Debates of Sept. 20th, 1996

Foreign Extraterritorial Measures Act

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

Mr. Speaker, relations between our southern neighbour and major trading partner, the United States and the small country 90 miles south of the United States, Cuba, have been a roller coaster for nearly 100 years. Ever since 1898 when U.S. forces invaded Cuba and forced out the Spanish, it has not been unheard of for Canada to have to ride that roller coaster.

The legislation before us, Bill C-54, is needed because that roller coaster ride continues today. To put the legislation into perspective, I believe it is useful for us to look back briefly over some of the highest hills and deepest dives which that roller coaster has followed.

For four years, from 1898 until early into this century the U.S. military occupied and ran Cuba. When the U.S. imposed the Platt amendment giving itself the right to dictate Cuba's foreign policy and to have the U.S. military intervene in Cuba's international affairs, that situation continued for more than a generation. Only in 1934 did American President Franklin Delano Roosevelt give up the powers which the U.S. had given itself in the Platt amendment.

Eventually both American corporations and U.S. organized crime had a strong base of operations in Cuba, until a bushy bearded revolutionary named Fidel Castro seized power in 1960.

It shows Canada's special relationship with Cuba when we note that when Castro expropriated Cuba's banks at the start of his reign, he exempted just two, the Bank of Nova Scotia and the Royal Bank, both Canadian. Apparently a copy of the document by which the Cuban government bought ScotiaBank's Cuban subsidiary now reposes in the vaults of the Bank of Nova Scotia in downtown Toronto.

In 1962 intelligence reports revealed that the U.S.S.R. was installing ballistic missiles in Cuba capable of hitting U.S. and Canadian targets. Then U.S. president John Kennedy announced an American naval blockade of the island.

The Canadian government was asked with barely 90 minutes advance notice to move Canadian Armed Forces to an alert status called DEFCON 3. Our defence minister at that time, Douglas Harkness, quietly did so. But the Diefenbaker cabinet was torn and debate sizzled for a couple of days.

However, Soviet ships approached the American imposed quarantine zone later in that week. Prime Minister Diefenbaker authorized the alert on October 24, and it was announced in the House on October 25, 1962.

Many of us recall the international sigh of relief a few days later when the Soviet premier, Nikita Khrushchev, agreed to dismantle and remove those threatening ballistic missiles from Cuba. Many people feared that the world was teetering on the brink of nuclear war over the Cuban situation in 1962.

In 1985, the Foreign Extraterritorial Measures Act, FEMA, became law in Canada. It was designed to defend Canadian interests against attempts by foreign governments or courts to apply unreasonable laws to Canada. FEMA currently gives the Attorney General the authority to prevent compliance in Canada with extraterritorial laws or court rulings which infringe on Canadian sovereignty. However, its penalties are lower than penalties threatened by new legislation in the United States for people doing business with Cuba.

Since FEMA was passed, and especially over some 35 years since Fidel Castro tossed out a right wing dictator to take over the Government of Cuba, many thousands of Cubans have escaped Mr. Castro's communist dictatorship and have gone to live in the U.S. state of Florida. Some estimates place the total of Cuban exiles living in Florida as high as one million people.

On February 24 of this year four people among those Cuban exiles, part of a group called Brothers to the Rescue, who were American citizens, were shot down by Cuban MiGs in international airspace and they died.

About 50,000 Cuban exiles, many with pictures of the dead taped to their chests, filed into the Orange Bowl Stadium a few days later for a memorial service. There they heard an emotional speech from the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, Madeleine Albright, who warned Cuba that the U.S. would not tolerate further attacks against Brothers to the Rescue.

Among other things, Albright promised: "America will protect its citizens in international waters and in international skies. We will tighten sanctions against the Government of Cuba and we will deploy every diplomatic means to bring democracy to the people of Cuba".

Despite the protest from Canada and Mexico, and from many others around the world, the Helms-Burton bill was signed into law by U.S. President Clinton on March 12.

In protest, members of the European Parliament adopted a resolution that urged the European Commission "to investigate the effects of the extraterritorial provisions of the bill on European businesses".

The resolution also urged the EC to strongly consider challenging the bill as "a serious infringement of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, World Trade Organization rules and international law".

Not long ago, officials of some Canadian companies which invested in Cuba received an official notice from the U.S. government that they and their families would not be welcome in the United States.

In the months since the Helms-Burton law was passed, debate has raged in Canadian newspapers regarding what Canada's position should be concerning Cuba and the Castro Communist dictatorship.

Many people point to the fact that Canada imposed sanctions on South Africa and that our current foreign affairs minister, the member for Winnipeg South Centre, proposed that economic sanctions should be imposed against the Government of Nigeria.

Others have questioned why Canada has spent so much time, effort and money, including most recently sending in Canadian troops as peacekeepers in another Caribbean country, Haiti, to try to make and keep the peace upon the return of ousted President Jean Bertrand Aristide, and yet we are willing to do nothing to help defeat Fidel Castro.

Is American policy regarding Cuba so different from Canadian policy about Haiti? I believe the answer must be no. Nevertheless, I also believe it is extremely important that this House pass Bill C-54 to bring FEMA up to date after the passage of the Helms-Burton bill in the United States.

My reason is one of pure Canadian patriotism, I believe, although others would no doubt call it plain being ornery.

The fact is, as a proud, certified western Canadian or, as the Liberals like to call us, redneck, I do not appreciate another country's telling Canada how to run our foreign policies. I may not agree with Canadian foreign policy but that is for us, this House and the other place representing the Canadian people to decide. Canadian foreign policy toward Cuba or any other nation must not be dictated by another country and enforced by severe penalties by the legislators of another country. Therefore I urge my hon. colleagues to join me in voting for Bill C-54.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Deputy Speaker]

I declare the motion unanimously agreed to. Therefore, the bill is referred to the foreign affairs and international trade committee.

(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to a committee.)

[The Deputy Speaker]

The House will now proceed to Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.

Restoration Of Death Penalty Act

[Bob Ringma, Reform, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

moved that Bill C-261, an act to require a referendum on the restoration of the death penalty and to amend the Referendum Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for Prince George-Bulkley Valley.

Let us start on this bill by being very clear about Bill C-261 is about and what it is not about. It does not propose directly to reinstate capital punishment in Canada, nor does it propose that the death penalty be the only penalty for first degree murder. Let us be really clear about that.

It does propose that the Canadian public be asked for its opinion on the subject of capital punishment. Let us ask the public what it thinks. Canada is our country. It belongs to the people, not to a political elite who know better than ordinary people.

This bill simply says "refer this matter to the electorate", ask the public what it wants. I hope that is not asking too much of our parliamentary system. Ask the public what it feels.

Bill C-261 says put the question to the public in a referendum. So that it is not too costly it proposes that this referendum question be put to the public at the time of the next federal election. In this way at the same time that a voter casts his ballot for a member of Parliament the voter can also express an opinion on the capital punishment question. What could be easier and what could be less costly? Referendums themselves can be costly but this way not so.

Let us look at the question that would be asked in such a referendum. It would ask simply: "Do you agree that if a person is found guilty of first degree murder the judge or jury should have the option of sentencing the person to life imprisonment or the death penalty?" It is important to understand that an option is available.

Obviously if there were any doubt whatsoever about guilt, even after a finding of guilty, the sentencing authority would err on the side of caution. On the other hand, in extreme cases and where there is no question whatsoever of guilt, for example in the Clifford Olson and Bernardo cases, the sentencing authority would have the death penalty option available.

Who should decide this question, our leaders, our elites or the people? The resistance out there to even asking the question tells me two things. First, our leaders and our elites in this country do not trust the judgment of ordinary people. Second, the elites think they know best. More than that, they are absolutely convinced they know best.

During the 1993 election I had many constituents in my riding of Nanaimo-Cowichan discuss this subject with me on their doorsteps. They were concerned that if elected I might go to Ottawa and vote my opinion on this, as other subjects, rather than representing them and their opinions. These constituents cited the case of Tommy Douglas, a distinguished parliamentarian and one of my predecessors as the member of Parliament for my riding.

Apparently a survey in Nanaimo-Cowichan and the islands found that over 80 per cent of the electorate favoured keeping the death penalty. Tommy Douglas, a respected man though he was, returned to Ottawa and voted for the bill which eliminated the death penalty because it went against his conscience. Understandable, perhaps, but it raises the question of an MP's first obligation.

That is why the Reform Party has a policy on matters of morality or personal conscience. Our policy is that when such questions of morality arise our MPs should do three things. First, whenever asked, advise constituents of his or her personal beliefs. Second, ascertain the will of the majority of the constituents on that issue. Third, vote to represent that majority.

It is because of this policy that I have taken concrete measures to find out what the majority of my constituents wanted in this case. Using a tele-vote system in this last year which allowed all constituents to register their opinion in a secret ballot, I found that the majority of my constituents, and I suspect this is reflected by the majority across Canada, favoured the return of capital punishment. That expression of opinion directly to me from my constituents is what has led to the preparation of today's private member's Bill C-261. That, ladies and gentlemen, is democracy in action. It takes us a step closer to some direct democracy.

There are some in the House and some in the country and some in my constituency who do not like the concept of direct democracy. Perhaps some of these do not like democracy, period. But I think the majority of people do.

Let us look at the educational benefits of having a question such as this decided in a referendum advertised well in advance. Unlike the United States we do not know the date of our election. That is another Reform matter that we should correct. Nevertheless, we do know there will be an election in Canada within the next two years. Passage of my bill in the House would mean that the public would

have an indeterminate, because of our system, but nevertheless substantial period of time in which to debate the merits and drawbacks of capital punishment.

I address this comment to the so-called elites. Passage of my bill would allow them ample time to put forth their point of view. There is no reason for them to fear the public. Get out and tell it your thoughts then listen to what it has to say. They might learn something and the public might learn something and I think all would profit. The more facts or even the more opinions we have, the better the quality of our decisions is likely to be. Education is a beneficial byproduct of all referenda and specifically a benefit of this bill.

The public should be heard. Let us hear the views of those totally opposed to capital punishment and the views of those who would use it too freely. The public is not stupid; it is possessed of much common sense. The public can hear extreme arguments and find a middle road position with which it is comfortable.

It is important that this matter get to a vote. I would like at this point to ask for the unanimous consent of the House to have this bill made votable.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Is there unanimous consent to have this made a votable item?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Obviously there is not unanimous consent.

[Bob Ringma, Reform, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the nays from the Liberal side of the House indicate the problem we have with democracy in Canada in 1996. It is a problem we have had for a number of years. The Liberals are afraid of allowing the public to express its opinion. They are afraid of members of Parliament expressing their own opinions rather than the opinion handed down by their elite, by their whip, by those who know best within the Liberal Party who say: "That is not party line. Do not vote that way". They are afraid of open votes.

I will conclude on that note. Let us leave it open. We still have a few more minutes for debate. I hope that those on the other side of the House are listening and that they open their minds a bit. It is an important bill for Canada and for Canadians. We know pretty much where the majority opinion is on this issue.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Colleagues, the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan indicated at the outset of his remarks that he wished to share his time with the hon. member for Prince George George-Bulkley Valley. I do not believe there is a provision in our rules for the proposer of a private member's bill to do that. Therefore, it will have to be done by unanimous consent.

Is there unanimous consent that the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan be permitted to share his time with the hon. member for Prince George-Bulkley Valley?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Dick Harris, Reform, Prince George—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to this bill.

Prior to the election in 1993 when we were going through the exercise of getting to know everyone, there was one thing I made sure I did. There was a certain number of issues which could be considered moral issues or personal issues. I felt the obligation as a candidate to ensure there was no doubt where I stood on things.

One of the issues was the issue of capital punishment. I made it very clear to my constituents that I, as a candidate for the Reform Party, personally favoured the return of capital punishment. I told everyone who asked. I even made an effort to publicize it so there would be no confusion as to where I stood. I was elected. I was not elected on that issue, but on the excellent platform which was put forward by the Reform Party.

At the end of the day, it is not what the member for Prince George-Bulkley Valley believes in which should be the main determining factor of how I vote in Parliament or how I debate, it should be that of the people who elected me.

I have done poll after poll in my riding on various things. One of the polls asked the question: Would you favour a binding national referendum on the issue of capital punishment? In my riding 71 per cent said yes, 17 per cent said no and the balance was unsure. Seventy-one per cent said yes. It gave me a good indication that my constituents for the most part, a huge majority, agreed with my personal opinion on the subject.

It is interesting to note that just recently I gave an interview in my riding. We were talking about Clifford Olson and his being able to apply for early parole, something the Liberals have allowed to happen. Let that be clear to Canadians watching today. Clifford Olson, this mass murderer is eligible to have a hearing on early parole. He is able to do this because of the Liberal government and the Liberal governments that preceded this government, whose philosophies are supported by this government and the Minister of Justice, and the member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce who was the Minister of Justice back in the government that allowed Olson to have this opportunity.

Let us never forget where this Liberal government and its predecessors stand on the issue of crime and punishment. No matter what the Minister of Justice is putting through in this House with bill after bill that tinkers with the justice system, the Canadian people will not be fooled as to the philosophy of this Liberal government.

Getting back to what I wanted to say, we were talking about Clifford Olson and the fact that he can apply for a hearing. I made the comment that if I had my way, Clifford Olson should possibly get a suspended sentence, like at the end of a rope. My assistant in my riding office said: "You can't say that". I said: "Why not? The vast majority in my riding thinks the same way I do". He asked how I knew that and I told him we would do a little test.

A person that I knew came in and I said: "I think you are capable of doing a straw poll for me this afternoon, would you do it? Just go out and ask people, and do it demographically-young people, middle aged people, older people, men, women-this question: If you had the opportunity to pull the lever on Clifford Olson would you do it? Ask it in as unbiased, non-influencing manner as you can". He asked 37 people just strolling up the street. Of those 37, 31 said yes without hesitation; four said they agreed he should be put to death but they did not think they could do it; and two said they were not too sure about that. That is consistent with the thinking not only in my riding but in ridings all across the country.

This Liberal government and the Liberal and Tory governments before it, despite the widespread call from Canadians to give us a vote on this subject, have refused to allow a referendum on it. How can a political party that forms a government, whether it be Liberals or Tories, sit in this House, meet in caucus knowing that Canadians want an opportunity to vote on this issue and arbitrarily and unilaterally make the decision not to allow the vote? That is not democracy. That is not what this House is all about.

I understood, and maybe the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice when he speaks will correct me on this, but I always thought that we came here to represent the people of Canada. I ask him if he will address the question: Do we come here as members of Parliament to represent the people of Canada? I hope he will answer that question. If that is true, if that is why we are here, then why do we not have a national binding referendum on the issue of capital punishment?

The Canadian people over the years have responded an average of 68 per cent. Polls consistently taken since the 1960s show that Canadians favour the death penalty. Sixty-eight per cent of the population on average since the 1960s have clearly indicated that they favour the return to capital punishment.

A much higher percentage of the Canadian people want at least the opportunity to vote on it. The Liberals will not give them that opportunity; they will speak against this. The Tories would not give them that opportunity. The Liberal government before them would not give them that opportunity.

We get back to the question of why they came here. Did they come here to support some Liberal philosophy that they have created on how to deal with first degree murderers who commit horrendous crimes? Are they here to support Liberal philosophy on

people who kill people, on premeditated, savage murderers? Is it Liberal philosophy that should determine how they should be punished? I do not think so. This government, as previous governments did, has an opportunity to support this bill and see what the Canadian people want to do.

In closing, I ask for unanimous consent that this bill be sent to the justice committee.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Is there unanimous consent that the proposed bill be sent to the justice committee?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Deputy Speaker]

There is not unanimous consent. The member's time has expired.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to take part in the debate on Bill C-261 which is sponsored by the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan.

As Canadians, we regard as abhorrent and feel the pain and suffering that the victims' families are forced to endure. While we are rightly revolted by murder, the case has not been made effectively to demonstrate that the public interest would be served by restoring capital punishment for murder.

The public policy reality is clear. Since the abolition of the death penalty for murder, the murder rate has gone done and not up. In 1975 before capital punishment for murder was abolished, the homicide rate was at a certain level. In the years following from 1975 until 1994, the homicide rate never rose above that base rate in 1975. In 1994 the homicide rate was two-thirds what it was in 1975.

The issue of capital punishment has been thoroughly explored at the national level. In many debates in this House after extensively debating the question of capital punishment between 1966 and 1976, the House of Commons on a free vote adopted a bill abolishing capital punishment for murder in 1976.

The most recent debate in this House took place in 1987 when the government of the day honoured an election commitment to debate the reinstatement of capital punishment. After debating the question at length in the House of Commons, it was decided on a free vote that capital punishment should not be restored.

The arguments for and against are really no different today than they were in 1987. Effective arguments can easily be mounted to oppose the death penalty. Such arguments have been made in this House over the years and I do not intend to repeat many of them here today.

Perhaps one of the most effective arguments however is the concern about the possibility of wrongful convictions. Anyone who would choose to deride this concern, to put it down, to put it to the side, need only be reminded of two relatively recent cases of significance, namely the wrongful convictions for murder of Donald Marshall, Jr. and Guy Paul Morin.

Our justice system is designed by human beings, operated by human beings and human beings, as we know, are prone to mistakes and mistakes happen. Innocent people could be convicted and sentenced to death.

We have these brave Reformers suggesting that we have the death penalty. Is one of them ready to be the first mistake? Are they ready to have one of their children or their spouse be the first mistake? I know I am not ready for that and if I am not ready for it I am not about to impose it on others. When you make a mistake, oops just does not cut it. I am sorry is not good enough.

The hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan indicated that if you have any doubt about whether somebody committed the murder then do not execute them. This just shows a profound ignorance of the criminal law because if you have doubt that the person committed the murder you would not convict him in the first place.

[Bob Ringma, Reform, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Do you have any doubts about Bernardo?

[Gordon Kirkby, Liberal, Prince Albert—Churchill River, SK]

This is typical of the Reform Party. Mistakes happen when you are dealing with criminal law and I do not believe that the Reform Party is taking that issue very seriously.

Reinstating capital punishment in the Criminal Code is offered as a panacea by the Reform Party but it is hardly that. To focus on capital punishment as an optional sentence for first degree murder and to hold a national referendum on this issue really avoids grappling with the larger fundamental issue of how to promote the protection of society.

I want to turn my attention to the referendum issue. The bill proposed that a referendum on the restoration of the death penalty for first degree murder be held concurrently with the general election that next follows the coming into force of these proposals.

Federal elections are extremely important opportunities for Canadians to choose and elect their representatives and their Prime Minister. Holding a referendum concurrently with the general election could detract from the importance of the federal election. It is therefore not a practice in Canada. As a matter of fact, there is no procedure in place in the Canadian electoral system for holding a referendum concurrently with a federal election.

The government was elected on a platform which did not include the introduction of referenda concurrently with general elections, nor did it include a further consideration of the issue of capital punishment. While referenda are an important part of Reform policy, our platform focused on augmenting the role of MPs as decision makers on questions of public policy.

The question of participatory democracy, including referenda, was addressed by a Commons committee not long ago. The Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs was mandated by the House of Commons to study various procedural matters, including the examination of measures to achieve more direct participation by citizens including binding referenda.

However, according to Mr. Patrick Boyer, former MP and author of several books on referenda who appeared before the committee, the referendum process should not be considered for every issue that comes before Parliament. Although he argued that referenda should be expanded to allow referenda on non-constitutional issues, Mr. Boyer was of the view that some transcending national issue which is greater than Parliament's current mandate and has never been discussed in previous elections should be subject to referendum.

What is the real reason for the referendum? Reformers say that the polls tell them that Canadians want the death penalty. Therefore, why would they ask for a referendum if they are so convinced that Canadians want the death penalty? I will tell you what the reason is. They are not prepared to be accountable for the decisions taken, to stand up on their own and say I am in favour of the death penalty. The reason they are not prepared to do that is because when a mistake happens they want to sit back and blame the Canadian public, play Pontius Pilate, wash their hands and say you asked for Barabbas. They want to sit here and say: "You voted for it, Canadian public. The mistake, the innocent person who has just had his life shortened is not our responsibility". We on this side of the House are prepared to take our responsibilities seriously. I would suggest that they not hide behind this sham of a referendum they are putting forward. If they want to change in the Criminal Code to include the death penalty, let them have the guts to stand up here and do it in this House.

[Ken Epp, Reform, Elk Island, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I have a short point of order. I believe that the parliamentary secretary inadvertently used the unparliamentary term "guts" in referring to the Reformers and I would like him to retract that.

[The Deputy Speaker]

I do not believe the word "guts" is an unparliamentary word. I have not checked recently but I am quite certain that word is not on the list. If the hon. member for Elk Island, who is a fine scholar, could find the word "guts" as having been found unparliamentary before, I will be very pleased if he would. In the meantime we will carry on with the debate.