Debates of March 12th, 2008

Opposition Motion--Death Penalty

[Stockwell Day, Conservative, Okanagan—Coquihalla, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I have to say that I listened patiently to the member's question and she seems to have lost her patience even before I have begun here, but that is her right and also her past record.

I do not know how many times I have to repeat it in the clearest of language. This government does not want, intend or desire in any way to reopen the debate on the death penalty. I do not know how much clearer we can say it.

[Deepak Obhrai, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, this is the second time that I rise to speak on this issue.

I will not repeat exactly what the Minister of Public Safety has just said, but he made it extremely clear where this government stands. Yet here we have this motion, which keeps coming up. The Liberals keep thinking about this. I do not understand why they are trying to think about this, about our principles.

The fact of the matter, as the Minister of Public Safety has said very clearly, and as the Prime Minister has said on many occasions, is that this government has no intention of bringing in the death penalty in Canada. This position is very clear and we are going to say it again and again until the Liberals finally get it into their heads that this government is not going to bring in the death penalty.

They can change words. They have been doing so since this budget was presented. They have been wording it this way or the other way and trying to twist the facts. There was one case where, instead of putting a non-confidence vote to the government--of course, they did not vote--they put a non-confidence motion to the opposition party, which is something new.

Perhaps I will repeat again what the Minister of Public Safety has said, which is that this government's position is clear: there is going to be no death penalty in Canada under this government.

Since December 10, 1962, no one has been executed in Canada. For over 45 years there have been no executions in this country. On July 14, 1976, the death penalty was removed from the Criminal Code when Parliament decided, after years of debate, that capital punishment was not an appropriate penalty. The death penalty was then removed from the National Defence Act on December 10, 1998. Since that day, there has been no death penalty in Canada in law as well as in fact.

In 1987, a free vote regarding the reinstatement of the death penalty was held in the House of Commons. The result of the vote sent the very strong signal that Canadians were in favour of maintaining the abolition of the death penalty. As the Prime Minister has confirmed, and I will repeat it so my colleagues can understand this, this government has no desire to reopen the death penalty debate in Canada.

As we have said repeatedly, in cases where Canadians face the death penalty abroad, the Government of Canada, on a case by case basis, will continue to consider whether to seek clemency. According to today's headlines, a majority of Canadians support our case by case approach. As well, we found out last fall that the majority of Canadians supports our overall approach to justice, an approach that focuses on tackling violent crime and community crime.

In terms of playing a leadership role in promoting the abolition of the death penalty internationally, this government has been and will continue to be a leader in speaking up for a principled stand on human rights and the rule of law in all international fora. For those states that legally retain the death penalty, this government will continue to advocate for full respect for international law, including the international legal restrictions in its application.

It is worth recalling and reminding all Canadians that the death penalty is not in and of itself contrary to the international law. International law clearly recognizes that different states may legitimately take differing views on the issue of the death penalty.

One of the foremost human rights treaties adhered to by over 130 states is the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Canada has been a party to this treaty since 1976. The covenant does not prohibit the imposition of the death penalty, but rather sets out that states that retain the death penalty must abide by certain rules.

Many states do retain the death penalty. International law imposes restrictions on the use of the death penalty and imposes strict safeguards on its imposition. Canada's interventions with other states, whether made at the bilateral level or in multilateral fora, are made in the context of supporting human rights within the framework of international law.

Canada advocates full respect for safeguards and due process of law where the death penalty is still in use. In the fall of 2007 Canada led 41 co-sponsors in securing the adoption of the United Nations General Assembly of a resolution on the human rights situation in Iran.

This resolution expressed our serious concern at Iran's practice of multiple public executions, executions carried out in the absence of respect for internationally recognized safeguards, the continued issuing of sentences of execution by stoning and the execution of persons who were below 18 years of age at the time the offence was committed, in clear violation of Iran's own constitution and its obligation under international law.

The Minister of Foreign Affairs issues an urgent appeals to other governments to overturn the death sentences for crimes committed as minors. For example, the Minister of Foreign Affairs issued an urgent appeal to the government of Iran on July 17 2007, concerning the death sentence of Sina Paymard in Iran for a crime committed as a minor. Only six days earlier, we also spoke out against the execution by stoning of Jafar Kiani in Iran.

Canada has also participated in joint demarches with other diplomatic missions in countries abroad to highlight concerns regarding the use of the death penalty.

Our position has been clear, very clear. There has been no death penalty in Canada for 45 years and this government has no intention to change that. We will not reopen this debate. We have also indicated that whether to seek clemency will be assessed on a case by case basis.

Lastly, the government continues to speak for Canada and make its voice heard at the international level on all matters of foreign policy, including international human rights. In addition, Canada's voice is a principled one which supports international standards and the rule of law.

The government has been and will continue to be a leader in speaking up for a principled stand on human rights and the rule of law in all international forums.

I thank the House for providing me with the opportunity to remind Canadians and the members of the House of our government's clear and principled position on the death penalty both in Canada and internationally.

[The Acting Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the question to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment is as follows: the hon. member for Richmond Hill, Afghanistan.

We shall continue with questions and comments.

The hon. member for Mount Royal.

[Irwin Cotler, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the member opposite has repeated, as did the minister, the principle over and over again, as they see it, that the government does not wish to reopen the death penalty debate in Canada. However, we are here debating this issue because, by the government's reversal of long standing Canadian policy and precedent in these matters and Canadian law and principle, it has opened up the debate in which we have now engaged it.

I will put for the hon. member one test as to whether the government does not want to reopen the debate and it is committed against the death penalty. Will the government support today's motion? That is the test. It is a simple test. Will the government support today's motion and in so doing seek clemency for any Canadian citizen who is facing the death penalty abroad?

[Deepak Obhrai, Conservative, Calgary East, AB]

Mr. Speaker, we cannot be more clearer than what we have been. The death penalty is not going to return to Canada. We are not going to seek a debate on this.

As far as other cases are concerned, we are as clear as we can be. Clemency will be sought on a case by case basis.

As for his question, are we going to support this motion, I am going to say very clearly again, we feel this is a waste of time because we have made our position very clear. However, the opposition members do not want to listen. Perhaps this will make them happy. Yes, we are going to support the motion.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the question just posed for the member was specifically with regard to opposing the death penalty for all Canadians abroad who are facing the death penalty.

The member responded by saying, yes, that the Conservatives would support it and that they were in agreement, but his answer was that they would review them on a case by case basis. That is a qualification that is not in the official policy of Canada, a long-standing policy.

Will he now answer the question directly, not on a case by case basis but on every case they will fight the death penalty for Canadians abroad?

[Deepak Obhrai, Conservative, Calgary East, AB]

Mr. Speaker, this is the Liberals' idea of talking out of both sides of the mouth without understanding.

Let me make it very clear. We are going to support the motion because it talks about the death penalty in Canada. I have stated, and I will state it again. There will be no death penalty in Canada. As for international issues, all cases will be reviewed on a case by case basis. I do not understand what is wrong with that.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, with regard to the case by case basis, what is the exact criteria the government uses to make that case by case status? I would like to hear specific criteria on how the Conservatives evaluate those who the will advocate for and those who they will abandon.

[Deepak Obhrai, Conservative, Calgary East, AB]

Mr. Speaker, when we talk about case by case, many factors are taken into account, not just one factor I repeat, we will take many factors into account. We stand for human rights. I have just mentioned the international law that states how the death penalty works, and I gave examples. If he had listened, he would have made up his mind. We have stated that it will be on a case by case basis.

[Bernard Patry, Liberal, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs if he read the motion carefully as it stands, because the motion talks about—and this is a matter of principle—the death penalty in Canada and around the world.

He said he would vote in favour of the motion. Furthermore, he just said in his reply that he would look at it on a case-by-case basis, outside of Canada. It is very confusing. I would like him to be more clear.

[Deepak Obhrai, Conservative, Calgary East, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is worth recalling and reminding all Canadians that the death penalty in and of itself is not against international law. Do members get it? It is not against international law.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would first like to congratulate the hon. member for Mount Royal whose concern for human rights is well established. The member for Mount Royal was a professor emeritus at McGill University. He served as justice minister and his passion for human rights issues is well known both in Canada and around the world. I congratulate him for the timeliness of his motion.

It is at times like these that we realize just how strange our government is, a government that has no common sense, that does not deserve a majority mandate, and I hope this expression is not unparliamentary, that is dangerous. We are no longer talking about healthy differences in ideologies between left and right. We have before us a government that is extremely dangerous, in terms of ideology, that is taking us decades back in time.

We had a somewhat conservative streak in Quebec under Robert Bourassa, who was for privatization and deregulation, but one could not imagine that a government that claims to adhere to the rule of law could be so disconnected from Quebec values. I allowed myself the use of the anglicism in the other official language, and I apologize to any former French teachers among us. One cannot imagine that a government could be so out of touch with the people.

This is no small matter. In the past three decades at least, in international forums such the United Nations, of course, all the governments of Canada have talked about, supported and promoted the fact that the death penalty is not the way to administer justice anywhere on the planet. It is possible to sentence people to life in prison, refuse to release them or make them ineligible for parole. But could any government be so archaic, so prehistoric, so behind the times that it would want to challenge a principle that speaks to the very essence of humanity?

Any country that has signed major international treaties dealing with the human condition, human rights and economic, social and cultural rights has an obligation to report. Canada has ratified the two major international treaties and must report as well. We are not talking about how we fight poverty or whether we are more to the left than other countries. We are talking about a fundamental principle that Canadian diplomacy has defended for 30 years in the international arena: Canada does not want to be associated in any way with regimes that retain the death penalty.

Not only does Canada not want to be associated with regimes that still use the death penalty, but when a Canadian or a Quebecker abroad is threatened with the death penalty, we expect the government to use all the means at its disposal to make representations and plead to have the death penalty commuted to life imprisonment.

We need to be clear. If people abroad, like Mr. Smith, have committed heinous crimes that are against our laws as well, we are not saying that they should be absolved and not punished. That is not our position. But administering justice by taking a life is not human. No democracy worthy of the name will defend such a principle. Despite all that, we have a government that is not able to make representations when they are needed.

This is not the first time that we have been embarrassed by this government on the international scene. We can give a number of examples. My colleague from Abitibi explained, in caucus, that this government was spineless, had no backbone, when the time came to defend the aboriginal peoples and ratify an international declaration. This government does not care about human rights.

For example, here in Canada the federal government and every province but one have a human rights charter with a clause prohibiting discrimination on the grounds of social condition. It is not rocket science. In Quebec, this clause has made it possible for heads of single-parent families to sue and win against owners who refused to rent them accommodation because their income was too low.

On two occasions, I tabled a bill to add social condition as a prohibited ground of discrimination to the Canadian Human Rights Act. The member for Sherbrooke also introduced a motion to this effect. The Liberals and my NDP friends gave their support. Who was opposed? None other than the Conservatives.

It is as though human rights were not on their radar. It is incredible to hear that. Not only are the Conservatives willing to recognize governments, but they are unable to make representations, when needed, to defend Canadian nationals facing the death penalty.

I was listening to the parliamentary secretary and other departmental representatives speak about countries that recognize the rule of law. What does the rule of law matter if you are facing the gallows? Such logic. They recognize the rule of law but are prepared to allow individuals to die, victims of capital punishment.

What a disappointing government.

Anyone who knows me knows that I am not the kind of person who gets upset about every little thing. But I was certainly upset about something that happened in my committee, the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. My colleague, the member for Beauséjour, introduced a motion to conduct an investigation into the Cadman affair. This affair has to do with ethics. There are allegations of corruption. And section 119 of the Criminal Code is very clear. We cannot have allegations of corruption; charges should be laid if necessary. The member for Beauséjour introduced a motion in committee, and we were not able to investigate anything because the Conservatives were against it.

This is not the first time that this government has committed worrisome human rights violations. The Bloc Québécois cannot accept that we are not advocating loud and clear, on the basis of human rights, the principle that the death penalty is not the way to administer justice.

In 1976, the Supreme Court ruled that it went against the great liberties, such as the right to security or the right to freedom, and that we have the right to sentence people, to discourage them from re-offending without using the death penalty.

It is truly unbelievable when we know that Canada has been a huge defender of the principle of the integrity of the individual. And not just Canada, but Quebec as well. We should acknowledge that Mr. Humphrey was one of the authors of the United Nations charter, which certainly defended these principles.

So it is rather disappointing to see that we are once again having this debate.

I know that the leader of the Bloc Québécois, the hon. member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie, made representations to the Governor of Montana about this individual, Mr. Smith, who was threatened, but nonetheless charged. We do not dispute the fact that he should be punished, but we did not think he should have been sentenced to death.

I would like to share with my colleagues the letter that was sent:

As members of Canada's House of Commons, we felt obliged to write to you regarding Ronald Allen Smith who is to be executed shortly in the State of Montana.

As you know, Canada abolished the death penalty in 1976. This position has been reinforced by the Supreme Court of Canada, which ruled that, under Canadian law, the death sentence constitutes cruel and unusual punishment.

The principle of cruel and unusual punishment falls under the charters enshrining the great fundamental freedoms, such as the Canadian Charter and the Canadian Human Rights Act.

The letter continues:

This is in line with Canada's traditional policy to oppose the death sentence, especially when the death sentence is applied to one of its citizens. We feel it is our duty to intervene with you, sir, in order to reaffirm that position.

We are perfectly aware that it is not up to us to interfere in Montana's legal affairs. That is why we are not seeking clemency for the crime committed. Mr. Smith was convicted and we respect that ruling. We are simply urging you to commute the death sentence in his case and to hand down some other form of sentence that will respect the basic right to life.

The State of Montana uses capital punishment. All the members of the Bloc Québécois, if I am not mistaken, signed the letter. And when it says “some other form of sentence” that could be a life sentence without parole. Every jurisdiction has its own criminal law, and it was not the intention of the signatories to interfere in that sort of detail.

The letter goes on:

In no way do we wish to excuse or comment on Mr. Smith's actions. We feel the utmost sorrow for the victims' families.

Of course, out of respect for the families of the victims, we have no wish to excuse this kind of behaviour. We are also very concerned about the repercussions of such crimes on the victims' families.

The letter concludes:

We hope, sir, that you will look favourably upon this letter. We also believe that Montana will do the right thing in the eyes of the international community by reversing its decision to enforce the death penalty, while maintaining its firm stance on the crime committed, by commuting the penalty to a different sentence.

The Ronald Allen Smith case is very similar to that of Stan Faulder, a Canadian executed in the United States in 1999. At the time, Canada intervened and asked that the death sentence be commuted, but without success. However, while the Canadian authorities and a delegation of MPs were intervening, a member of the Canadian Alliance went to Texas to show his support for the death penalty.

That very member currently sits in the Conservative caucus and is chair of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, of which I am a member. The governor who rejected the application to commute Stan Faulder's sentence was none other than George W. Bush, current President of the Unites States, friend and mentor of our Prime Minister.

With their letter, the members of the Bloc Québécois wanted to challenge this traditional view held by people who lean ideologically to the right that the use of the death penalty is a means of administering justice. Fortunately, tremendous progress has been made over the past two decades and fewer and fewer countries use the death penalty.

We have international watchdogs, through organizations such as Amnesty International, that report on this, and often even go to the prisons and intervene.

The members of the Bloc Québécois have done their job. My colleagues will correct me if I am wrong, but I think the Liberals and the NDP have also intervened with the Governor of Montana.

Resorting to the death penalty is not a good way to administer justice or to deter people.

I will conclude by saying that many studies are available. Countries with the death penalty do not necessarily have lower crime rates. That is not the right way to analyze these phenomena. The two are not connected. Some countries have higher crime rates than others, and very often, rising crime rates have more to do with economic circumstances than with criminal justice policies.

Obviously, this does not mean that we should accept just anything or that some situations should not be condemned or discouraged. That is not what we are saying. We recognize that in some situations, it may be justified for a court of law to sentence a person to 20 or 25 years for a particularly sordid crime, as a real deterrent. The administration of justice would lose its credibility without that kind of penalty. However, there is no correlation between the death penalty and lower crime rates in communities. This has been documented for years, and now, more and more liberal democratic countries are getting rid of the death penalty.

Therefore, I think that the government should revisit its policy. Both the Minister of Public Safety and the Minister of Justice should make it clear that they will not make decisions on a case by case basis, and that there is a non-negotiable principle, which is that regardless of the crime committed, a Canadian in a foreign country must be able to count on his government's support to escape the gallows. Of course, we have to make sure that justice will be served in that country. That might mean very heavy sentences.

According to a principle of sovereignty, we must respect other countries' internal justice systems, but we must also defend certain principles. For example, we would never consider deporting a citizen to a country that practices torture. We would consider that kind of scenario or situation unacceptable.

It is very sad that the hon. member for Mount Royal has had to table a motion on this. In my opinion, there ought to be such unanimity on it that it need not be part of the business of the House. As the hon. member for Compton—Stanstead has rightly pointed out, I am convinced that, in a sovereign Quebec, there would be such total consensus on this issue, with our code of values and our collective identity, that there would be no one in the National Assembly interested in defending the death penalty as a solution in the administration of justice.

This is the position of the Bloc Québécois, and one we have had to remind people of on a number of occasions. We have asked questions. Our foreign policy critic, the hon. member for Papineau, and other members have raised this in the House. Every time we have been disappointed with the government's response. What we got was a lukewarm and wishy-washy response, even though we are entitled to expect the government to be intransigent, affirmative and vigilant on these principles. I am sure that the day the government achieves such vigilance, affirmation and determination, it will find that all opposition parties will rise above all partisan differences and give it their support.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary secretary said that the government's position is to go on a case-by-case scenario to decide whether or not it will intervene in the case of a Canadian abroad who is facing the death penalty.

I would like to ask my colleague about this type of strategy. My concern is that we did not hear the parliamentary secretary outline a case about how the Conservatives would go about deciding who would be left behind and who would get advocacy. We also have not heard what that criteria might be and whether there would be a public policy. It will be interesting to see whether the Conservative government will actually table the rationale and the process that will be undertaken to identify who will receive support for advocacy or who will be abandoned.

I also was wondering what type of resources the government might actually invest on investigating a case that it may or may not advocate. Will the Conservatives actually put the proper resources in place to evaluate whether or not someone should get this advocacy?

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I do not know what the government's intentions are or what sort of resources it plans to invest, but I certainly share the member's concern that this type of situation must not be considered on a case-by-case basis. There needs to be a clear universal principle. The Conservative government has broken with the principles its predecessors upheld.

[The Deputy Speaker, Bill Blaikie]

Seeing no further question and comments, I think the House would probably understand if the Chair saw the clock as 5:15 p.m.

It being 5:15 p.m., therefore, and this being the final supply day in the period ending March 26, 2008, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the business of supply.

The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Deputy Speaker, Bill Blaikie]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Deputy Speaker, Bill Blaikie]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Deputy Speaker, Bill Blaikie]

In my opinion the yeas have it.

And five or more members having risen:

Call in the members.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Vote #64

Business of Supply

[The Speaker, Peter Milliken]

I declare the motion carried.

Supplementary Estimates (B), 2007-08

[Vic Toews, Conservative, President of the Treasury Board]

moved:

That Supplementary Estimates (B) for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2008 be concurred in.

[The Speaker, Peter Milliken]

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