that the majority of Canadians favour capital punishment. The hundreds of people who have contacted me are not giving me that message.

It remains however, that in the bottom of their hearts, many Hon. Members across the way, many fellow citizens and even constituents support the reinstatement of capital punishment. To those people, whose views I respect but I totally oppose, I would like to point out three specific reasons why I am an abolitionist.
First, a societal reason. We are fortunate in being a democratic nation that finds violence totally abhorrent and immoral. The situation is different in totalitarian states, where torture is an inherent feature. By reinstating capital punishment, we meet violence with violence in a spirit of retribution. We will join the ranks of countries such as South Africa, most Iron Curtain nations, a few Third-World countries, Iran and Saudi Arabia, where a human being is a negligeable quantity whose life is subject to the State's pleasure. This would be a major step backward that would bring dishonour to this civilized society.
It is time we knew where Canada stands and where it wants to stand. Around which banner do we want to rally? As an answer. I am reminded of a very pertinent comment a member of the National Coalition Against Capital Punishment, Mr. Pierre Beauregard, recently shared with readers of Le Devoir.
And I quote:
"Contemporary history provides good examples of the relationship between capital punishment and power. In 1934, General Franco reinstated capital punishment in Spain for certain terrorist crimes. In 1938, the range of crimes punishable by death was widened. That was a sure way of eliminating political opponents. After the dictator's death, the new democratic government in Spain abolished capital punishment in 1978.
In Argentina, the very day it came to power in 1976, the military junta reinstated capital punishment that had been abolished in 1972. And it is the civilian government that abolished it once more as soon as it returned to power in 1984."
I shall not insist on the conclusion I draw from those comments.
A second reason is discrimination. The restoration of capital punishment would bring back in the country a cause of discrimination on two grounds: race and economic status.
Race: Several surveys made in the United States since over 15 years have shown that the legislation on capital punishment is often applied in a discriminatory fashion to black people. In a report published in February last in London, Amnesty International agrees. In our country, this kind of discrimination would affect another group. A recent study shows that in this country native people would be put to death more frequently that the white.
Like the American statistics on race and class which bear out the fact that them without the capital get the punishment, a recently completed survey of state executions in Canada between 1926 and 1957 by University of Victoria Economics Professor Kenneth Avio, found that while 17 out of 21 nonwhites found guilty of murdering a white person were executed, only one out of five English Canadians was executed for the murder of a native Canadian. Using a model based on 440 capital murder cases, he further found that there was a 21 per cent chance of an English Canadian being executed for the same factual situation. As a Liberal I cannot tolerate this injustice and inequality. The scales of justice are unequally balanced.
From an economic perspective-

Economic status: The poor can also be the victims of discrimination in our legal system. Good lawyers are costly
June 22, 1987

and some accused cannot afford distinguished criminal lawyers.
Mr. Speaker, I do not want to suggest that a legal aid lawyer is not efficient on the contrary. I also know distinguished criminal lawyers who made their services available to penniless accused.
However, if only one alleged murderer was condemned to death because his financial means did not permit an adequate defence, I think that it is already unacceptable in a civilized country such as ours.
The third and last reason is that it is not a deterrent. Over the years, the statistics have demonstrated many times that the death penalty is not a deterrent. In fact, since it was abolished in Canada, the number of murders has not increased, and the American States which have renounced capital punishment have the lowest homicide rates in the United States.
The Association of Canadian Criminologists, made up of over 500 lawyers, shares this view. It states that a murder is often the result of an unexpected event, that it is committed on the spur of the moment, while the murderer is being carried away by passion.
I share its view that capital punishment as a deterrent is quite secondary, not to say irrelevant in most cases.

Is the fear of punishment an act of deterrence? No, not in Canada where we have had no executions for the last 25 years and where in actual fact first degree murder has declined by 25 per cent based on the statistics we have just heard.

It goes without saying that I could go on for quite a while developing my reasons for opposing the reinstatement of capital punishment. I urge those who do not share my view to consider honestly the recent decision of my friend the Hon. Member for Bourassa (Mr. Rossi) and wonder with him whether we should not rather review our penal system.
Instead of advocating a solution as radical and final as capital punishment, should we not reconsider seriously the administration of justice? Should we not make sure that the sentences are fully respected? That parole is granted more sparingly? What is needed is a system before which all are equal, a system where judges make the most equitable rulings possible. This review of our judicial and penal system should take into account the motives leading to crime: frustrations, disillusionment, unemployment, poverty, discrimination, distress, etc., and should try to support and encourage all those who are desperate to the point of murdering their neighbours.
We should not overlook the prisoners about to reenter society. We should help them more while they return to their community by providing them with adequate supervision and the psychological or psychiatric treatment which are often necessary if not essential to a successful return to normal life and the labour force.
Capital Punishment
It is through constant prevention and rehabilitation efforts and not through capital punishment that we will reduce crimes in this country. This way, Justice, whether or not with a capital J, would be better served.

For me, Mr. Speaker, voting for capital punishment is not done out of a sense of justice but rather one of vengeance. A vote for premeditated state killing or state murder is odious and offensive as well as unacceptable. I have not been persuaded by any of the arguments. God forbid that this committee be formed, but if it is I say to it, do not kill for me.


John Martin Oostrom: Mr. Speaker, I commend the Member for a very fine speech. I have a few questions for her. She mentioned that there is not ample time to discuss this issue. The joint committee may find no circumstances in which capital punishment would be justified. After the committee reports, we will have months and months to debate the issue. I would like to hear the Member's comments on that.
The Member knows of the Nuremberg trials held in Germany for the atrocities committed during the Second World War. If such a thing were to happen again, would she not recommend another such trial and the death penalty for those who committed atrocities on innocent people during a war? Six million Jews were killed, Mr. Speaker.
The Hon. Member may remember that at the Olympics in Germany a group of young Jewish athletes was killed. We are going to have the Olympics in Calgary next year. If such a thing were to happen here, would she not be in favour of the terrorists being killed for their actions?


Sheila Finestone: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member has asked a series of questions. With regard to the kind of actions the state shall undertake if we pass this motion, the committee will not have to decide whether we will execute if the motion is passed. The question will be that of how we should execute and who we should execute.
I would like to bring to the attention of my friend and colleague remarks which were made by some students who were visiting here last week. I must say that it shook me to my roots. One of them said, "Mrs. Finestone, I understand that you are in the midst of a debate on capital punishment". "Yes", said I, "and what do you think?" "Well", he said, "I do not quite understand. You are supposed to be trying to decide whether you should fry, hang, or inject. What is the shake and bake all about?"
When I hear young people ask questions in that way, I know that it is time to ask questions about what we are doing about the organization of the education of our youth. Why are we not spending our time addressing the violence in this society and how we can promote a different lifestyle? Why are we not addressing poverty, lack of education, jobs and job-training? Why are we wasting our time on this silly kind of nonconstructive approach to this problem?

June 22, 1987
Capital Punishment
Let me respond to the second question. I find it totally offensive and quite surprising, coming from that Member, that he would try to mix two such serious issues. One is a question of war and the other is a question of the comportment and decency of people during the course of war. One is a question of how society behaves when it has found itself in an uncivilized situation.
We are supposed to be addressing a civilized and mature Canada, a fine land that is allied with the western countries, not with nations of obscene character like the Nazis.
I am not only concerned about the six million who were killed to which the Lion. Member referred me, I am concerned about the 20 million, whether they were the gypsies, fighters for freedom, the French, Yugoslavs or any of the people who were murdered at that time in Russia, Ukraine and every part of that area. That was wartime and the Hon. Member should not mix those two issues. I find it totally offensive.


Mr. Hawkes:: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry to hear the Hon. Member indicate that this is a silly debate.


Sheila Finestone: I did not say silly.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: I think if the Hon. Member carefully checks the record, she will find the word there. Perhaps she may not have intended to say silly, but when she looks at today's Hansard she will find the word there. It is not a silly debate, but a very important one.
It is important to recognize that it is the Opposition Parties that have determined that House time normally devoted to subjects like unemployment and other concerns shall be used for this debate. There has been plenty of opportunity to reach agreement in the House on such things as shorter speeches, longer hours and other ways of dealing with this debate outside of the normal flow.
I hope Hon. Members opposite reflect on the Hon. Member's comment and consider whether or not it is important to move outside of regular hours to allow more Members to be heard and whether restriction on the length of speeches might be in order due to the importance of the debate. However, I believe we share a common goal that we would like to reduce violence in the world, particularly murder. Essentially, we are saying that we would like to reduce killing in society.
It is my strongly held view that killing is reduced primarily because people have faith in their system and their laws. It seems to me that the retention of the right of the state to take a human life is an important building block in the development of the faith in the system. I believe that when we, as elected representatives, tell our citizens that we will not do what they believe is important, we are really promoting a certain lack of faith in the legal system. In the final analysis, we are really inviting killing in spite of the protections and processes which the law has to offer.
Perhaps I feel more strongly about that today because of the nature of a trial in Calgary where a druggist has been charged with murder for shooting a robber. He shot a robber because he lost faith in the system, bought a shotgun and decided that he had the responsibility of protecting his home and his family.
Has the Hon. Member considered that if the state does not retain the right to take a human life, it invites others to take some of those same lives and perhaps the lives of innocent people as a result of a lack of faith and trust in the judicial system? Are we likely to achieve our common goal if we, as Members of Parliament, go against the view of the general population and reduce their confidence in the law? Are we more likely to reduce the crime of killing when people are more comfortable with the law and what it achieves?


Sheila Finestone: Mr. Speaker, I wish I knew shorthand so that I would have been able to better answer the Hon. Member's question with the sincerity and concern it deserves. I know his questions were posed in good faith. If I used the word silly, it was inaccurate and I did not intend to use it in the context of this debate.
First, I do not intend to discuss the case in Calgary because it is presently before the courts. I am sure the Hon. Member would not expect me to do so. At a time when we are not addressing the issue of violence in a society that is becoming more violent, would it be wise to enable people to carry more guns? I suggest it would be a very unhealthy response to the situation that he presents.
Second, faith in the system is exactly what I was discussing. If there has been a diminution of the application of the intent of the law, which I alluded to in my speech, then we must redress the way the judicial system operates. This could include educational systems for our judges, a fairer system that does not consider whether or not one is rich or poor in our society, a sentencing system that is more even, or more effective and judicious decision-making by the parole boards. There could be a number of reasons for a loss of faith in our system.
Why was the Government not more straightforward and take its responsibility to present a Bill? The Government should not proceed by proposing this motion which was called for by its members but with which its Leader does not agree. It should have introduced a Bill on the death penalty on which there should have been proper debate and consultation throughout the country. Hearings throughout the country could have been based on constructive approaches. This motion is designed so that a number of Members can travel on a ghoulish mission to determine how people will be killed. The Government has not fulfilled its commitment and has been absolutely hypocritical.
This debate is a political ploy. The leader did not agree with the premise of the proposal and left it to the committee to decide. My Party and I disagree with this procedure and I do
June 22, 1987

not believe Canadians like it when the Government tries to choke off debate.	Capital Punishment stands adjourned until tomorrow at eleven o'clock pursuant to Standing Order 3(1).


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: It being ten o'clock, pursuant to order made Friday, June 12, 1987, this House	At 10 p.m. the House adjourned.

Tuesday, June 23, 1987


[Stage Direction]
Prayers