Debates of May 14th, 1996

Agreement On Internal Trade Implementation Act

[The Deputy Speaker]

It being 6.16 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.

Criminal Code

[Jay Hill, Reform, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

moved that Bill C-218, an act to amend the Criminal Code and the Young Offenders Act (capital punishment), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, when I think of how Canadians must view this debate tonight, I am embarrassed to be an MP, a supposed representative of the people, a servant of the public. Since the death penalty was abolished in 1976 this is the third time it has been debated in Parliament.

Nothing has been resolved. Throughout the past 20 years the number of Canadians who support the reinstatement of capital punishment has consistently hovered around 70 per cent but MPs have steadfastly refused to represent their constituents on this issue. They have voted on the basis of their personal opinions or with the blessings of their political masters.

In my own riding 85 per cent of constituents who responded to a 1994 survey said that they wanted the death penalty reinstated. My efforts to carry out the wishes of my constituents and 70 per cent of Canadians were blocked by the Liberal dominated subcommittee responsible for deciding which private members' bills would become votable. The subcommittee decided that Bill C-218 was not worthy of three hours of debate and a free vote. This topic gets one hour and then it is dropped.

Ideally the people should finally get their say on this issue in a binding national referendum which would be held at the time of the next federal election. That is the position of the Reform Party of Canada and that is a policy I fully endorse.

However, the Prime Minister and the justice minister have already indicated that they have no intention of allowing this issue to be decided by average Canadians. My hon. colleague from North Vancouver presented a motion in September 1995 to enable legislation for a referendum on capital punishment. Again, government members refused to make the motion votable.

A free vote on a private member's bill would have been the next best thing, particularly if it were a truly reformed free vote in which all MPs could accurately represent the wishes of the majority of their constituents rather than voting their own conscience in spite of how their constituents may feel.

After tonight Canadians will remain frustrated with the government over this issue and they will be forced to continue watching criminals get away with murder. That is a sad statement on the job performance of MPs.

This bill is not just about capital punishment. The reinstatement of the death penalty is but one of many substantial and necessary steps Canadians have been demanding to better deal with murderers in our society. This bill was about plugging the leaking holes in our justice system.

We see murderers who show no remorse for brutally slaying their victims. They show no potential for rehabilitation and instead languish in jails at the taxpayer's expense. Worse yet, when they are released and paroled we are expected to welcome them back into our communities.

We have had to swallow our disgust as some of these released murderers murder again or commit other violent crimes. We see 16 and 17-year olds with little respect for the law receiving slap on the wrist sentences for murder.

Two weeks ago in Prince Rupert, B.C., three teenagers received jail terms ranging from only seven months to two years for the clubbing to death of a fisherman known as the Gentle Giant. I do not believe that any Canadian is prepared to let these preventable crimes and miscarriages of justice continue.

Politicians and academics are fond of quoting optimistic crime rates when they argue against capital punishment. That is pointless. Canadians know their streets are more dangerous today than they were 20 years ago. Statistics do not always tell the entire story.

As members of the House are sure to mention, it is true that there has been a slight decline in the murder rate since the death penalty was abolished in 1976. However, the last execution in Canada took place in 1961, 15 years before. The murder rate almost doubled during those 15 years. The murder rate is still 50 per cent higher than it was when that last sentence of death was carried out.

Some members across the floor have argued that the sensationalism surrounding a handful of murders is driving the demand to improve the justice system. Sensationalism? How can the efforts to prevent murder, even just one murder, be called sensationalism?

We must use these tragedies as a guide to help us make fundamental changes which would prevent further anguish. This government uses prevention to justify implementing a useless bureaucratic gun registration, but refuses to even consider what the people are really crying for: punishment that fits the crime.

In a further example of hypocrisy the government embraces the policies of the Canadian Police Association when it concerns gun control, but ignores a strongly worded resolution by that same association which calls for the reinstatement of capital punishment. There were 107 police officers killed in the line of duty between 1961 and 1994.

Even after years in prison and the efforts of an army of psychiatrists and social workers, we cannot rehabilitate a violent murderer who has no remorse. In this case the punishment must fit the crime. In the case of first degree murder, 70 per cent of Canadians believe the punishment should be death. This sentiment is not a matter of vengeance but a prevailing need to send criminals the message that society is not prepared to condone or excuse sadistic premeditated murder.

I do not claim that the prospect of death will deter others sick enough to consider committing murder, but at least we would not have to support a murderer for 15 to 25 years. Lethal injection may not provide any deterrence whatsoever but it would certainly eliminate repeat offenders.

According to the 1994 report of the auditor general it costs approximately $48,000 per inmate per year in a federal prison. While we are supporting an incarcerated murderer it is possible that he will become increasingly dangerous with the onset of resentment and bitterness over his years of imprisonment. Even convicted murderers have expressed that death could be a more humane alternative to a lengthy incarceration.

In 1982, one-third of the 300 convicted murderers in Canada said that they would prefer the death penalty over life in prison. In 1983 a convicted murderer in Saskatchewan formally requested the death penalty by lethal injection on the basis that his life sentence was cruel and unusual punishment. His request was denied by the court.

In this debate we cannot forget the inevitable release of murderers. How do members feel about the possibility of Paul Bernardo some day being their next door neighbour? Canadians do not want criminals who are guilty of torture, rape and first degree murder back on the streets to kill again. They have good reason to worry.

Between 1986 and 1995, 133 convicts released from prison for first and second degree murder returned to our communities and committed crimes again. These included 87 violent crimes and sex offences and 10 murders. Two convicted murderers who had escaped murdered again. How does one explain to the families of those victims that 12 murderers were given the opportunity to strike again? How can anyone possibly defend our justice system to the family of just one of those victims?

Let us take a look at the so-called rehabilitation of convicted murderer Allan James Sweeney. He was convicted of murder in 1978. Following his 1984 release on day parole, the taxpayers who paid for his expensive jail stay were horrified that his freedom resulted in the rape and stabbing death of a 21-year old Ottawa halfway house employee.

What about the impressive rehabilitation of Jean-Guy Chantal? He was paroled in 1984 after serving 17 years of a life sentence for a 1967 murder. Three years after his release he beat a Montreal janitor to death with a pool cue and a paint can. These are just two tragedies that could have been prevented if our justice system had served our best interests.

In the event that a convict guilty of first degree murder were successful in appealing a death sentence, this bill would have at least ensured that they stayed in jail. That would have meant no possibility of day passes.

That is no consolation for the families of Wanda Woodward and Vital Piquette. They were murdered in 1987 by Daniel Gingras, a convicted murderer who used his birthday present, a one-day pass from an Edmonton prison, as his opportunity to murder again. He had been under the supervision of his social worker, a man half his size who he overpowered and tied up before he escaped to roam freely for nearly two months. Gingras should never have been let out of jail in the first place. It is too late to protect Woodward and Piquette but it is not too late for all the other potential victims.

This bill would have made capital punishment the mandatory minimum sentence for adults convicted of first degree murder. For those who believe this is extreme and that life in prison is adequate punishment for these murderers, I ask them to examine the extreme nature of the lenient section 745 of the Criminal Code. Incredibly, it allows convicts the right to shorten their life sentence. Even if they are ordered to serve life in prison, all convicts can have the length of their sentence reviewed by a jury after serving only 15 years. If successful, they can apply for parole.

Of all convicts who have applied under this provision since 1987, only 13 applicants have been denied an early release. That is a frightening prospect when we consider that even serial child killer Clifford Olson becomes eligible to apply for early release on August 12.

The justice minister says that he is in favour of keeping section 745 in all forms. He finds this loophole is acceptable despite a petition from 16,000 Canadians asking the government to repeal section 745. This is another example of how this government is sticking its head in the sand and refusing to carry out the wishes of Canadians.

While we mend the punitive aspects of our justice system, we must not forget to address the grey area of the criminal population known as young offenders. Currently, a young offender convicted of first degree murder faces just 10 years as a maximum prison term. That 16 or 17-year old is perfectly aware of their actions and can easily understand the difference between right and wrong.

Many people think we should focus on rehabilitating and not punishing these youths. I disagree. There must be a balance. How will a youth who has already demonstrated disdain for justice ever take it seriously if they are not held accountable for their actions?

Between 35 and 65 kids, most of them older teens are charged with murder every year. Youths aged 12 to 17 were accused of 10 per cent of all homicides committed between 1983 and 1992. As with older criminals, they also need to know that their actions are not acceptable in our society.

This bill would have seen a 16 or 17-year old serve a life sentence for first degree murder. Furthermore it would have ensured that this age group served at least seven years for second degree murder. For those under 16, first degree murder would have carried a minimum sentence of 10 to 15 years while second degree murder would have meant imprisonment for five to seven years. Note that the key word here is minimum, not maximum.

I recognize that in advocating capital punishment serious consideration must be given to ensure that an innocent person is not put to death. Both law and science have progressed significantly in the past 20 years. A mechanism proposed in this bill would have given the jury the option of recommending clemency so only those guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt would be put to death.

The appeal process proposed was thorough and fair. A conviction could have been appealed to the supreme court on the basis of both fact and law. This means that legal arguments could be used as sufficient grounds for overturning a conviction. More important, the facts and details surrounding the murder case could be re-examined to determine if the conviction was valid.

The investigative tools and techniques of modern science certainly diminish the ambiguity of guilt or innocence. DNA testing has been proven to be a powerful means of identifying those who may have committed serious crimes. Bill C-104 which passed unanimously by this Parliament in June 1995 makes it easier for authorities to obtain DNA evidence through hair, saliva, blood and skin samples from a person who is reasonably believed to have perpetrated a crime.

Those opposed to capital punishment would have us picture in our minds a row of convicts hanging in the gallows. That is sensationalism. Lethal injection of sodium thiopental ensures a quick and painless end and does not turn the culmination of a tragic chain of events begun by a brutal murder into a media and public circus.

I am advocating change in the justice system as an average Canadian, one who sees criminals coddled and protected while their victims are denied their basic right to safety. Reinstatement of capital punishment along with other measures such as a victim bill of rights as proposed by my colleague from Fraser Valley West would go a long way toward restoring some of the public's lost faith in our judicial system.

There are avid supporters of our rehabilitation programs who believe we can help these lost souls through counselling or training. Of course this is the same program that was allocated an entire chapter by the May 1996 auditor general's report listing a range of inefficiencies.

Canadians want to see murderers be adequately punished for their crime. Canadians do not want a murderer out on the streets to kill again. They have grown weary of watching teenagers laugh at our laws. They are sick and tired of paying for failed rehabilitation. They do not want to accept that murderers may never serve their full sentences.

This government says tough luck for Canadians. The justice minister and his government like the status quo. Who cares what Canadians think? Canadians are being denied the right to vote for these changes in a national referendum and now their representatives, members of Parliament, are being denied the right to vote on their behalf.

Canadians want capital punishment reinstated. Poll after poll has overwhelmingly shown this. When capital punishment was abolished in 1976 it was given 98 hours of debate. In 1996 this debate tonight warrants one hour. One hour.

If the reinstatement of the death penalty were given fair attention and due consideration by Parliament, there would be no backing down. Canadians would have demanded that this bill be passed. Given the tremendous support of Canadians for the reinstatement of capital punishment, and because it is the duty of MPs to represent their constituents' interests in the House, I seek the unanimous consent of the members present to make Bill C-218 votable this evening.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Is there unanimous consent to make this a votable item?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Deputy Speaker]

I hear at least two members saying no. Therefore, there is not unanimous consent. We will proceed with debate.

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

Mr. Speaker, the bill introduced by the hon. member for Prince George-Peace River is a bill to restore the death penalty. Under this bill, all cases of first degree murder committed by an adult would be punishable by death, while the sentence for second degree murder would remain imprisonment for life, although the terms of release would be stricter.

In addition, the Young Offenders Act would be amended to provide for a sentence not exceeding 25 years for first degree murder and not exceeding 10 years for second degree murder.

This reopens the debate on capital punishment. As you know, this issue has already been debated at great lengths in this House. Let us start by asking ourselves if new developments justify throwing back into question the existing provisions of the Criminal Code?

Has the number of murders increased in Canada? The latest statistics published by Statistics Canada in Juristat actually show a 6 per cent drop in the number of homicides in 1994, the lowest number in 25 years. The 596 reported homicides represent a 34 per cent reduction over 1993, that is to say the third consecutive reduction from one year to the next.

The lower number of homicides committed in 1994 is mainly explained by 30 fewer homicides in the greater Montreal area. That is also why the number of homicides recorded in Quebec has gone down by 33 over 1993. In the case of the other provinces, only New Brunswick and Alberta have seen an increase in their homicide rates in 1994. Murders committed with a firearm continued to account for about one third of all homicides.

On the basis of the statistics, I do not think that there are valid reasons for looking at this issue all over again. Life imprisonment with eligibility for parole after 25 years is a sufficient sentence. There is nothing to prove that capital punishment could save lives. On the other hand, the risks are greater that an innocent person could be sentenced to death. That is essentially my position.

Let us look again, if we could, at the main argument advanced in favour of capital punishment. Proponents of capital punishment think that it is a more dissuasive measure than life imprisonment.

We must, however, point out to them that for some people, such as fanatics and those acting on impulse, no sentence will be dissuasive. There was even an overall drop in the murder rate in Canada after capital punishment was abolished. Studies done to date indicate that the death sentence is no more dissuasive than the prospect of life imprisonment. The prospect of losing one's freedom for the rest of one's days is dissuasion enough.

It is through better control of firearms and alcohol consumption, greater attention to mental health, and a more effective battle against poverty and unemployment that we will cut down on the number of murders, far more than through bringing back the death penalty. There is no foundation for the belief that the death penalty will cut down on the number of murders.

Recently, in Senneville, near Montreal, a police office was killed while on duty, as he was about to arrest a driver for an infraction of the highway safety code. The murderer is still at large. Might the death penalty have prevented this tragedy? There is no reason to think so.

Still relying on data from Statistics Canada, in 1994 one police officer was killed in the line of duty, compared to two in 1993, one in 1992, and three in 1991. For the tenth year in a row, no federal or provincial correctional worker was murdered in the performance of his or her duties.

Perhaps the most valid argument against capital punishment is the risk of killing innocent people. No system can guarantee the infallibility of a ruling. There were cases in the past in which people were killed by mistake and, despite all the guarantees

provided by our modern system, the risk remains. A witness may be mistaken or lie under oath.

Our legal system is based on the credibility of witnesses. If all murderers were like Paul Bernardo and provided videotapes of their crimes, it would be different. In recent years, however, some people such as David Milgaard, Donald Marshall and Guy Paul Morin were wrongly convicted of murder. If capital punishment were still legal in this country, these three men would have been dead and buried a long time ago. The state would have become a killer without being able to correct its actions. We learned that, in the last two centuries, 343 people were wrongly convicted of murder in the U.S.

Of course, some cases, like the rape and murder of children, like the Bernardo case, are revolting. We must, however, keep in mind that not all murder cases are so shocking. It is not because of a few unusually revolting cases that we must take an extreme position that would apply to all cases of first degree murder.

Other factors such as the eventual rehabilitation of murderers argue against capital punishment. Commuting a death sentence to life imprisonment by order in council, as is proposed in the bill before us, would open the door to arbitrary decisions and would result in a loss of respect by the public for our judicial system.

The bill also proposes to give the judge who sentences a person to death the power to make a recommendation in favour of royal clemency, or to postpone the execution of the sentence for any reason and for an indefinite period. It is obvious that even the sponsor of the bill has doubts about the merits of the death sentence.

The amendments proposed by the Reform member for Prince George-Peace River also seek to amend the Young Offenders Act to impose longer sentences in the case of a murder committed by a juvenile. The bill provides for a sentence of 15 to 25 years in the case of a person convicted of first degree murder who is 16 or 17, and a sentence of 10 to 15 years in the case of person under the age of 16. The current maximum sentence is 10 years for all minors. In the case of a person convicted of second degree murder, the bill proposes a maximum sentence of 10 years and a minimum one of five years. The current act provides for a maximum sentence of seven years.

Current prison terms were just lengthened in December by this House. They better reflect the representations made to the standing committee on justice. Prevention and rehabilitation are much more effective, particularly in the case of minors, and the emphasis must be on adequate public awareness measures.

In short, I am completely against this bill, which would bring us back 20 years. I urge members of this House to do like me and to vote against this bill.

[Gordon Kirkby, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to participate in the debate on Bill C-218, which is sponsored by the hon. member for Prince George-Peace River.

Bill C-218 seeks to impose the death penalty for first degree murder committed by a person 18 years of age or more and it seeks to change the prison terms for first and second degree murder that can be imposed on persons under the age of 18. In my remarks today I wish to speak on two aspects of this bill: first, the wisdom of reopening the debate on capital punishment for murder, and second, the suggestion that there should be increased prison terms for murder for persons under the age of 18.

The issue of capital punishment has been thoroughly explored at the national level. After debating the question a number of times between 1966 and 1976, the House of Commons adopted a bill abolishing capital punishment in 1976.

The most recent extensive debate took place less than 10 years ago in 1987. The subject of debate was a government motion. It called on the House of Commons to support, in principle, the reinstatement of capital punishment and to establish a special committee to provide recommendations on two aspects: first, on the offences that should carry the death penalty; and second, on the method or methods that should be used to carry out the sentence of death. In a free vote, and after debating the question at length in the House of Commons, members of the House of Commons voted against the motion and, therefore, against the reinstatement of capital punishment in the Criminal Code.

It is notable that in the time since this was last discussed in the House, capital punishment has not been an issue of great national importance. The hon. member is introducing this bill now, notwithstanding the fact that in 1994 Canada recorded its lowest murder rate since 1969.

In 1975, just before capital punishment was abolished for murder, the homicide rate in Canada was 3 per cent. In 1987 when the last major debate on this subject took place, the rate was 2.4 per cent. The homicide rate for 1994 in Canada, the last year for which it is available, was 2 per cent. These numbers show that not only has the murder rate not gone up since the death penalty was abolished, it has actually gone down. This is hardly justification for seeking a debate on the death penalty.

While Canadians are rightly revolted by murder, which receives the most severe sanction under the Criminal Code, the case has not been made effectively to demonstrate that the current law has failed to punish murders adequately and requires change. In my view, the

death penalty exceeds what is necessary to achieve various legitimate sentencing objectives.

The onus is on those who would want to change the law in such a fundamental way to make a compelling case. I am not persuaded by the arguments being made.

I also oppose the death penalty on practical grounds, moral grounds and conscientious grounds. I believe that effective arguments can easily be advanced to support this position. Such arguments have been made in the House over the years.

Since the 1987 debates, however, two significant cases have come to light: the wrongful convictions for murder of Donald Marshall, Jr. and Guy-Paul Morin. If capital punishment had been in effect, they may not have had a second chance at life. This is why I oppose the death penalty on very practical grounds.

If we as legislators were to support the death penalty, would we or a member of our families be willing to be that first mistake? I think not. That is why I am very opposed to capital punishment.

Our system of justice, while it does a good job, certainly is not perfect and mistakes happen. When concerned with the life of an innocent individual, we cannot afford to make that mistake.

The issue of capital punishment is both a moral and a personal issue. It is also a matter of how we see ourselves as a country and as a people. To return to capital punishment in Canada would be to go against the grain internationally. The trend in the world is to abolish the death penalty. To support a return to the death penalty for murder would be a retrograde move.

We see in the neighbouring nation to the south the presence of the death penalty. Has that done a thing to stop crimes of violence in that country? No, it has not.

I want to turn my attention now to the proposed increased prison terms for murder for persons under 18 years of age. It is quite surprising for the hon. member to bring forward these proposals at this time when new sentencing and parole eligibility periods for youth convicted of murder came into effect less than six months ago, on December 1, 1995.

A youth who is 14 years of age or over at the time of the commission of the offence of first degree murder or second degree murder may be transferred to adult court. Depending on whether the youth is found guilty in youth court or in adult court, different sentences and parole eligibility regimes apply.

If convicted of murder in adult court, the youth will be sentenced to life imprisonment. In such a case, the parole eligibility period was formerly set by the court at between five and ten years. Since December 1, 1995, a 16 or 17-year-old youth convicted of first degree murder must serve at least 10 years before being eligible for parole. A 16 or 17-year-old youth convicted of second degree murder must serve at least seven years. A youth aged 14 or 15 who is convicted of either first or second degree murder in adult court must serve a period of time between five and seven years inclusive as set by the court before being eligible for parole.

For convictions in youth court the maximum penalty for first degree murder has been increased from the maximum of five years to a maximum of ten years. The penalty for second degree murder is now seven years. Sentences for both first and second degree murder in youth court have a maximum custodial portion and a maximum period of conditional supervision within the community.

The House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs is currently studying issues related to youth crime, the youth justice system and matters concerning the operation and implementation of the Young Offenders Act. We should wait for the report of the committee before amending further the Young Offenders Act. We should also wait until we have an opportunity to assess the recent modifications to that act.

In addition, further input on the Young Offenders Act will be provided by the federal, provincial and territorial ministers task force on young offenders which will be forthcoming soon.

I cannot support this bill because I do not support the reinstatement of the death penalty. I believe the proposed amendments to the Young Offenders Act have been made and any addition or changes to that act prior to further deliberations by the committee and before the input from the federal, provincial and territorial justice ministers' committee would be premature and ill-advised.

I do not support the bill. I would like to thank the House for the opportunity to participate in the debate.

[Randy White, Reform, Fraser Valley West, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to speak to Bill C-218 which introduces once again the concept of the death penalty.

I commend my colleague from Prince George-Peace River for the courage to once again introduce this matter even though members opposite do not have the courage to put it to a vote in this day and age.

One of the questions that comes to me is why once again is it this party which is bringing forward issues that are relevant to grassroots Canadians. On the death penalty all we are looking at is a debate and a vote. Why is it necessary to fight like we did for victims' rights? Why are these things necessary? Why is the government not running with these kinds of issues and dealing with them?

I was reading a book put out by Amnesty International the other day entitled When the State Kills . I will read an excerpt because it may give some the understanding of exactly what is on the minds on this side of the House. It states: ``The important point is that

every person can improve himself and should be given the opportunity to do so, however serious his mistakes have been. The reason for this is that deep down inside each human being there exists the potentiality of development towards the highest good. A death penalty would totally destroy that potentiality". Think about what it says. I would repeat this part: "The important point is that every person can improve himself and should be given the opportunity to do so however serious his mistakes have been".

I can provide a litany, as my colleague from Prince George-Peace River has, of mistakes. I do not know how one could say that Wayne Perkin made a mistake by bludgeoning Angela Richards to death, stabbing her 26 times. It happened in my community. He had made that same mistake a couple of years before. He got out on parole and made the same mistake again.

These are not mistakes. They are cold calculated problems. It is a human deficiency. They are animal instincts. For the life of me I cannot understand how the concept of mistake gets into it. We must deal on a better level than this.

Some comments have been made by members opposite in their speeches that I must address. Their comments emphasize exactly some problems in their logic. The Bloc member said that according to current statistics homicides have gone down in all categories. The Liberal member also said that we have the lowest murder rate in years, and that the number of murders has actually gone down.

I could give them a good idea why that has happened. I was at a victims rights rally this past Saturday and talked to a lady named Leona. Leona and I have talked a number of times. She has been through hell and back. I will give the House an idea of why the statistics show that the murder rate-murder one in particular-has gone down.

I will read exactly what Leona said in reference to Bobby Gordon Oatway. Members may remember his name was brought up recently. He was to be let out on parole in my colleague's riding. The inhabitants screamed about that and they tried to let him out in Abbotsford in my riding. We got on that, so they flew him to Toronto and there he resides.

Leona said: "I am a victim of this man and can tell you more about him than most. He is one of the most dangerous kinds of pedophiles there is. For about 10 years of my life this man raped, beat and sold his child victims. One of the men he sold us to"-she was one of them-"was Clifford Olson." I am sure most of you know about Olsen.

"We have suffered every form of abuse imaginable. Mr. Oatway changed his name in prison. His name was Robert Gordon Stevens. When I was a young child and in my teens I was forced to witness several child murders committed by Oatway and a few deaths caused by Olson. We were forced to help bury the bodies of his victims. As one of Oatway's victims I fought this man every step of the way to try to protect the other children from the rapes and beatings and horrifying deaths which I was forced to witness".

She talked in this letter about how she tried to express exactly what was going on and how no one would listen. She continued: "The rapes I was subjected to, the numerous times I stepped in to try to prevent another death, the blood I have on my hands, the young children's bodies I have cradled as they lay there dead in my arms, it is all so horrifying and I was not the only one. There were many of us who suffered this horror. These murder charges have not and will not be brought against Oatway because I am classified as an unstable witness due to the horrors I have seen".

"There were originally 41 counts against Oatway when the charges from me were stayed, which left only 19. After all witnesses had testified crown counsel and Oatway struck a deal. He plead guilty to seven charges. Those were one rape, two bestiality, two buggery and two assaults against adult women. He was given a total of 10 years".

This is a man who has murdered children. This is a man who should have had murder one. This is a man who should have been given the death penalty. Why the statistics go down on these fellows is that lawyers and judges take over. They reduce murder one and murder two to manslaughter and to things called buggery, assault and bestiality. That is why the statistics are going down. It has become a game of lawyers and judges. They plea bargain case after case.

I have more. I have been there. I was at a funeral yesterday which involved such an issue. They say homicides have dropped. Outside the House there is a monument of RCMP officers who have been murdered in Canada. Roger Pierlet is on the monument. I met Roger Pierlet's brother and sister in my riding. They asked me to go to a hearing of John Harvey Miller who, with Vincent Cockriell, shot this RCMP officer to death in 1974.

They were both sentenced to hang until the Liberal government took away capital punishment. Then they were committed to life imprisonment. Cockriell got out about seven months ago. So much for life. So much for the family. So much for the considerations. Cockriell is now apparently scheduled to go to the university college in the Fraser Valley. I have to wonder what is wrong in this country. Death meant death, but it does not any more. It means ending up in the Fraser Valley college.

The statistics say murder is going down, but it is not. The problem is there is not a government in this country with the courage of the convictions of its electorate. That is unfortunate. It is unfortunate that we could not convince the government tonight to vote on such an important issue. It would find, like many in this country feel, the death penalty is a necessary deterrent and could be a positive thing, not a negative thing.

[Charles Caccia, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to watch members of the Reform Party, the less civilized ones, trying to turn the clock back some 300 years. They do not seem to realize Parliament and Canada several years ago, by way of an historic vote, decided to eliminate once and for all the death penalty.

[An hon. member]

Was it a free vote?

[Charles Caccia, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Yes, it was a free vote.

In Canada we can confidently look at statistics as they are and we can confidently look at the reality which surrounds us in everyday life. I would like to make two brief points because of the time limitation.

Contrary to what the previous speaker said, statistics are a reality that cannot be denied. Statistics are there for guidance. If the statistics are not liked by certain members of the Reform Party, that is too bad. Statistics demonstrate not only in Canada but also in the United States that the murder rate and crime rates are down. That may not be good news politically for the ambassadors of bad news, but nevertheless that is a fact.

There is proof on both sides of the Atlantic Ocean that capital punishment is not a deterrent. This evidently has some difficulty penetrating into the consciousness of some Reform members. It is not a deterrent and it has been proven in jurisdiction after jurisdiction. There is one just south of us which can demonstrate at any time on any day that capital punishment does not deter crime. That has been established over the last 60 years in a number of nations so much that progress on this matter has been achieved exactly as a result of these findings in recent decades.

For the state to have capital punishment is tantamount to giving a bad example. We want society to behave in a positive manner with respect to life. We want the state to promote that concept. We want the state to do whatever is in its power, on behalf of the population, to ensure life is protected.

If that premise holds, as most of us believe, then we cannot have the state commit murder. We cannot have the state using violence on people. We cannot have the state adopting double standards. This is another point which is so difficult for some Reform members to understand and accept. The state has to give the right example. The state cannot use violence by snuffing out life.

This is an important watershed on this issue, in addition of course to other considerations, which we all well know, of misjudgments of people who were condemned and whose life was taken away and whose innocence was proven decades later. The records are full of those cases as well.

Apart from that aspect, it is well known, an established principle, that if the state is to give the example that the population must follow, the state cannot be seen as being the one that commits the action of taking away the life of an individual. Some criminologists have claimed in their findings that imprisonment for life is a very serious and heavy punishment for any human being, the removal of liberty, freedom and being able to enjoy the things in life that a free individual can.

It is clear some Reform Party members have difficulty understanding the validity of statistics. They do not exist for them because they do not confirm their biases. That is too bad. Reform members have difficulty in understanding that capital punishment does not work as a deterrent. I invite them to visit countries where capital punishment still exists and see what they have achieved in terms of reducing the crime rate. It has not made one indent.

A concept which is perhaps too far reaching for the Reform members to grasp is that the state must give the example it wants the public to follow.

For all those reasons it seems this motion ought to be defeated. I am sure that if it ever comes to a vote it will be. We cannot turn the clock back 300 years. We have moved into an era in which we have developed values and appreciation and in which we have learned from past mistakes.

We crossed this threshold a few years ago after a very lengthy debate and a very close vote; by eight votes. However, it was done and Canada is committed to being a country in which the death penalty no longer exists. We want to make sure that for the next millennium this matter will never be considered seriously.

[Myron Thompson, Reform, Wild Rose, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak on this for a few moments.

I really started to realize more and more what the problem is when it comes to this place and it was expressed by the previous speaker. When someone stands in the House and gives us messages about why we should not have capital punishment, they are telling 70 per cent of the population of Canada that they do not know what they are talking about. Once again the old attitude comes out that we in Parliament know best, not the 70 per cent or 75 per cent of Canadians calling for this through polls.

The previous speaker spoke of statistics. The polls are saying there is a very high percentage of Canadians who want capital punishment.

The Liberals have the gall to sit in the House and send a message out across the land that they are the intelligent ones, they are the smart ones, they know best and the ordinary taxpayers do not know what is good for them, and so they will decide. This will not be a votable motion.

Then I hear the member for Kingston and the Islands shouting thank goodness the bill is not votable. I have to agree with him. They are probably glad it is not votable because once again they would have to vote against the wishes of the people in their ridings and they would not want to do that too many times. They have already done it so many times we cannot count them all. That it is okay, do not listen to the people, do what you want to do. That is the part that bothers me more than anything else.

People are saying what they want from this place. Canadians want a fundamental responsibility that has been here for ages, to provide legislation that shows responsibility to protect the lives and property of its citizens, a fundamental request from Canadians. The least we can do in the House is come up with legislation that reflects the wishes of the people who pay the bills, the taxpayers of Canada. That would be a novelty.

Look at Clifford Olson. He killed once and for that one death he could have got life in 25 years. He killed twice and that was free. The third time was free. The fourth time was free. The fifth time was free. He killed 11 times and all the rest were free. He only had to kill once to get the sentence he got.

Lo and behold, a few years back the miracle workers on the other side of the House provided a clause that said even Clifford Olson could apply to get out in 15 years. I do not believe that sits well with the people of Canada. That is the mentality that goes on over on that side of the House. That kind of mentality is what the Canadian people are sick and tired of.

Canadian people would like us to send a message to the Paul Bernardos, the Karla Homolkas and the Clifford Olsons of this country that if you hunt and you capture and you abuse and you kill another human being, the Government of Canada in the name of justice and those innocent victims will hunt and capture you. If authorized to do so after a fair trial by a court of law, we will take your life, not in the name of revenge, but in the name of justice and as a deterrent to future such acts by others. That is the statement we need to send from the House of Commons to the people of Canada and these types of Bernardos, Homolkas and Olsons.

I would like to be invited by any of those members to go to their riding to debate this topic. Let us see if they can stand in front of their people and do that. Likewise, I invite them to come to my riding and convince my people this is not good for them. They will not do that. It is more fun to sit in here and heckle and not vote on it.

I fail to understand why we have a committee in the House of Commons that determines which bills are votable and which are not. There are criteria clearly laid out as to what makes a bill votable. When that criteria is 100 per cent met, I do not think the personal feelings of any individual from any committee should interfere with making an item votable. I have a hard time understanding that. Yet this government, which has the control of the committees, lets the personal opinion of people override the rules that are in place as to what makes an item votable.

Once again, it does not make sense. The little dictatorship runs on and on and personally, I am really tired of it.

[Darrel Stinson, Reform, Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I know that time is short and I have just a couple of minutes but there is a question I would like to ask the Liberal government representatives opposite. Have they not stopped to realize for one minute what the main criteria of government is? It is for the safety and well-being of its citizens. It is not for the criminal citizens in this country; it is for the law-abiding citizens. But not according to this government and its ministers who say that the first commitment with regard to crime has to be for the rehabilitation of the criminal. That is the government's priority.

I am hearing that our first concern has to be the rehabilitation of the criminal. If that is not the most sickening thing I have heard as a priority for any government of any country, I do not know what is. The government has thrown out, totally discarded the main reason we have government in this country: the safety and well-being of the law-abiding citizens.

The government, as my hon. colleagues have been saying since this debate began, seems to have gone totally the other way. We have heard about Mr. Olson. We have also heard from some of the victims' families who have to suffer with this every day.

[The Deputy Speaker]

I am sorry to tell the hon. member that the time has expired. Accordingly, the matter is dropped from the order paper.