Debates of Sept. 20th, 1996

Restoration Of Death Penalty Act

[Michel Bellehumeur, Bloc, Berthier—Montcalm, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as a matter of fact, I do agree with the government on this point. The death penalty is indeed an issue, a decision one must ponder very seriously.

There are, however, many other very important issues. If we were to apply the principle developed by the Reform Party, should the government consult the public via a referendum on every important issue? For instance, abortion is a very important issue. Does the Reform Party favour a referendum on abortion? Does the Reform Party also want a referendum on how to reduce the deficit, on peacekeeping missions we are taking part in?

Speaking of democracy, I believe that the voice of democracy was heard in 1993, and will be heard again during the next federal election. During an election campaign, we are asked what we think of a given topic. I remember very well that constituents would question me on the death penalty, in 1993, asking me: "Are you for or against the death penalty, Mr. Bellehumeur?" My answer was: "No, I am not in favour of the death penalty". And I would then explain why I oppose this concept. And yet, constituents in my riding of Berthier-Montcalm voted for me. Therefore, today, I am in a position to rise and speak on behalf of my constituents on issues such as the death penalty.

We do not have to hold a referendum on every issue on which we believe that the public may have a different view or, as the Liberal member mentioned, simply to wash our hands of it. We have been given the mandate, each one of us in our respective riding, to represent our constituents and express the opinion which we believe to be the majority's.

The Reform's approach in several areas, including capital punishment, is, I believe, very simplistic. Once again, this past week, we saw Reform members choose the easiest way out. They do not like Bloc members, they find them too vocal, too intrusive, so they would like to take away their official opposition status.

This past week, we heard them talk about dangerous offenders. They want to leave them in prison as long as possible, to let them rot in there. No matter what the minister suggests to strengthen the law, it is never enough for Reform members, they always demand more.

Their attitude is the same in the case of young offenders. They do not know what to do with them, so they say: Let let us change the Young Offenders Act so that the age limit will be nine or ten. That is the easy way out. The same goes for first degree murders. What would be the easiest thing to do? Restore the death penalty to get rid of first degree murderers as quickly as possible.

The purpose of Bill C-261 before us is not to determine whether we are for or against the death penalty.

All the Reform speeches I have heard show clearly that members of that party are for capital punishment. It is said very clearly, but they will not come right out sand say so.

If we consider the whole issue of the death penalty closely, we have to admit that, in 1975-1976, when Parliament studied the question, it made the right decision and chose to abolish capital punishment as many other countries have done throughout the years. Several countries have abolished the death penalty and have come to some conclusions.

Earlier, the parliamentary secretary read out some statistics, and yes, the figures are very positive. I have here a very comprehensive study, conducted between 1985 and 1996, which shows that, in Canada, after the death penalty was abolished, homicide, murder, manslaughter and infanticide decreased by 20 per cent. Therefore, those who think that the restoration of the death penalty will reduce the number of murders and other similar horrible crimes are wrong. That is for Canada.

If we look at statistics for France, in the eighties, that country also abolished capital punishment and the figures there are similar. It is not because the death penalty can be imposed that crimes will automatically decrease and vice versa.

What I often hear from Reform members and all those who advocate a return to capital punishment is the famous theory of deterrence, but it does not hold with the numbers we have before us.

We also talked about the risks of convicting innocent people and involuntarily putting them in the electric chair or some other method of ending it all. This is one aspect must also consider. As regards the inequality of justice, we need only look at what is happening in the United States to realize that, when it comes to the electric chair, justice is not necessarily the same for the rich and the poor.

The rich can afford lawyers and a multitude of legal experts to avoid the electric chair, while the most powerless before the system are even more powerless and, quite often, cannot present a fair defence, a defence that a rich person could have presented.

One point that surprised me is the uncertainty a return to capital punishment would bring out in the justice system, and perhaps Reform members do not know that. Again, when capital punishment was abolished in 1960 and 1976, it was realized that its abolition had a direct effect on the conviction rate.

Again according to statistics from Statistics Canada and experts, I will read to you what one of them, a certain Mr. Mackenzie, has to say. He says that in Canada, between 1960 and 1974, when capital

punishment was in force, the conviction rate for a first degree murder was below 10 per cent and, after capital punishment was abolished, it increased to 20 per cent between 1976 and 1982, the study period.

Why? Because the jury that hears the case knows that, if it decides that Mr. X is guilty or that Mr. X has committed a murder, he faces hanging, the electric chair or whatever. The members of the jury want proof beyond a reasonable doubt and even more, so that they often have a slight doubt about the individual before them who could be sentenced to death.

If the accused faced only a minimum sentence of 25 years, they would say that he was guilty, but with capital punishment hanging over him, they have doubts. They then decide that a unanimous verdict is impossible and the accused is set free.

The numbers are there. Without capital punishment the conviction rate is 20 per cent, compared to 10 per cent with capital punishment. These figures must be considered. Obviously one does not launch a philosophical debate across Canada before a federal election without looking at these figures beforehand, without realizing-unless they are completely irresponsible, which I do not think is the case-that they did not consider these things before launching this debate, before asking the government to hold a referendum on this issue in the next federal election.

If not, I urge them to do so. At some point we get into a vicious circle. The more we complain about a bad situation, the worse it gets. The more we talk about the murder rate, the higher it seems. We are creating a kind of public panic for no good reason. Yes, murders and other horrible crimes are being committed, but I think that the people of Quebec and Canada do not lean to the right as much as the Reform Party does.

Reform members often claim to represent Mr. or Mrs. So-and-So who has gone through the terrible ordeal of losing his or her child and demands that the death penalty be reinstated.

In closing, I would like to talk about Isabelle Bolduc, who was in the news over the summer. She was murdered by a killer on parole. But her father, Mr. Bolduc, clearly came out against capital punishment. He is working to improve rehabilitation and social reintegration for inmates.

The problem may not be with capital punishment itself. The problem may be with the enforcement of the current regulations. That is what I want to say to the Reform Party today. I do not think most of the people listening to us in western Canada share the views of Reform members. I am convinced that only a minority think the way Reformers do on this issue.

[The Deputy Speaker]

The hon. member for Elk Island has brought a citation from Beauchesne's to my attention that the expression "has not got the guts" was found in May, 1959 not to be parliamentary. That is almost 30 years ago. He would have an excellent point but for the fact that he was not in his seat when he made the point.

The good point would appear to be cancelled out by the fact that he was not in his seat. We will all, no doubt, take note of the fact that there is a citation, as only a teacher can remember, in Beauchesne's.

[Jack Ramsay, Reform, Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, from my understanding of the ruling, I cannot use the word "guts" in my speech. Is that true? Because it would fit nicely in my speech as I address some of the points we have heard from the other side.

I rise today in support of my colleague's bill, the member for Nanaimo-Cowichan, private member's Bill C-261. Bill C-261 is about giving Canadians an opportunity to voice their opinion on one of the most contentious issues in Canadian history, the use of the death penalty for first degree murder.

It is strange for me to hear my colleague from the Bloc who just addressed the House say he is in favour of the democratic process in their referendums, where the direction and the guidance and the operation of the country is done by the will of a majority when it comes to electing him to his seat in the House. But after he is elected to his seat in the House he is saying to 69 per cent of the people who are opting for a referendum or opting for a second look at the death penalty: "You do not know what is in your own best interests, so you are going to have to trust me". That is what the member from the Liberal side has been saying.

They are saying to the people of Canada: "You know what is in your best interest when you elect me to the House, but after that, on issues like capital punishment or other issues that impact on the individual from a moral point of view, you have to leave those decisions to me because I know what is best for you. You do not know what is best for you, your family, your community or your nation. That has to be left to the elites like us". That is what this member is saying and that is what the Bloc member has been saying.

I do not want to focus my comments on the point of capital punishment. I do not want to take up any more time of the House debating the pros and cons of capital punishment. I chose today to focus on the issue of democracy because this is the essence of my colleague's private member's Bill C-261.

Bill C-261 is an act to require a referendum on the restoration of the death penalty and to amend the Referendum Act. I support the use of national referendums to determine the will of the majority on issues of a moral or contentious nature. If the Liberal government believed in democracy, if it truly believed the majority rules in this country, it would support the use of national referendums and support this private member's bill.

Liberal members would put aside their Liberal philosophies and personal biases regarding the use of the death penalty and they would allow Canadians through this democratic means to decide the fate of first degree murderers.

The definition of democracy contained in the Gage Canadian Dictionary is not unlike those found in most other dictionaries:

1) a government that is periodically elected and thus controlled by the people who live under it. Under a democracy, the people rule either by direct vote at public meetings or indirectly through the election of certain representatives to govern them;

2) the ideals and principles of such a government, such as equality of rights and opportunities and the rule of the majority;

A democracy is formed by the will of the majority, not by minorities, special interest groups or lobby groups. The majority elects a government to establish laws and programs that protect the lives and property, the liberties and the freedoms of all its citizens.

The greatest guarantee to the individual of these fundamental rights and freedoms is found in the expressed will of a well educated and informed majority.

Historically, these characteristics have formed the strongest stabilizing force within society. A group of nations, supported by their majorities, freed the world of the Nazi regime which denied millions their liberties, their freedoms and their very rights to live and own property.

It was the will of a majority of Americans who demanded Afro-Americans have the freedom to vote over the objection of a minority. It was a host of nations, supported again by their majorities, that turned back the dictator Saddam Hussein.

Although history may provide exceptions, the greatest violations of fundamental human rights have occurred at the hands of minority groups and elite groups like those represented by the voice over here. It has been nations governed by majority rule that have established and maintained to the greatest degree the fundamental rights of the individual.

The leader of the federal Tories ignored the determination of his youth delegates on the question of capital punishment at their recent convention. The Reform Party believes this issue must be decided by the majority of Canadians in a free and open vote after all aspects have been fully debated.

Our method is democratic. The Tory leader's method is not. Neither is the method of the Liberal Party so far heard expressed today in this debate.

The top down, autocratic leadership displayed by the Tory leader and by this government is what gave rise to the Reform Party of Canada in the first place and is the type of leadership that leads to a violation of fundamental human rights.

The previous Tory-Liberal governments' undemocratic form of leadership has plunged our country into a $600 billion debt hole. This debt has been created, at least in part, by the establishment of grants and programs aimed at special interest groups without the consent of the majority.

The greatest threat to our social and economic stability of our families, individuals and our nation is the unlimited power of government to tax away our property and our wealth without our consent.

The issue of Quebec sovereignty dominates in the provincial legislature to their economic detriment. The Bloc keep pressing the issue in the House despite the fact that the majority was heard, despite the fact that referendums on Quebec separation produced a no vote not once, but twice.

The reinstatement of capital punishment cannot be determined by the Liberal government alone. We know only too well whose side the Liberals are on in this contentious debate on capital punishment. We know whose side they are on in the debate on Bill C-45.

Unlike the Reform Party, the Liberal government and the leader of the Tory party are not on the side of the murder victims and their families. The Liberal government is on the side of the killers. This was evident in its opposition to the private member's bill repealing section 745 and in its support of Bill C-45 which continues to grant first degree murderers an avenue for early release.

This was never more obvious than it was yesterday when the parliamentary secretary accused us of exploiting the families of murder victims, which, as I said in the House yesterday, was beneath contempt. The hon. member for Prince Albert-Churchill River accused us of exploiting the families of murder victims for political purposes. He said: "The Reform are always interested in talking about the effects on the victims". Yes, we are always interested in talking about the devastating effects of murder on the families of murder victims. We have a duty and a responsibility in talking about the horrifying trauma of victims' families knowing their son's or daughter's killer may be released early as a result of section 745.

I will have the hon. member and his colleagues know that I have been contacted by families of murder victims. They have thanked

me and all colleagues in the House for telling their painful stories to Canadians and what section 745 means to them; for telling Canadians how section 745, the Liberal made glimmer of hope for the most sadistic people in our society, has made them relive their nightmares.

If the hon. member for Prince Albert-Churchill River and his Liberal colleagues do not want to talk about the victims, if they want to remain in their ivory towers, oblivious to the real pain and suffering which is occurring in the country, then so be it. We will remain in touch with the people, the people's feelings and their concerns.

In closing I say this: The reinstatement of capital punishment ought not to be determined by the House, a handful of politicians; it should only be determined by a majority of Canadians. This is the nature of democracy, a majority rule, which most citizens have no difficulty whatever in understanding.

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

Mr. Speaker, first let me say that it gives me great pleasure to stand in support of private member's Bill C-261.

I listened to the parliamentary secretary say that we did not have enough intestinal fortitude to stand to say that we are in favour of capital punishment. I am in favour of capital punishment for certain crimes and I am proud to say that. What I am not proud of is a government which refuses to give the Canadian people a say on this. I am not proud of that. That is lack of intestinal fortitude on that side of the House, not on this side of the House.

When the parliamentary secretary stands up and says such things, I think of the hypocritical people who are involved. The hypocrisy has never been so great. Bill C-261 is not about my personal opinion; it is not about their personal opinions. It is an opportunity to give the Canadian people a say which will be binding on the government. It is a say for the Canadian people.

If I had my way I would say capital punishment right now. But not this good government. Not this caring, sharing government that only worries about self-preservation and its pension plan. No, not this government. The Canadian people can stay out there and be told nothing but what the government wants them to hear. It will twist the facts. It will twist the statistics. It will come up with numbers that mean absolutely nothing in the real world.

The worst of it is, there are many members on that side who think the very same as we on this side but they are being controlled from within. It is politics of the lowest degree in a country that is supposed to be democratically ruled. When we do not allow our populace to have a say in such matters, when we keep on shutting our eyes and letting our folks walk the streets in fear because we have a government that has no intestinal fortitude to give the people a say, it is a disgrace.

Members can sit there with smiles on their faces. Sooner or later the people of Canada will have their say. I hope it is sooner rather than later.

This is good legislation. It should have been deemed votable. Government members can sit there and smirk all they want and say: "No, not us. We won't give the people a say in this because we are here to rule. We are here to rule the people". That is their agenda. They have lost the common sense of what government is supposed to be about. I am sorry the government has lost that. Like the Conservatives before them and the Liberals before the Conservatives, they think they are here to rule with an iron fist and say: "You will do what we wish and not what you wish we would do to govern properly". I find that outrageous.

The Liberals stand here time after time and say: "We listen to the people". Hogwash. If they truly represented the people they would at least allow them a voice on this issue. It is not up to members of Parliament to force their morality on the people. It is up to the people to force their morality on us. Sooner or later Liberal members might learn that.

You are just a hired peon in this place. You are hired by the taxpayers. You are hired to represent their wishes and their demands. You can say you are elected. They pay your wages, do not ever forget that-

[The Deputy Speaker]

Order, please. The hon. member, like all hon. members, will please address his remarks to the Chair, not to you on the opposite side or on his own side.

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

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, you are right.

Members in this Chamber are hired. They are no better than anybody else who walks the street out there. The taxpayers pay our wages to represent them, not our wishes. That is where this government and governments before have gone wrong. It is time the taxpayers of this country demanded that politicians listen to what their concerns are. We are sick and tired of it.

[Jack Ramsay, Reform, Crowfoot, AB]

We have a $600 billion debt.

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

That is right. We have a $600 billion debt. We look after the criminals far better than we do the victims. It is a real shame. I know in other countries what would happen to politicians who think that they are better than the people.

Private members' business is something where a lot of members go to a lot of work trying to bring a bill before this House which the government is not going to address. Our biggest mistake in private members' business is not allowing all bills drawn to be deemed votable. Let us get rid of the politics in private members' business.

Bill C-261 is living proof that when we came here one of our commitments was that we would give referendums to the people and we would abide by the people's decisions. That was a Reform commitment. Members of the government ask: "How can you do that?" They believe they are far smarter than the people and they are so wrong.

When we came here after we were elected we all had these ideals. Somehow it has been beaten out of them on the other side and beaten out badly. They should remember. They still have to look at themselves in the mirror when they shave in the morning. I sometimes wonder how they can do it when they allow the things to go on in this country that they have.

The right to give a referendum to the Canadian people always seems to be on the agenda. This is not the first time it has come before this House, nor will it be the last, until finally they are given their wish and they are allowed to vote on this. I hope this government at least gives them that right in the coming federal election. Then they would be surprised at the people's voice.

[The Deputy Speaker]

The time provided for consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired, and the order is dropped from the Order Paper.

It being approximately 2.33 p.m., the House stands adjourned until Monday at 11 a.m.

(The House adjourned at 2.35 p.m.)