Debates of Sept. 20th, 1995

Capital Punishment

[The Deputy Speaker]

I have never been in the chair when someone who is the first speaker on a private member's bill has divided his or her time. Is there unanimous consent to allow the hon. member to divide his time?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Val Meredith, Reform, Surrey—White Rock—South Langley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleagues for the opportunity to share the time of my colleague from North Vancouver.

It is a pleasure to speak on the motion of my colleague from North Vancouver calling for a binding referendum on the question of capital punishment. The motion has two very important elements: the use of referenda and the issue of capital punishment. First I would like to discuss the issue of a binding referendum.

While the old line parties prefer a system where the average citizen of Canada is entitled to exercise his or her franchise only at election time, the Reform Party believes in a more participatory electorate.

Central to the Reform Party's policies on political reform, we believe that the citizens of Canada should have the ability to directly participate in the formulating of legislation on such moral issues as abortion and capital punishment.

The old line parties say that their constituents elected MPs to represent them in Ottawa. That is true, but seldom in the past have MPs from the old line parties ever faithfully represented the views of their constituents. Maybe, if they had, there would not have had to have been the Reform Party. Instead MPs used what they perceived as a moral superiority to disregard the sentiment of their constituents and voted as they saw fit.

The previous free votes on capital punishment are typical of this attitude. How many of those who voted against the reinstatement of capital punishment voted in accordance with the views of their constituents? Considering the fact that the polls over the last 10 years have consistently shown that support for capital punishment hovers around the 70 per cent mark, that means the last time there

was a free vote on the subject a number of MPs ignored their constituents.

It is this attitude that necessitates giving the electorate a direct vote on the issue of capital punishment. To object to a referendum is to say that the people cannot be trusted to make the right decision. If that is the case, these same people should not be trusted to elect their representatives or to vote on whether or not to separate from the rest of Canada. As the referendum on the Charlottetown accord showed, the average Canadian possesses a wisdom that frequently escapes those whom they elect.

I have no hesitancy in entrusting my constituents with the power to vote in a referendum. We put forth our position and we let the people decide whether they agree, like an election. Although it is extremely unlikely that the Liberal government will ever permit a referendum on capital punishment, I will nevertheless state my position for the record.

I believe the death penalty should be an option for the jury to decide after convicting an individual of first degree murder. Once again I am putting my faith and my confidence in the common sense of the common people. If we can entrust them to decide whether or not we should reinstate capital punishment, we should also provide them with the responsibility to determine if it is an appropriate sentence in a particular case. I am confident that jurors would use this power wisely.

One need only look at the Susan Smith trial held in South Carolina earlier this year. Smith was charged with murdering her two young sons by strapping them into her car and rolling it into a lake. At her trial it did not take a jury long to convict her. Then the jury was tasked with deciding if Susan Smith would be executed or would receive a life sentence.

Despite the horrific nature of her crime it did not take the jury long to reject the death penalty and impose the life sentence. This is a prime example of how the people when given the responsibility to make life or death decisions will exercise that responsibility judiciously.

It is my opinion that the 12 men and women who sat on the Bernardo trial jury should have been entrusted with that same responsibility. Who better than those 12 individuals, the people who sat through the videotapes, who listened to the testimony of both Paul Bernardo and Karla Homolka, should have determined his fate? If they had had that responsibility I am not sure what they would have decided but I am convinced they should have had that option.

However, I have little doubt about how a jury would have decided 14 years ago when Clifford Olson had his trial. Instead we have punished him by giving him a life sentence, one that is costing Canadians close to $100,000 a year to maintain. Thanks to a recent court ban, Canadians no longer are subjected to Olson's ramblings to the media. We no longer have to listen to his complaints about the quality of the popcorn he gets to eat while watching movies on his personal television.

Unfortunately next year Clifford Olson gets the spotlight once again. Thanks to section 745 of the Criminal Code, Olson gets to have a jury trial next year to see if his 25-year parole eligibility should be reduced. Although I doubt that anyone would ever consider releasing this monster the mere fact that Olson gets such a platform is an outrage.

Before commenting on arguments about whether or not capital punishment is a deterrent, I would like to state that the death penalty would serve a useful purpose if for no other reason than to dispatch the occasional monster like Clifford Olson.

With regard to the deterrence value of capital punishment, many opponents point to the United States as an example of where it has not been a deterrent. First, look at the numbers closely. Between 1977, the year the United States started to reapply the death penalty, and 1992 there were 188 executions carried out in the United States. During that same period there were 338,480 murders which means that a murderer in the U.S.A. has a 1 in 1,800 chance of being executed. With odds like that, how can there possibly be a deterrent?

No matter which argument is used we know the Liberals are not prepared to reintroduce capital punishment. The residents of Surrey have just suffered the third tragic murder of a young girl within the past year. When 10-year old Melissa Deley was abducted from her bedroom, sexually assaulted and murdered the citizens of Surrey said enough is enough.

I have received hundreds of calls from individuals telling me that if the federal government is not prepared to enact the laws to protect them then they will take whatever measures necessary to protect themselves. While I do not condone any form of vigilantism such acts are likely to occur because of inaction by this Liberal government.

My constituents elected me to ensure their voices would be heard in Parliament so they would be able to participate in the democratic process. To that end I ask for the unanimous consent of the members present that this motion be deemed votable for Thursday, September 28.

[The Deputy Speaker]

The motion is a little different from the motion made by the previous member. Is there unanimous consent to accede to the member's wish?

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Deputy Speaker]

There not being unanimous consent the member's time has expired.

[Russell MacLellan, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to have the opportunity to speak on this motion. It is one that has been mentioned many times in the House.

Members opposite have pointed to capital punishment as being the panacea, the solution to the problems of our criminal justice system and the crime that exists in our communities. I certainly do not agree with that. I think they are on the wrong track. The job is much bigger than that and we should not look to a simplistic solution that will not have the effect society wants which is the reduction of crime in our communities.

The member for North Vancouver said that the government will probably bring up the fact that the murder rate has gone down since capital punishment was abolished. He is right, I am. Before capital punishment was abolished the rate was 3 per cent. In 1987 when the last major debate on this subject took place the rate was 2.42 per cent. In 1994 it was 2.04 per cent. The murder rate is continuing to go down.

The member talks about the Canadian Police Association voting unanimously in favour of reinstating capital punishment. He is pleased to quote the Canadian Police Association when he talks about capital punishment but he is not pleased to quote the Canadian Police Association when he talks about gun control.

He also talks about the fact that there has not been an execution, capital punishment in Canada since 1951. Yet the rate was higher in about 1965 when the debate started than it was in 1951 and the rate today is higher than in 1951. He is saying that it was not doing away with capital punishment that decreased the murder rate, but it had to be something. There were three debates on capital punishment between 1965 and 1976.

Funny, strange, the murder rate started to go down when gun control was first introduced in 1978. The fact is if we are going to quote statistics there have to be reasons why these things happen.

The motion calls for a referendum at the time of a federal election. It has never been the policy in Canada to have a referendum at the time of a general election. It may be fine in California, but look what was brought forward in California, the three strikes law. A man stole a piece of pizza from a child and is now going to be serving 25 years because it was his third conviction. It did not matter that it was not a violent crime. It was his third offence and he is in prison for 25 years as a result of that. That law was the result of a referendum at the time of an election.

In Canada we want a federal election that is going to elect the politicians who are going to pass the laws. We want the people to concentrate on that. I do not think there is an overwhelming desire for a referendum on capital punishment. Members opposite may think there is, but I am not hearing that. I have to admit that I am not in favour of capital punishment. I do not think it is correct. Taking another life is not the answer.

Only the victims can tell you there is nothing more excruciating than losing a family member or a loved one through a violent crime. There is no question about that. It is completely hideous and absolutely indescribable. However there is nothing that is going to bring back a life. If anything could, there is no question the Minister of Justice and government members would do it. That is not going to do it.

What is the result of a death penalty? Half of the states in the United States that have reinstated the death penalty are not using it. In the ones that are sometimes year after year, appeal after appeal the death penalty is postponed. The execution is postponed and there are final appeals to the governor of the state.

These are emotional roller coasters for the families of the victims, no question. The constant appeals, the attention in the press of these delays are not in the interests of the families of the victims. That is not the answer.

What we need is a sound policy of crime prevention. The leader of the Reform Party talks about capital punishment and members of the Reform Party talk about capital punishment. We have to look at what is causing the crime. It is not going to do any good as far as the victim is concerned to punish the criminal. It will help society. It is a deterrent. It will give the family of the victim some feeling that society is conscious of the life that has been taken, but it is not going to do anything for the victim. The victim has been murdered.

What we want to do is protect potential victims, to stop these murders from happening. That is one of the reasons the Minister of Justice and this government have instituted a safe streets policy. Certainly gun control is one part of it and is a good part of it. Sentencing policy, Bill C-41, is part of it. The DNA provision is another part of it. We are going to be bringing forward more legislation regarding DNA.

We never hear about those things. All we hear about is the violence. Let us talk about how we can stop the violence. This is what the Minister of Justice wants to do. This is what this government wants to do and it is what the government is doing.

We also want to talk about how we can deal with young offenders, another very serious problem. Crime prevention is an integral part of the safe streets policy. Crime prevention begins with the day a child is born. Punishment is after the fact. Punishment is a part of it but the most important thing is to prevent crimes from happening. We never hear that from the Reform Party. We

never hear discussion about how we can prevent crime from happening.

The time a child can be most influenced from becoming a child at risk or a future young offender is from the day the child is born to its third birthday. We have to do more in the early formative years, even in the early years when a child is in school.

We have to have the co-operation of the provinces. We have to have co-operation and understanding of all members of the House of Commons on that very important principle and basic attack on young offenders, on future offenders and future murderers.

Certainly we have had great examples of hideous crimes in this country in the last few months. Homolka and Bernardo is one terrible example of hideous murders. The policy of this government is not to piggyback on the hideous nature of these crimes to sensationalize a proposal for a referendum that is not going to do what the people of Canada want.

I have a very strong interest in this because Donald Marshall is a constituent of mine. In that crime the murder happened in my constituency. Guy Paul Morin is another example. We can say that those are only isolated incidents but they are two people who are still alive as a result of those isolated incidents and there are others.

We need to find lasting solutions. That is what this government intends to do.

[Pierrette Venne, Bloc, Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for North Vancouver moved a non-votable motion urging the government to hold a referendum on capital punishment concurrently with the next federal election. Reform members have outdone themselves once again. Since they realize they may be swept off the electoral map in the next election, they are trying to exercise their mandate as legislators beyond the term for which they were elected to this House.

If Reform members think we will not take this seriously, they are wrong. Their publicity-hungry leader took advantage of the summer recess to try to revive the debate on capital punishment. Once the debate on gun control had subsided, he had to find something else to keep him in front of the tv cameras. Burned by the debate on gun control where they finally showed their true colours, Reform members have completely lost their sense of reality, trapped in neanderthal attitudes where repression is the rule and rehabilitation and presumption of innocence are vague concepts thought up by criminologists.

The legitimacy of the penal system is largely based on its effectiveness and fairness. Its underlying principle is the presumption of innocence, a fundamental principle of law which says that the accused is presumed innocent until found guilty following a trial.

Wrongful convictions undermine this fundamental principle. As the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice said earlier, David Milgaard, Donald Marshall and Guy Paul Morin are three names we too often forget. Nevertheless, these individuals each paid an enormous debt to society, a debt they did not owe.

In Manitoba, David Milgaard spent 23 years of his life behind bars before his release. He was unjustly convicted of murder. The Crown's principal witness perjured himself at the trial.

In Nova Scotia, Donald Marshall served 11 years in the penitentiary for a murder he did not commit. Another inmate finally confessed. Thirty-five years old today, Guy Paul Morin paid a high price for a judicial error. He was falsely accused of the murder of young Christine Jessup. He was found guilty at his first trial. After nearly ten years in the penitentiary, Morin was acquitted thanks to considerable advances in science and DNA research.

These three men would have been dead and buried years ago if capital punishment was still the law in this country. Three innocent men sent to the gallows, murders ordered by the government. For all the Clifford Olsons and Paul Bernados that roam our streets, there will be innocent people convicted of crimes they did not commit.

In the United States, according to the Criminal Justice Research Centre, every year 6,000 people are wrongfully convicted of a serious crime. To my knowledge, there has been no similar study in Canada.

The trouble with capital punishment is that it is irreversible. I realize I am stating the obvious, but we must admit that once the injection has been administered, that is it. No appeal, no new evidence that would reverse the conviction and no opportunity to review an erroneous judicial decision.

If the conviction is, as in most cases, based on circumstantial evidence or even if the police manages to get an eye witness, the fact remains that mistakes are always possible and that a human life is at stake. And we cannot change our minds after the execution. I can see the headlines: "Posthumously acquitted".

But do not, above all, conclude that I am forgetting the victim in all of this. His or her life has also been taken. I want to see these murderers tracked down and sentenced severely, made an example of. I am thinking of cases like that of little Melissa Deley, barely ten years old, who was taken away from her home in Surrey, British Columbia, raped and murdered.

Calling for a referendum on the issue of the death penalty is a simplistic solution to a complex problem. Following the same logic, why not ask for a referendum on the budget or social reform?

Since they do not form the government nor are they the official opposition, the Reform members are trying in every possible way to usurp power by sneaky moves.

The Reform Party, especially the member for North Vancouver, wants to govern without being in power. Not content with representing a minority of the far right, for whom coercion is the solution for every ill, they now want to impose upon us their form of gang rule government. They want to pass statutes indirectly for which they have never received a mandate. Their hunger for power is equalled only by their cheap opportunism. You have to have a really colossal nerve to make political hay at the expense of victims and their families. In my opinion, calling for a referendum on all issues is not the way to fulfill the role of member of Parliament. Is this the only way the Reform Party has been able to find to divert attention from the only true referendum which will be held on October 30?

In 1994, 596 homicides were reported in Canada, 34 fewer than in 1993. This was the third year in a row that the number had gone down. The homicide rate was 6 per cent lower than the rate in 1993, the lowest rate recorded in Canada in the past 25 years.

Since we started gathering statistics nationally on homicides in 1961, two trends have emerged. Between 1961 and 1975, the rate of homicides rose consistently. Between 1975 and 1994, the rate decreased regularly, despite yearly fluctuations.

The transition period was therefore between 1975 and 1976. It was in 1976 that the death penalty was abolished in Canada. So much for those who contend that the death penalty is the way to reduce the number of homicides. Since the death penalty was abolished, murders in this country have decreased by 33 per cent.

The wind of the far right blowing over the United States is sending breezes of repression our way. Let us have a closer look. Many states already have legislation making it possible for a jury to condemn an individual found guilty of premeditated murder to death.

New York state has just joined the club and enacted legislation providing for the death penalty in cases of murder. Despite the fact that the United States has the death penalty, the homicide rate there has generally been three times the rate in Canada. The FBI reported more than 23,330 homicides last year, a rate of nine murders per 100,000 inhabitants. To give you an idea of what theses figures mean, 18,390 homicides have been committed in Canada in the past 33 years.

Let us be wary of handing over our criminal justice system to the Reformers. The Reform Party will put us back 1,000 years into the middle ages, when anarchy was the rule.

[Paul Forseth, Reform, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to commend my colleague and friend, the hon. member for North Vancouver, for his carefully considered motion.

It is an honour to speak on the issue of capital punishment, which has created a lot of debate in the country, perhaps even as far back as Confederation. It is not a pleasant topic to discuss. No one wishes to discuss the issues of death and tragedy. However, Parliament ought to be the place where we can freely discuss the issues that most concern Canadians.

Today in my area of British Columbia the issue discussed at coffee shops, in the barber shops, and in most local meeting places is the issue of accountability of murderers and how we as a community should respond.

Canadians are fed up with our justice system. Justice has gone. Perhaps it is seen as merely a legal system that does not represent mainstream Canadian values. Constituents observe how their local courts operate and how they produce fear and disgust rather than any sense of relief that officials are minding the store and doing their duty on behalf of the public.

The rationale that capital punishment does not deter really misses the point. It is 100 per cent effective to deter the individual murderer, as it would prevent the current practice where these kinds of criminals are released only to kill again. This happens in Canada.

My reason for speaking today is simple. The people have spoken. It is my duty as the member of Parliament for New Westminster-Burnaby to make those voices heard here in the House of Commons.

Reform MPs were elected because we agreed to vote the wishes of our constituents. That is something the Liberal government does not agree with. In fact, the Liberal government punishes its own members for doing so. The hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce was recently removed from his position as chair of the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs. It seems that if a member votes differently from the pack the Prime Minister will punish them.

My colleagues opposite do not agree with me that community representation is important. That really makes me begin to wonder who they represent. Do they represent the interests of those who elected them to sit in the House, or do they represent only themselves?

I know that the hon. member for North Vancouver did not put forward the motion simply to cause debate in the House, nor did he

do it to put himself at the front and centre of some political column or controversy. The hon. member for North Vancouver put forward Motion No. 431 because his constituents are calling for Parliament to revisit the capital punishment debate.

The majority of Canadians who support the revisitation of the capital punishment question did not simply wake up one morning and remark that we should create a death row. They are quite upset to see a person murdered in cold blood only to see the murderer get out of prison on parole a few years later. Who can blame them for being upset?

Canadians have a right to a national referendum on capital punishment. They have a right on these types of matters to have policy reflect mainstream values.

Opponents are saying that the murder rate will not decrease if the death penalty is reinstated, that a murderer will still commit murders regardless. It is not possible to make the country free of murder. We will never live in a sinless world. Capital punishment is not put forward as a panacea, and neither is it a simplistic solution.

Canadians want one thing: they want real justice. I do not think that the Minister of Justice and the Solicitor General really know what that is. They have their thinking clouded by some misguided social philosophy as they go on and deride the democrats, the Reformers, for speaking up on behalf of Canadians.

Let us make it specific. On September 6, 1995, Melissa Daley was sexually assaulted and murdered in Surrey, British Columbia. She was kidnapped from her own home. There was no reason for that to happen. It was a senseless killing. The offender should have been in custody at the time. The murderer hanged himself in his own jail cell just days later. That was not justice; that was suicide. The justice system failed us in this case. The system fails again and again.

As is to be expected with such a heinous crime, many constituents in Surrey wrote letters to the editors of our local newspapers. In one column a citizen wrote:

Where are our lawmakers when these atrocious murders are taking place? Don't they hear the anguished cries of these parents for their children? Why are these monsters allowed to walk free while our country mourns its losses? For God's sake, wake up, people. The laws have to be changed to protect the innocent. Don't ignore what's happening because it hasn't happened directly to you. You could be next.

June 29, 1987 was the last time Parliament had a chance to debate capital punishment. When the motion came up for debate at that time it was defeated by only 21 votes: 148 to 127. Amazingly enough the Angus Reid poll taken in 1987 showed 73 per cent of Canadians in favour of the death penalty. One would assume that if 73 per cent of Canadians were in favour a similar statistic should have been displayed in the House at that time-not so.

If all MPs in the 1987 Parliament were true to the fact that they would represent their constituents perhaps the vote would have been more like 200 to 75.

This past month notorious murderer Paul Bernardo was sentenced to life imprisonment for the brutal slayings of two Ontario ladies. There was no disputing that Paul Bernardo committed the crimes. The evidence was black and white and the jury declared him guilty of first degree murder. The psychologist even showed that he was sane when he performed the murders and he remains sane today. If he is released from prison he will likely murder again.

On the witness stand observers said he showed no emotions and no remorse at all for the crimes. Now he will spend the rest of his life in a federal prison. Canadians are hopeful that Bernardo will not have the chance to murder again. However, they are sad he was given the chance to live while the innocent were not.

Opponents of capital punishment firmly state there is no need for any debate because the homicide rate in Canada is decreasing. The opponents may be correct in this statement according to Stats Canada. However the category of homicide includes first and second degree murder, manslaughter and infanticide. At the same time we checked that no person either in Canada or in the United States has ever been given the death penalty for a non-capital crime; that is, only those who commit first degree murder can be given the actual death penalty.

The vote on capital punishment in 1987 was not fair. The vote clearly did not represent the real wishes of Canadians. Members at that time did not consult with their constituents sufficiently. They simply came into the Chamber and voted for what they wanted. That historical action has never been accepted by the public as legitimate. Manipulation was rampant and every conceivable arcane rationalization was used by members to justify their vote. It was a day when the elected left their constituents behind and went their own way. We have suffered the consequences for the justice system ever since.

That is where Reformers are different. Not only do we try and listen to what the masses are telling us, we endeavour to put their words and aspirations into concrete action.

The motion is simple:

The government should support and work toward enabling legislation for a binding referendum on capital punishment to be held concurrently with the next federal election.

Let the people speak. The Prime Minister has enough excuses to ignore such a plea. There would be little extra cost since it would concur with the next election. Individual members of Parliament would not have to worry about party lines. The people of Canada

would simply decide. There would be no blame on an individual political party since the people would be given the chance.

Capital punishment is a special case of law making that transcends party politics. The Reform Party has no official position on the topic. However, a Reform government would be humble enough to bow to the will of the mainstream. Every voting citizen must examine their own conscience and solemnly enter that booth and make a choice for themselves for the kind of society they want to give to their children.

My appeal today is for democracy. My appeal today is for a referendum.

I now move this motion:

I seek consent of the members present to have Motion M-431 referred to the Standing Committee on Justice for further examination.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Members have heard the terms of the motion. Is there unanimous consent to accept the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[Warren Allmand, Liberal, Notre-Dame-De-Grâce, QC]

Mr. Speaker, in introducing this motion our colleagues from the Reform Party, the members for North Vancouver and Surrey-White Rock, have argued capital punishment is necessary to protect the public against murder and that it should be re-established in Canada at least as an option. They also argue we should have a referendum at election time to decide this issue.

There is no doubt murder is a most serious and heinous crime, perhaps the worst crime we have on the books. We should do everything possible to reduce the rate of murder and protect the public from violent crime.

Capital punishment will not accomplish that goal. There is overwhelming evidence that capital punishment is not effective in controlling murder and protecting the public. The American states that have brought back capital punishment, particularly the southern states of Texas, Louisiana and Florida, have the highest murder rates in the United States and much higher than countries such as Canada and those in western Europe which do not have capital punishment.

The United States is the only county in the western world that has capital punishment. Capital punishment was brought back in those states following an American Supreme Court judgment in the middle 1970s. While the murder rate in those states has decreased in a minor way in recent years it is still much higher than in states without capital punishment. That we have lower rates in non-capital punishment states does not mean it is the result of not having capital punishment, but rather the result concentrating on other measures to reduce violent crime.

In Canada the rate of homicide is a little over 2 per 100,000 population, whereas in the states of Texas, Louisiana and Florida it is about 10 per 100,000 population. In western Europe it is about 2 per 100,000 population as well, with some countries at less than 2 per 100,000.

If capital punishment is argued as a means of protecting the public, it is not protecting the public in Louisiana, in Florida, in Texas and those other American states where capital punishment is there for that very reason. All one has to do is visit those states to find out.

When I went to New Orleans I was told not to leave the French Quarter. I was told not to go out at night because there were so many murders in that city. It is a sad thing because it is a beautiful city.

Capital punishment is not an effective means of protecting the public. Furthermore it is seriously objectionable on other grounds. For example, it is irreversible when a mistake is made and there have been mistakes. At least if somebody is convicted of murder and is sent to prison for life he or she can be released if later proven not guilty. Such was the case of Donald Marshall and others. In Britain such was the case with the Guildford four. There are many cases around the world in which this happens. When this happens they can be released from prison and given some damages, some compensation. Once a person is executed it is game over.

It is objectionable in that it has always been applied in an inequitable manner. It has always been applied more heavily on minorities, on the poor, on immigrants, on the illiterate. Those who have had the big lawyers, the great court pleaders, these outstanding lawyers who cost a lot of money, have got off. Those who have not been able to do that have not got off. I could refer to a case in the United States right now but I will not.

My colleagues from the Reform Party referred to statistics in the United States. Of the total number of murders committed there only a small percentage of those convicted, although it is a high number in total terms, have been executed. That points out the inequity of the whole system.

If left as an option in Canada we would have gross inequities. It would mean one murderer in one province would probably be executed and one in another province for almost the same crime would not be executed. There would be great unevenness in the application of this most serious irreversible penalty.

The motion calls for a referendum on these matters. I am not opposed to referendums in principle, but they are not provided for in our constitution as a means of legislating issues and they are not traditional in the British parliamentary system. In our system we

are elected to office to represent the people, certainly to consult with them, to consult the evidence, to look at the facts, to inform ourselves, and then make a decision in the best interests of the public. The parliamentary system is not a system by referendum.

We have had three so-called referendums at the federal level in Canadian history, one on prohibition of liquor, one on conscription, and one on the Charlottetown accord. They were all advisory; none of them were binding. As a matter of fact, in the one on conscription and the one on prohibition the government of the day did not slavishly follow the results of the referendum. As a matter of fact, in the conscription case, although the country overwhelmingly voted yes for conscription, we ended up with a system where there was only conscription for service in Canada.

In any case, we have no system of binding referendums in this country. But if we are going to decide questions by referendum then it should be done according to a policy and not simply on an ad hoc basis. A referendum cannot be called only when you think you are going to win the case.

For example, would the hon. members in the Reform Party call for referendums on gun control or on medically assisted suicide? I notice that while they slavishly follow the polls with respect to who wants capital punishment, they ignored the popular polls with respect to gun control and also ignored the polls with respect to medically assisted suicide.

If we are going to have referendums we have to decide by policy or by legislation what matters are to be decided and not simply call for them when we think we are going to win. That is no way to run a government.

[Murray Calder, Liberal, Wellington—Grey—Dufferin—Simcoe, ON]

That is government by opportunism.

[Warren Allmand, Liberal, Notre-Dame-De-Grâce, QC]

My hon. colleague says that is government by opportunism, and that is what it is: if you think you can win a referendum you hold one and you do not call for it when you think you will not win. For example, would this Parliament or the people of Canada be willing to have a referendum on the GST or unemployment insurance or other difficult issues?

The Reform member spoke about keeping horrible murderers in prison at public expense. When we take the total number of inmates and divide it into the total cost of our prison system, it comes to about $50,000 or $60,000 a year for the most serious criminals. I know Reform members understand arithmetic. This does not mean that if one criminal is executed we would save $60,000, because there are fixed costs in the system. If we are really going to save money we would have to execute about 100 criminals a year, I would surmise. Then we could close a prison. Most of our prisons hold about 300 or 400 inmates. If we were really going to save any money we would execute about 100 a year to save a decent amount of money. If we were to start doing that we would rank with the Republic of China in executions. The countries that led the world recently in executions were South Africa and China. We would join that select club if we were to simply execute people to save money.

If we in the House are really serious about protecting the public from violent crime then we have to concentrate on preventive measures, concentrate on measures directed to the causes of violent crime. Capital punishment is a measure to be applied after the murder has taken place. It is a post factum penalty. Penalties are necessary in our criminal law. As I said, we should not have this extreme penalty because of the many objections to it. While penalties are necessary, they will not solve the crime problem. We will solve the crime problem by concentrating on measures to prevent crime and measures directed at the causes of crime.

In conclusion, we cannot convince a society that it is wrong to take a life when the state is ready and willing to take lives.

There are many more arguments and many more aspects to this debate, but we cannot cover them all in 10 minutes.

[The Deputy Speaker]

The time provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired. Pursuant to Standing Order 96(1), this item is dropped from the Order Paper.

A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.

[Jean-Guy Chrétien, Bloc, Frontenac, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the word is out: Federal goodies are on their way to Western Canada. Cheques for a total amount of $1.6 billion are being or will be sent directly to grain producers in the Prairies. This compensation for the loss of western grain transportation subsidies gives and will give western producers an unfair edge over farmers in Eastern Canada, especially in Quebec.

Many grain producers are taking advantage of this windfall to diversify production and flood Quebec with their products. Since part of the compensation is paid for through taxes they pay to Ottawa, Quebecers may be doubly penalized. Here is an example. Quebec's subsidies for industrial milk are being cut by 30 per cent, with no compensation for dairy producers in that province: clearly a double standard.

Last Friday I was in Princeville at an auction of slaughter calves. I met a producer from my riding, Gérald Turcotte, who explained in his own words how Quebec was being used by the rest of Canada. I will repeat what he said. Canada is so anxious to keep us because we pay well and do not take much money out. Imagine, he said, a farmer with ten Holsteins. Three are very good milkers: Ontario, Quebec and British Columbia. One of these cows eats little, is not a picky eater, requires little attention from its owner, is rarely sick, does not go outside the fence, is very docile, returns to the barn in time for morning and evening milking. In short, this cow is the best of the herd.

You will understand, Mr. Speaker, that the farmer would not let this famous and profitable cow go for all the gold in the world. Quebec too is very profitable for Ottawa and the rest of Canada. However, it is the victim of injustice: National Defence contracts, research and development funding, expenditures by the department of agriculture in Quebec that are lower than the economic activity generated by the sector. Quebec is therefore not getting its fair share of federal investment. Since 1984, its share has been only 15.9 per cent, despite the fact that the population of Quebec represents 25 per cent of Canada's population and that Quebec provides 23 per cent of federal revenues.

Quebec has never received more than 19.1 per cent of the federal government's expenditures on goods and services. In 1992, for example, the federal government spent a total of $31.2 billion with only $5.9 billion in Quebec, which represents 18.9 per cent. This figure is 6 per cent less than our demographic load. I have tonnes of such examples.

Yes, my friends, Quebec is very profitable for the rest of Canada. For the rest of Canada as it stands today. Quebec, as Gérald Turcotte put it so well, is a fine cash cow for Canada.

This is why we are not being allowed to have a tool box of our own so that one day we in Quebec can build our future as we ought, pass our own legislation, sign treaties and collect our own taxes.

[Lyle Vanclief, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Agriculture and Agri-food]

Mr. Speaker, agricultural subsidies have been reduced as part of a broad government effort to reduce the deficit. However the government has taken great care to ensure that all regions and sectors of the industry have been treated as fairly and equitably as possible.

The western grain transition payment program and the western grain transportation adjustment fund will be used to partially offset the potential disruption that may result from the removal of the western grain transportation subsidy. The removal of the feed freight assistance program in eastern Canada and parts of British Columbia is being accompanied by a $62 million adjustment program.

The impact of the repeal of both the Atlantic Region Freight Assistance Act and the Maritime Freight Rates Act in eastern Quebec and Atlantic Canada is being eased by a transition assistance program of $326 million.

An adaptation fund of $60 million per year on average will be used to help meet future adaptation requirements. The government has set aside $17 million a year for the next four years from the adaptation fund to address concerns regarding the impacts of the reform of transportation subsidies in eastern Canada.

The answer to the hon. member's question is yes, there are funds available to address eastern Canadian farmers' concerns about transportation reform. The government is reducing the dairy subsidy by 15 per cent for each of the next two years. Thus at the end of two years the subsidy will still be at 70 per cent of the levy, where it is today. The continuation of the subsidy provides producers with a source of funds that can be used to ease the transition into a more market oriented system.

The government has ensured that all farmers, in fact all Canadians, are sharing equally in the responsibility for deficit reduction. The package of subsidy reform is fair and balanced with respect to different situations, different regions and different sectors within the Canadian agriculture and agri-food industry.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Pursuant to the standing orders, the motion is now deemed to have been adopted.

Therefore, the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 6.37 p.m.)