House of Commons Hansard #60 of the 39th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was c-10.
The Deputy Speaker NDP Bill Blaikie
The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion at second reading stage of Bill C-484 under private members' business.
The Deputy Speaker NDP Bill Blaikie
I declare the motion carried. Accordingly, the bill stands referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.
(Bill read the second time and referred to a committee)
The House resumed from March 4, consideration of the motion and of the amendment.
The Deputy Speaker NDP Bill Blaikie
The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the amendment to Motion No. 383 under private members' business.
The Deputy Speaker NDP Bill Blaikie
I declare the amendment carried.
The next question is on the main motion as amended.
The hon. member for Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques on a point of order.
Louise Thibault Independent Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC
Mr. Speaker, since it is already 7:00 p.m., if my colleagues agree—very seldom do I seek unanimous consent—would it be possible to apply the result of the vote just taken to the next motion? I will be happy to do so.
Paul Szabo Liberal Mississauga South, ON
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I seek the unanimous consent of the House to see the clock as 6:59 p.m.
The Deputy Speaker NDP Bill Blaikie
Before I hear the point of order from the hon. member, I did want to inform the House that because of the delay there will be no private members' business hour today.
Accordingly, the order will be rescheduled for another sitting and we will proceed to the adjournment debate. I did not want the House to consider the hon. member's point of order in a vacuum, shall we say.
Paul Szabo Liberal Mississauga South, ON
Mr. Speaker, under the circumstances, where the rule is that when 7 o'clock is reached this decision would be taken, since we are so close to it I wonder if we could seek unanimous consent to see the clock as 6:59 and deal with this private member's item tonight.
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.
Liberal
Irwin Cotler Liberal Mount Royal, QC
Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak further to a question I posed during question period on February 7. The day prior, on February 6, the government voted unanimously against the motion reaffirming what had been Canada's traditional abolitionist policy on the death penalty.
In particular, the motion adopted by the House reaffirmed that there is no death penalty in Canada; that it is the policy of the government to seek clemency, on humanitarian grounds, for Canadians sentenced to death in foreign countries; and that Canada will continue its leadership role in promoting the abolition of the death penalty internationally.
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.
It is as painful as it is shocking to appreciate today that had capital punishment been imposed, Mr. Truscott would not have lived to have his wrongful conviction overturned and his name cleared.
Thirty years ago, the abolition of capital punishment became the law of the land, anchored in principle and precedent and manifested in policy and practice. It found expression in our extradition policy prohibiting the extradition of Canadian nationals to a death penalty state in the U.S.
It is anchored in decisions by the Supreme Court of Canada characterizing the death penalty as a violation of the charter's prohibition on “cruel and unusual punishment”. It extended to our seeking clemency on behalf of Canadian citizens sentenced to the death penalty abroad, including the United States.
It resonated in our international leadership in this matter, as in our ratification of the second optional protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, wherein Canada stated that it was “desirous to undertake an international commitment to abolish the death penalty”.
It has found evidentiary support in the recent comprehensive report by the American Bar Association, which shows that, in death penalty states, there is a disproportionate and prejudicial impact on minorities, on the indigent and those unrepresented by counsel or represented by ineffective counsel.
Regrettably, the Canadian government reversed 30 years of law and policy, principle and precedent, in announcing that it would not seek clemency for the only Canadian, Ronald Smith, now sentenced to death by lethal injection in the state of Montana. Moreover, it has done so even though the United States supreme court is reviewing the constitutionality of that practice.
I am pleased that the government has announced that it will seek clemency for a Canadian citizen, Mohamed Kohail, under threat of the death penalty of decapitation in Saudi Arabia.
The government 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 at variance with principles of equality and due process.
Moreover, any decision not to seek clemency presupposes in every instance that both a person is guilty and that death is the appropriate penalty. What this fails to account for is a possibility of a wrongful conviction or other miscarriage of justice, and that there is no appeal from a wrongful conviction.
This exposes just one of the many problems with the government's case-by-case policy and the need to have a consistent standard regarding the death penalty, such as that outlined in the motion adopted by the House.
In short, the government made a decision that goes against laws and policies that have been in effect for a long time. In addition, the reasons the government gave for its decision indicate that it is motivated by ideological and political considerations and not based on case law, evidence or precedents.
Rob Moore ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada
Mr. Speaker, I think this is the third time the hon. member has requested a late show on this very issue. I know I have risen to speak to it three or four times.
It would be nice, just for once, for a Liberal member to bring up an issue involving victims of crime. That would be refreshing for me, but I think Canadians overall are seeing that time and time again there is only one party that is actually standing up for the victims of crime and it is our party and our government.
Let me illustrate that. We have just passed the Tackling Violent Crime Act. We have introduced a strategy on drugs to protect young people, the most vulnerable, but it would be nice and I think refreshing if individuals on all sides of the House were interested in victims' issues.
The member raises this issue of capital punishment. The Minister of Justice has said several times, and we have all heard him, that there are no plans to change the laws in Canada with respect to the death penalty, but it seems that no matter how many times the minister says this, the hon. member cannot accept it.
The issue of capital punishment, as the hon. member knows, was addressed during the winter of 1975-76, when the government presented Parliament with a legislative package that, among other things, proposed the abolition of the death penalty. On July 14, 1976, after a series of lengthy debates, and in a free vote, the House of Commons passed Bill C-84, which took effect upon receiving royal assent on July 26, 1976.
Although capital punishment was not abolished until 1976, no one has been subjected to it in Canada since 1962, when two offenders were executed at the Don Jail in Toronto. Thus, the current state of the criminal law in Canada, as it has been since 1976, is that we do not impose the death penalty for any offence. The government's position on this issue, as confirmed by the Minister of Justice several times, is also equally clear. There is no intention to change this law.
Canada's position on the international level as well has been made very clear. As a matter of fact, it was reflected as recently as November 15, 2007, when Canada voted in support of the EU resolution at the United Nations General Assembly.
It is important, however, to recognize that the death penalty is not unlawful in international law. States that have not adhered to the second optional protocol can continue to employ the death penalty as the ultimate punishment within their criminal justice systems.
The government recognizes the sovereign decision of each state to determine its own laws. However, the government also continues to advocate for full respect for international safeguards where the death penalty is still in use.
As the Speech from the Throne stated, there is no greater responsibility for a government than to protect Canadians' right to safety and their right to security. This government will continue to fight for Canadians and ensure that our families are safe.
Liberal
Irwin Cotler Liberal Mount Royal, QC
Mr. Speaker, this is not a matter relating to support for victims of crime. We have no difference between us on that issue. I introduced a proposal with respect to protection of victims of crime when I was justice minister.
What is at issue here is the death penalty. Apart from the assault by the government's policy on principle, precedent, policy and practice of 30 years, it ignores the rights of the wrongfully accused. It ignores those who are victims of wrongful conviction. I would hope that the member opposite would take that into account as well.
And if there is no intent to change government law and policy, why is it that the government voted against a motion adopted by the House to reaffirm Canadian law and policy, principle and precedent?
With regard to illegality, the death penalty is unconstitutional in Canadian law and we were supporting a similar policy and practice internationally.
Conservative
Rob Moore Conservative Fundy Royal, NB
Mr. Speaker, I recognize the subject matter of the hon. member's question. I was merely stating that it would be refreshing to hear members on the other side raise victims' issues as our members of Parliament on this side constantly do.
I have already said several times that our government has no intention to change the law in this regard. I should mention in regard to the hon. member raising the issue of human rights that not only is our government fighting for human rights here in Canada, and we have raised several issues even this week, but we are also fighting for human rights abroad.
We continue to raise human rights issue internationally. I would say that no government in the world has stood up more strongly for basic human rights than our government has been doing as of late. I think it has been refreshing for Canadians to see a government that is willing to take a strong stand, not only here in Canada but internationally, in advocating--
Liberal
Wayne Easter Liberal Malpeque, PE
Mr. Speaker, the government has a duty to demonstrate that it is prepared to assist our struggling farm community and to date it has refused to do so.
Let me make two points in the beginning. One, the income of Canadian farmers is crucial in sustaining Canadian food sovereignty, and two, Canadians want truth in labelling of food on grocery store shelves.
I raised a number of questions related to the crisis facing our hog and beef producers and the crisis the government is intent upon inflicting upon our western Canadian grain farmers through its illegitimate efforts to undermine the Wheat Board.
As I stated in my question on January 31:
The minister talks about programs, raising expectations, but never delivers real cash.
The response I received then from the minister was:
I advise the member for Malpeque to hang onto his chair, quit sitting on his hands and support the budget when it comes up and more cash flow for Canadian farmers.
Now we know that statement by the minister was a falsehood, because there was no cash flow in the budget for farmers. There was no new money, with one small exception, and that is the $50 million cull sow program which is designed to get farmers out of business.
In fact, the action by Bill C-44 to allow the December 19 money to flow to farmers came about as a result of Liberal suggestions released at a press conference in Charlottetown about 10 days before the announcement by the government. Those suggestions were also tabled in this House in the emergency debate on the livestock crisis. However, the government failed to implement all of our suggestions.
I heard the parliamentary secretary heckle, but I would say to him to live and learn and go back to the emergency debate and look at the recommendations put forward by myself with the strong support and efforts of Cindy Duncan McMillan. Those suggestions are there. The government has picked a couple of them and with our assistance the government managed to get them through the House last Monday so that farmers could gain some money. The government is still failing to deal with the crisis.
The minister told this House on January 31:
We delivered more for Canadian farmers in the last short term than the Liberal government did over 13 years, $4.5 billion and climbing.
The parliamentary secretary repeated those statements on February 13.
The minister has obviously not read his own department's farm income forecast report of February 8, which states in part that program payments reached a “record level of $4.9 billion in 2005”. To refresh the minister's memory, the government of the day in 2005 was Liberal.
The report from Agriculture Canada contained some additional information which Canadians should be made aware of, considering the minister has used program spending as the criteria of success. In aggregate program payments for 2008 in Canada, they are expected to fall by 6% to $3.8 billion.
The translation of that for the members opposite is that the Conservative government, according to Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, has effectively reduced agriculture program spending by $1.1 billion. It is time they acted.