House of Commons Hansard #65 of the 39th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was policy.

Topics

Questions Passed as Orders for ReturnsRoutine Proceedings

4 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

Motions for PapersRoutine Proceedings

March 12th, 2008 / 4 p.m.

Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre Saskatchewan

Conservative

Tom Lukiwski ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform

Mr. Speaker, I ask that all notices of motions for the production of papers be allowed to stand.

Motions for PapersRoutine Proceedings

4 p.m.

Conservative

The Acting Speaker Conservative Andrew Scheer

Is that agreed?

Motions for PapersRoutine Proceedings

4 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

Opposition Motion--Death PenaltyBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

4 p.m.

Liberal

Irwin Cotler Liberal Mount Royal, QC

moved:

That, in the opinion of the House, the government should stand consistently against the death penalty as a matter of principle, both in Canada and around the world.

Opposition Motion--Death PenaltyBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

4 p.m.

Conservative

The Acting Speaker Conservative Andrew Scheer

Since today is the final allotted day for the supply period ending March 26, 2008, the House will go through the usual procedures to consider and dispose of the supply bills. In view of recent practices, do hon. members agree that the bills be distributed now?

Opposition Motion--Death PenaltyBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

4 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

Opposition Motion--Death PenaltyBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

4 p.m.

Liberal

Irwin Cotler Liberal Mount Royal, QC

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak in support of the motion that stands in my name. The motion states:

That, in the opinion of the House, the government should stand consistently against the death penalty as a matter of principle, both in Canada and around the world.

One would have hoped, and believed, that such a motion would not even have to be proposed, but it has been rendered necessary by the government's own action and inaction in these matters, in its refusal to seek clemency for Alberta born Ronald Allen Smith, the only Canadian on death row in the United States, and in particular, by the government's reversal of a long-standing law and policy, principle and precedent, on both the domestic and international levels.

What is more, not only have the government's actions and inaction reversed long-standing law and policy—with respect to principle and precedent, which is troubling—they also reflect a disturbing trend that puts the priority on ideology and politics at the expense of long-standing, respected principles and policies.

Indeed, an appreciation of the government's decision reveals a government acting in ignorance of, or indifference to, law and precedent, both domestic and international, and even unaware of what its own departments and diplomats are otherwise affirming.

For example, on October 27, 2007, just days before the government flip-flopped on this issue, the Minister of Foreign Affairs reaffirmed Canada's traditional policy, stating that “Canada's policy is to seek clemency, for humanitarian reasons, for Canadians sentenced to death in foreign countries” and that “there is no death penalty in Canada, and the government does not support the death penalty”.

As well, it would seem the government was not yet speaking with an informed and unified voice.

Canadian diplomat Kimberly Lewis of the Canadian Consulate in Denver visited Mr. Smith in prison on October 2007 on the occasion of the government in Ottawa saying it would not seek clemency for Mr. Smith, wherein she personally promised Mr. Smith, “the Canadian government was and would continue actively pursuing both his commutation and transfer to Canada”.

Accordingly, when the government's decision not to seek clemency then was announced, Mr. Smith called Kimberley Lewis, with whom he had just met. Ms. Lewis had to acknowledge that she was unaware of the policy reversal.

A Canadian diplomat entrusted with the carrying out of Canadian policy was not even aware of the abrupt change in that policy, thereby misinforming a person on death row that the government will seek clemency on his behalf when the government decided not to seek clemency on his behalf.

What kind of decision making is this, even leaving aside as a matter of principle the wrong-headed reversal of Canada's long-standing Canadian law and policy? Indeed, even the justice department's own website still reads, as I speak, that “the abolition of the death penalty is considered to be a principle of fundamental justice”. Surely something so fundamental should not be so abruptly, if not callously, changed without consent or consultation of the governed, in disregard of the Constitution, and in ignorance of the government's own diplomats entrusted with carrying out its policy.

This is a shocking display of ineptitude, ignorance and callous indifference to principle, policy and human life.

I would like now to outline eight major grounds of principle and precedent, law and policy, which the government has either been ignorant of or indifferent to and which has necessitated this motion. It is as much a matter of setting the record straight as reaffirming our long-standing law and policy on both the domestic and international levels.

First, the government's abrupt about-face contradicts Canadian law and policy respecting extradition. Canadian law prohibits the extradition of an individual to a jurisdiction which imposes the death penalty. Specifically, Canadian law would therefore prohibit the extradition of an American national to a state in the United States that practises the death penalty. Yet the Canadian government will not intervene in the case of a Canadian citizen sentenced to death in an American state.

So the question: Does the Canadian government plan to change our extradition law as well, and if it does not, as it recently suggested, will we then have double standards applied, for example, to Canadian and American citizens in the matter of the death penalty, with no protection for the Canadian citizen, or will the government continue to act as if there is no extradition law at all?

Second, the Supreme Court of Canada in the Burns and Rafay case held that capital punishment was a violation of the section 7 charter right to life, liberty and security of the person and a violation of the principles of fundamental justice thereby, as well as a violation of section 12 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and its protection against cruel and unusual punishment.

Consequently, the court ruled that Canada could not remove Canadian citizens to the United States without receiving assurance from the state concerned that the death penalty would not be imposed.

In the words of the court, “an extradition that violates the principles of fundamental justice will always shock the conscious.... The death penalty has been rejected [in Canada] as an acceptable element of criminal justice. Capital punishment engages the underlying values of the prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. It is final and irreversible”.

Is the government aware of this decision and opinion of the Supreme Court of Canada, or is it indifferent to decisions and opinions of the Supreme Court and prepared to proceed, notwithstanding the law of the land?

Third, Canada's abolitionist policy, and leadership, on the death penalty has extended beyond our borders, as evidenced by our international undertakings in this regard.

On November 25, 2005, Canada ratified the Second Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights wherein Canada expressed inter alia that as a state party to the protocol, it is “desirous to undertake hereby an international commitment to abolish the death penalty”.

As minister of justice at the time, I stated that, “becoming a party to the treaty is part of Canada's effort to send a clear message on this important human rights issue”. I added, “Canada opposes the death penalty and we support the international trend toward its abolition. We urge all states that retain the death penalty to abolish it or to impose a moratorium on its use, and to become parties to the Second Optional Protocol”.

Is the government aware that we ratified this protocol? In this case as well, is it prepared to act in disregard of, or indifference to, our international commitments let alone our international leadership on these matters?

Fourth, on November 1, Canada did not co-sponsor a resolution presented to the UN General Assembly calling for an international moratorium on the death penalty. This also contradicts Canada's traditional position. Our country co-sponsored similar resolutions before the UN Commission on Human Rights every year from 1988 to 2005. Are we to conclude that Canada is turning its back on its international partners?

Fifth, the United States Supreme Court suspended execution by lethal injection in the state of Mississippi until a study could determine whether the method constitutes cruel and unusual punishment, which is forbidden under the American bill of rights.

In the case of Canadian Ronald Allen Smith, now sentenced to death by lethal injection in the State of Montana, is the government aware of the judicial review of the constitutionality of this practice now before the American Supreme Court; or is it, yet again, indifferent to it and prepared to turn a blind eye to what is happening, in breach, once more, of Canadian and international law and practice?

Sixth, a comprehensive study of the effects of capital punishment just released by the American Bar Association demonstrates that homicide rates in non-death-penalty states are no higher than in states that impose the death penalty. More importantly, the study shows that in death-penalty states, there is a disproportionate and prejudicial impact on minorities, the indigent, and those unrepresented by counsel or represented by ineffective counsel. Is the government aware of this data, or is it also indifferent to it, as it does not comport with its own ideological and political bent?

Seventh, any decision not to seek clemency presupposes in every instance that both a person is guilty and that the death penalty is the appropriate penalty. What this fails to account for is the possibility of wrongful conviction or other miscarriage of justice, and that there is no appeal from a wrongful conviction.

It is pertinent and poignant to recall that in 1959 a young 14-year-old named Steven Truscott was charged and convicted of the rape and murder of a 12-year-old and sentenced to hang. Fortunately, the sentence was commuted and 48 years later it was determined that Mr. Truscott was the victim of a miscarriage of justice, and an acquittal was entered into his case.

It is as painful as it is shocking to appreciate today that had capital punishment then been imposed, Mr. Truscott would not even have lived, let alone to have lived to have his wrongful conviction overturned and his name cleared.

Moreover, since 1973, 124 death row prisoners in the United States have later been found innocent.

Eighth, is the government's inconsistent and rather unprincipled character reflected in its clemency policy.

I am pleased that the government announced that it will seek clemency for Canadian citizen, Mohamed Kohail, under threat of the death penalty by decapitation in Saudi Arabia. But it did so while it maintained its position of not seeking clemency for the only Canadian on death row in the United States.

This brings me to the second part of my remarks. The reasons offered by the government for its unreasonable and even callous reversal of decision, which are even less reassuring.

For example, the government's initial mantra was that it did not want Mr. Smith to be returned to Canada and that it wanted to protect the security of Canadians. However, this was a red-herring. No one was seeking his return to Canada. The opposition is to the imposition of the death penalty, not to his conviction or to him serving a life sentence in the United States. We understand the pain and suffering of the victims of Mr. Smith's criminal act.

Fortunately the government no longer repeats this untenable and discredited mantra. The government then stated that it will not interfere “in a jurisdiction that is both democratic and respects the rule of law”, however, no one is arguing that Mr. Smith did not get a fair trial, or that the United States is not a democracy.

Indeed, the government is conflating the issue of capital punishment policy in a state of the United States with that of U.S. policy as a whole, or more, with whether the U.S. is a democracy or not, a matter that is utterly irrelevant to the issue at hand.

The government then proceeded to ground its reversal on a “case by case basis” and thereby justified its decision to intervene in the case of Saudi Arabia and not in the case of Mr. Smith on the grounds that it will “consider to seek clemency on a case-by-case” basis.

However, this is a seemingly arbitrary determination without criteria or process, which inherently prefers some lives before others, a notion also at variance with principles of equality and due process.

Moreover, is the government thereby wishing to convey in the case of Mr. Kohail that Saudi Arabia is not a democracy or that it does not exercise the rule of law, or both? If so, will it so advise its diplomats, conveying that decision to Saudi Arabia, with the attending prejudicial fallout that this might have not only for our diplomacy but also for advancing the justifiable case and cause for seeking clemency for Mr. Kohail?

As well, this ambiguous policy has been further obfuscated with the more recent addition that such case-by-case determinations would also factor into what is “in the best interest of Canada”, a no less vague and arbitrary measure, the whole of which creates a decision-making process without criteria or oversight, and seemingly without basis in law, principle, or precedent.

I would hope as well that the government will not resurrect again its false and ugly canard that those who support the abolition of the death penalty do not care about victims of crime.

Indeed, our party and all parties that support the abolition of the death penalty are no less committed and care about victims of crime.

However, the issue of the death penalty, as the Supreme Court has put it, is not one about victims of crime whose suffering we appreciate, but about fundamental justice under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and international law. It is about respect and reverence for the sanctity of human life.

As the United Nations human rights committee stated, “The right to life...is the supreme right from which no derogation is permitted” even in time of public emergency which threatens the life of the nation.

In a word, Parliament has abolished the death penalty. Canadian courts found it to be in violation of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms as a matter that shocks the conscience.

The Government of Canada has exercised international leadership on the matter of the death penalty “à plusieurs reprises”. International tribunals have affirmed and reaffirmed the sanctity of the right to life and characterized the death penalty as an assault on that fundamental right. The government is either ignorant of all this or choosing to be indifferent with all the negative and prejudicial fallout that this accounts for.

Certainly, the government, given its rhetoric about democratic countries with the rule of law as the basis for its seeking clemency on a case by case basis, should take this into account: our Canadian democracy, through which Parliament said no to the death penalty; our courts, including the Supreme Court, which said no to the death penalty; and our charter, which says no to the death penalty. Ours is a democracy speaking on this matter.

It should be noted here that Parliament recently voiced its opinion on the Conservative government's abrupt reversal of Canada's longstanding practice and policy by voting to reaffirm the traditional policy of Canada. Regrettably, the Conservative government voted unanimously against.

The government has repeated it has no intention of reopening the death penalty debate. I would like to take it at its word. However, the Prime Minister did state in 2004 that both the death penalty and the issue of abortion are not issues “for the first Conservative government”.

I am sure all members of the House and all Canadians would appreciate clarification from the government, given that indeed the death penalty has been opened up as an issue by this first Conservative government.

In summary, the government's decision is not only a violation of longstanding law and policy, principle and precedent both domestic and international but the reasons articulated by the government for its decision reflect a disturbing mindset where ideology and politics trump principle and policy.

It is time for the Government of Canada, as per the motion, to stand, consistently as a matter of principle, against the death penalty, both in Canada and around the world. This would be in accord with our law and policy, our principles, and precedents both domestic and international.

Opposition Motion--Death PenaltyBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

4:15 p.m.

Okanagan—Coquihalla B.C.

Conservative

Stockwell Day ConservativeMinister of Public Safety

Mr. Speaker, I am wondering if my friend representing the constituency of Mount Royal could read to us in one crisp, clear statement one clear example of any member of Parliament, government or otherwise, who has articulated in this Parliament a desire to reopen the debate on the death penalty? Could he give me one? Just one is all we ask for, not a long meandering supposition but one clear statement from one MP anywhere in this House?

Opposition Motion--Death PenaltyBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

4:15 p.m.

Liberal

Irwin Cotler Liberal Mount Royal, QC

Mr. Speaker, the very reversal by the government of the longstanding Canadian law and policy, principle and precedent, domestic and international, which I recounted throughout my speech, if the hon. member was listening, is the basis for questioning. That is as I put it, for questioning whether the government seeks to in fact reverse that policy as a matter of an act of Parliament.

The very policy reversal was itself putting the matter at issue already in this Parliament without the consent of Parliament.

My question, therefore, as I put it in my statement is: Is the Government of Canada prepared to give a reassurance that it will not any more reverse the longstanding Canadian law and policy, principle and precedent, as set forth in both domestic and international law?

Will he give us that assurance?

Opposition Motion--Death PenaltyBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

4:15 p.m.

Bloc

France Bonsant Bloc Compton—Stanstead, QC

Mr. Speaker, the minister was asking whether any Conservative members were at all in favour of the death penalty.

I have a document here that I will read slowly for the interpreters: “At the time...Canada intervened to ask that the death sentence be commuted, but was not successful.” This was in the case of Stanley Faulder, a Canadian who was executed in the United States in 1999.

However, while Canadian authorities and a delegation of members from this side of the House were making their case, a member of the Canadian Alliance, who is still a member for Calgary Northeast, went to Texas to affirm his support of the death penalty. He now sits in the Conservative caucus.

I would like to know what the member thinks about this statement, which came directly from the Canadian Conservative Reform Alliance.

Opposition Motion--Death PenaltyBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

4:20 p.m.

Liberal

Irwin Cotler Liberal Mount Royal, QC

Mr. Speaker, as I stated in my remarks, in which I put a question rhetorically to the government, the Prime Minister stated in 2004 that both the death penalty and the issue of abortion are not “issues for the first Conservative government”. I added that I take the government at its word.

However, I said, and I repeat, that I am sure that all members of the House and all Canadians would appreciate clarification from the government given that the debate on the death penalty has been reopened as an issue by the Conservative government, and that is why we are debating this motion today.

I would add that when a motion was presented in the House recently calling on the House to reaffirm traditional Canadian law and policy in this matter, all opposition parties voted in favour of the motion. The Conservative government, as a whole, unanimously voted against that motion. What are reasonable people to infer from a position unanimously taken by the government in opposition to that motion?

The question, therefore, is: Will the government show its true intention to commit itself to Canadian law and policy, principle and precedent, both domestic and international, by voting in favour of this motion? That will be the true test of where the Conservative government stands. That will be the true test whether it is seeking to not only open up this issue but in fact seek a subsequent reversal of this in Parliament.

Opposition Motion--Death PenaltyBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

4:20 p.m.

NDP

Joe Comartin NDP Windsor—Tecumseh, ON

Mr. Speaker, I will give the member for Mount Royal this scenario.

I would ask him to take the Smith case, with the same set of facts and points that have been proven or admitted to in the courts in Montana, but to add this one fact, that before Mr. Smith was apprehended he was able to escape from Montana and find his way back across the Canadian border. It is the same set of facts and allegations with regard to the murders.

Could he describe to me what would have happened at that point under existing Canadian law and, in particular, under the decision by the Supreme Court of Canada with regard to the extradition in those circumstances?

Opposition Motion--Death PenaltyBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

4:20 p.m.

Liberal

Irwin Cotler Liberal Mount Royal, QC

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to respond to the hon. member's question because if Mr. Smith had somehow managed to return to Canada, then the Canadian government, by law and policy, and, in particular, pursuant to the Supreme Court decision in Burns v. Rafay, would have been obliged not to extradite him back to the state of Montana unless the state of Montana provided express assurances that it would not impose the death penalty.

That, in fact, is the law of the land at this point and the question by the hon. member exposes fully the contradiction, if not absurdity, in the policy and practice of the present government in these matters.

Opposition Motion--Death PenaltyBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

4:20 p.m.

Bloc

Christiane Gagnon Bloc Québec, QC

Mr. Speaker, I have a comment for the Minister of Public Safety. They said that the Conservative Party was against the death penalty. But Canada surprised all of its natural allies by refusing to sponsor a resolution calling for a moratorium on the death penalty, a European Union initiative which had the official support of 87 countries. This was under Conservative rule. This gives us reason to worry about a return of the death penalty.

I wanted to give another example of why we are wondering about the Conservatives' motives concerning the return of the death penalty. They do not want to support a resolution that would abolish the death penalty, as was done over the last few decades. Under the Conservatives, the government abruptly changed its position in October 2007. That was not too long ago. There is another example.

Opposition Motion--Death PenaltyBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

4:20 p.m.

Liberal

Irwin Cotler Liberal Mount Royal, QC

Mr. Speaker, as I said in my remarks, on November 1, Canada was absent from the list of co-sponsors of a UN General Assembly resolution seeking an international moratorium on the death penalty. This decision also goes against Canada's traditional policy. The current policy of this government goes against our principles, our precedents, our law and our policy in this regard.

Opposition Motion--Death PenaltyBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

4:25 p.m.

Liberal

Paul Szabo Liberal Mississauga South, ON

Mr. Speaker, this is such an important issue but Canadians may not understand the key message that we want to give. I would like to give the hon. member an opportunity to reiterate, in some simple, straightforward terms for Canadians, the true Canadian position with regard to the death penalty.

Opposition Motion--Death PenaltyBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

4:25 p.m.

Liberal

Irwin Cotler Liberal Mount Royal, QC

Mr. Speaker, the Canadian position, as set forth by previous Canadian governments, is long-standing, affirmed by the Supreme Court of Canada and reaffirmed in our international commitments. It says that capital punishment is not part of the law and policy of Canada, that Canada will, therefore, seek clemency for any Canadian abroad who faces the death penalty in that jurisdiction, and that Canada will exercise international leadership with a view to both abolishing the death penalty or at least seeking a moratorium on its use in as many states as possible that at present practice the death penalty.

Opposition Motion--Death PenaltyBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

4:25 p.m.

Okanagan—Coquihalla B.C.

Conservative

Stockwell Day ConservativeMinister of Public Safety

Mr. Speaker, I would like to advise you that I will be splitting my time with my colleague, the member for Calgary East.

The motion that is before us today, I say regrettably and unfortunately, is a waste of this House's time. I say that with respect to the member who has just spoken from across the way because he is usually not one who would be engaged in an activity which, in fact, is a waste of the House's time.

This is an attempt, and I will not say by the member but certainly by the Liberal opposition, to draw debate where there is no debate, which is why we are opposing the motion. There are too many important issues before Canadians right now for us to be spending hours on this particular motion when the government has been most clear on this particular topic.

Some have suggested that this motion is a distraction from other difficulties that the Liberals are having, most notably the increasing and continual litany of humiliating voting responses by the Liberals, where it has gone as far now, as we have seen, where the leader of the Liberal opposition proposes a motion of non-confidence in the government and then tells his own members that they cannot vote for it. It has gone as far as being asked to join in a vote to ask the Senate to expedite very important criminal justice bills through the Senate, a simple motion like that, and they all walk out. The public is noticing one after another of these humiliating situations in which the Liberals continue to put themselves. Maybe that is why they are using something like this to take up House time and distract from the grim realities in which they now engage.

The motion calls on the government to reaffirm that there is no death penalty in Canada. We have said before and we will say again that there is no death penalty in Canada. The Minister of Justice and other members of the government have clearly said that. The member for Mount Royal must know that. This position has been articulated a number of times in recent days and he still has some audacity to stand in the House and say that they want to hear this articulated when it has been articulated on a number of occasions.

The government is not changing the law in our country with respect to the death penalty. We do not know how much clearer we can make that.

Since December 10, 1962, no one has been executed in Canada. That is over 45 years.

On July 14, 1976, the death penalty was removed from the Criminal Code. 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 there was a free vote right here in the House of Commons regarding reinstatement of the death penalty. The result of that vote by members of Parliament, who had polled their constituents before the vote, sent the very strong signal that Canadians were in favour of maintaining the abolition of the death penalty and, as the Prime Minister has confirmed, this government does not have the desire nor the intent to reopen the death penalty debate in Canada. We have said it before and we are saying it again. I do not know how much clearer we can make it.

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.

It should be recalled, somewhat parenthetically, that the death penalty is not in and of itself contrary to international law. International law clearly recognizes that different states may legitimately take different views on the issue of the death penalty itself.

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 that treaty since 1976. The covenant does not prohibit the imposition of the death penalty, but it sets out that states that retain the death penalty must abide by certain rules.

Canadian advocates have talked about, as we have talked about consistently, a strict adherence to and full respect for safeguards and the due process of law where the death penalty is still in use. We insist on that due process of law.

I want to conclude by reassuring the House. Despite suggestions from the opposition that we are wavering in our support for the abolition of the death penalty in Canada, nothing could be further from the truth. The House has spoken on this issue previously, we have spoken authoritatively, and we will not reopen this debate. I want to underline this. We said that clearly before this motion came into play, in the clearest of terms from the Minister of Justice and from other members of the government.

This is why we are saying that this particular motion is a distraction. It is taking important and necessary time away from debate, because it is not necessary since it is asking the government to do what the government has already done very clearly on a number of occasions.

Canada's record on justice issues speaks for itself. This is a government that stands for the rule of law, justice and the protection of human rights. Protection of society is a priority. It is not an afterthought. Our government remains unwaivering in its determination to keep Canadians safe. We will continue to deliver on what is important to Canadians: the safety and security of their communities.

Opposition Motion--Death PenaltyBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

4:30 p.m.

Liberal

Irwin Cotler Liberal Mount Royal, QC

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has characterized this debate as a waste of time. As I stated at the beginning, I would not have wished to have to introduce this motion, but the motion was necessitated by the government's own reversal of longstanding Canadian law and policy, principle and precedent, which I have set forth.

The motion did not, as the hon. member said, call for the reaffirmation of the Canadian policy on the death penalty. That was a motion which the government voted against some two weeks ago. This is a different motion. This motion asks that the government support “as a matter of principle” the policy against the death penalty, both domestically and internationally, which means it would support seeking clemency on humanitarian grounds for a Canadian who faces the death penalty abroad. That is the specific nature of this motion.

Therefore, I am inviting the government to announce that it is changing its policy of not seeking clemency and is reverting to the traditional Canadian policy.

Opposition Motion--Death PenaltyBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

4:30 p.m.

Conservative

Stockwell Day Conservative Okanagan—Coquihalla, BC

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague is jumping all over the place. That is understandable, because he knows he is on shaky ground on the question of where the government stands on the debate regarding the death penalty.

The government has been very clear on this. As I said in my remarks, the Minister of Justice has been very clear. Other members of the government have been very clear. We are not reopening the debate. We have no intent or desire to reopen the debate on the death penalty.

When I articulate that in the clearest of fashion, even as other members have done so, what does my hon. colleague do? He gets up and begins to cloud the debate with other issues when the motion in fact is very clear. The member should stick to the motion and stick to the question.

That is why we are saying, as we read the motion, that clearly we are in favour of maintaining the government's position in terms of being opposed to the death penalty. The essence of the motion is not the problem. The problem is that it is being used to waste time and distract from other things when our position is very clear.

We are not opposed to the Liberals continuing to ask the question. We are opposed to them using the valuable time of the House to ask a question that has been answered in the clearest of forms a number of times, and very recently.

Opposition Motion--Death PenaltyBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

4:35 p.m.

Liberal

Marlene Jennings Liberal Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC

Mr. Speaker, I have been listening to this debate with quite a bit of interest.

I will say about my esteemed colleague for Mount Royal that his ears must have been burning as he listened to the Minister of Public Safety repeat over and over again that it is the policy of the current government not to seek to overturn the death penalty in Canada. While I do not have the information in front of me, I will be more than happy to table, later today or early tomorrow morning, specific quotes from the minister himself, from the Prime Minister and from other members of the Conservative government who clearly stated that they support the death penalty.

The government may have a formal policy that it will not seek to reinstate the death penalty in Canada, but members of the cabinet, including the Prime Minister, and members of the Conservative caucus have clearly made public statements that have been publicly reported which indicate that they do favour revisiting the issue of the death penalty and having it reinstated.

I would ask my colleague from Mount Royal if his ears were burning as he listened to the Minister of Public Safety obfuscate--

Opposition Motion--Death PenaltyBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

4:35 p.m.

Conservative

The Acting Speaker Conservative Andrew Scheer

Order. The hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine cannot ask the question of the member for Mount Royal because the hon. Minister of Public Safety is the one who is on questions and comments.

I do not know if the hon. Minister of Public Safety wants to respond. He probably cannot answer for the member for Mount Royal.

Opposition Motion--Death PenaltyBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

4:35 p.m.

Conservative

Stockwell Day Conservative Okanagan—Coquihalla, BC

Mr. Speaker, I will try to deal with my emotions here in regard to being saddened at the suggestion that the member would rather hear from her own colleague than from me. I am going to try to pull myself together emotionally so as to be able to handle that.

We have been very clear, in the clearest of forms--

Opposition Motion--Death PenaltyBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

4:35 p.m.

Liberal

Marlene Jennings Liberal Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC

If you want the death penalty to come back, you should say that again.