Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak further to the issue of the death penalty and the question I posed in this House on April 4.
On March 12, this House adopted a motion that said:
--the government should stand consistently against the death penalty as a matter of principle, both in Canada and around the world.
The motion passed with a significant majority, with 255 members standing in this place to express their support, including many members of the government.
Given that this motion passed with government support, it is surprising that the government has yet to seek clemency for Ronald Allen Smith, the only Canadian citizen on death row in the U.S.
Indeed, it exemplifies the contradiction underpinning the question I posed on April 4:
How can the government affirm it is against the death penalty around the world and yet not seek clemency for Mr. Smith's death sentence?
In other words, how can the government affirm one principle in the House and oppose that very principle outside the House? This is a matter of matching words with action in a literal life-or-death situation.
The parliamentary secretary is fond of responding with a citation of how many times I have risen on this question, or conflating the issue of abolition of capital punishment with concern for victims of crime--and we all share concern for victims of crime--or, as that party does frequently, characterizing the debate as a waste of time.
In reality, Canadians, including Mr. Smith, have a right to know where the Conservative government stands on an issue as fundamental as the death penalty.
The problem is that the government's position is as unclear as it is inconsistent. For example, as I speak, the justice ministry's website still states:
In Canada, the abolition of the death penalty is considered to be a principle of fundamental justice.
And Canada has been at the forefront of international commitments to abolish the death penalty.
Clearly a government committed to abolition would have sought clemency for Mr. Smith.
A rather dramatic example of both the lack of clarity and inconsistency in the government's position took place during the actual debate on March 12 on the death penalty motion, during which the Minister of Public Safety said “we are opposing the motion” at approximately 4:30 p.m. One hour later, at 5:30 p.m. when the vote was taken, not only did the Minister of Public Safety, to his credit, vote for the motion, but the vast majority of his party did as well.
The mere fact that the government contradicted itself on its position within an hour is worrisome enough, though its actual voting position was to be commended. However, I remain concerned that even when it seems united on a position and does the right thing in the House, it still does not match what it votes inside the House with its actions outside the House.
Accordingly, while I am pleased that both the parliamentary secretary and the Minister of Justice voted in favour of the motion that “the government should stand consistently against the death penalty as a matter of principle, both in Canada and around the world”, in the over two months since the vote, neither they nor the government have made a statement that clemency was being sought.
On the contrary, they have made statements to the effect that they will not seek clemency.
I would certainly never accuse any hon. member, and certainly not these two hon. members, of something as unparliamentary as hypocrisy, but I would certainly query how one can, in good conscience, affirm one position as a matter of principle, yet then contradict it as a matter of policy.
I would like to close on one point, and that is with regard to the parliamentary secretary's position that he cannot speak on this matter as it is before the courts.
But the government has repeatedly affirmed that it is seeking clemency for Quebecker Mohamed Kohail, sentenced to death in a matter before the courts in Saudi Arabia.
Why does it hide behind an otherwise untenable position in the Smith case but not when it comes to the Kohail case? We support the request for clemency in that case.
Indeed, the government's very contradictory positions on principle and policy not only undermine the principles and policies themselves, but put both Ronald Smith and Mohamed Kohail at risk of execution.
To conclude, I repose the question, how can the government affirm it is against the death penalty around the world and yet not seek clemency for Mr. Smith's death sentence? Why does it affirm one principle in the House and oppose that very principle outside the House?