Warren Allmand

[Capital Punishment, September 20th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, in introducing this motion our colleagues from the Reform Party, the members for North Vancouver and Surrey-White Rock, have argued capital punishment is necessary to protect the public against murder and that it should be re-established in Canada at least as an option. They also argue we should have a referendum at election time to decide this issue.

There is no doubt murder is a most serious and heinous crime, perhaps the worst crime we have on the books. We should do everything possible to reduce the rate of murder and protect the public from violent crime.

Capital punishment will not accomplish that goal. There is overwhelming evidence that capital punishment is not effective in controlling murder and protecting the public. The American states that have brought back capital punishment, particularly the southern states of Texas, Louisiana and Florida, have the highest murder rates in the United States and much higher than countries such as Canada and those in western Europe which do not have capital punishment.

The United States is the only county in the western world that has capital punishment. Capital punishment was brought back in those states following an American Supreme Court judgment in the middle 1970s. While the murder rate in those states has decreased in a minor way in recent years it is still much higher than in states without capital punishment. That we have lower rates in non-capital punishment states does not mean it is the result of not having capital punishment, but rather the result concentrating on other measures to reduce violent crime.

In Canada the rate of homicide is a little over 2 per 100,000 population, whereas in the states of Texas, Louisiana and Florida it is about 10 per 100,000 population. In western Europe it is about 2 per 100,000 population as well, with some countries at less than 2 per 100,000.

If capital punishment is argued as a means of protecting the public, it is not protecting the public in Louisiana, in Florida, in Texas and those other American states where capital punishment is there for that very reason. All one has to do is visit those states to find out.

When I went to New Orleans I was told not to leave the French Quarter. I was told not to go out at night because there were so many murders in that city. It is a sad thing because it is a beautiful city.

Capital punishment is not an effective means of protecting the public. Furthermore it is seriously objectionable on other grounds. For example, it is irreversible when a mistake is made and there have been mistakes. At least if somebody is convicted of murder and is sent to prison for life he or she can be released if later proven not guilty. Such was the case of Donald Marshall and others. In Britain such was the case with the Guildford four. There are many cases around the world in which this happens. When this happens they can be released from prison and given some damages, some compensation. Once a person is executed it is game over.

It is objectionable in that it has always been applied in an inequitable manner. It has always been applied more heavily on minorities, on the poor, on immigrants, on the illiterate. Those who have had the big lawyers, the great court pleaders, these outstanding lawyers who cost a lot of money, have got off. Those who have not been able to do that have not got off. I could refer to a case in the United States right now but I will not.

My colleagues from the Reform Party referred to statistics in the United States. Of the total number of murders committed there only a small percentage of those convicted, although it is a high number in total terms, have been executed. That points out the inequity of the whole system.

If left as an option in Canada we would have gross inequities. It would mean one murderer in one province would probably be executed and one in another province for almost the same crime would not be executed. There would be great unevenness in the application of this most serious irreversible penalty.

The motion calls for a referendum on these matters. I am not opposed to referendums in principle, but they are not provided for in our constitution as a means of legislating issues and they are not traditional in the British parliamentary system. In our system we

are elected to office to represent the people, certainly to consult with them, to consult the evidence, to look at the facts, to inform ourselves, and then make a decision in the best interests of the public. The parliamentary system is not a system by referendum.

We have had three so-called referendums at the federal level in Canadian history, one on prohibition of liquor, one on conscription, and one on the Charlottetown accord. They were all advisory; none of them were binding. As a matter of fact, in the one on conscription and the one on prohibition the government of the day did not slavishly follow the results of the referendum. As a matter of fact, in the conscription case, although the country overwhelmingly voted yes for conscription, we ended up with a system where there was only conscription for service in Canada.

In any case, we have no system of binding referendums in this country. But if we are going to decide questions by referendum then it should be done according to a policy and not simply on an ad hoc basis. A referendum cannot be called only when you think you are going to win the case.

For example, would the hon. members in the Reform Party call for referendums on gun control or on medically assisted suicide? I notice that while they slavishly follow the polls with respect to who wants capital punishment, they ignored the popular polls with respect to gun control and also ignored the polls with respect to medically assisted suicide.

If we are going to have referendums we have to decide by policy or by legislation what matters are to be decided and not simply call for them when we think we are going to win. That is no way to run a government.

[Chemical Weapons Convention Implementation Act, June 19th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I will split my time with the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra.

This bill provides for the ratification and implementation of the chemical weapons convention which I have supported for a very long time. In January 1993 I had the good fortune to be present at the signing of this treaty in Paris, where I chaired a parallel conference of parliamentarians. The purpose of the parallel conference was to mobilize parliamentary support for the ratification of this important treaty. As a result I am now part of an international task force working toward this goal.

Unfortunately the ratification process has been very slow. Of the approximately 160 countries which signed the treaty since 1993, more than two years ago, only 27 at last count have thus far ratified and deposited its ratification. This is a very small number if we consider the great number of about 160 that have signed the treaty. I should point out that the treaty can only come into force six months after the ratification by 65 countries. We still have a long way to go.

The chemical weapons convention is the most comprehensive disarmament treaty ever developed. It is the end product of a quarter of a century of negotiations and culminates 100 years of international effort to eliminate chemical weapons from the world.

Many Canadians will still remember the horrifying experience of the chemical poison gas attacks of World War I which caused 1.3 million casualties and 100,000 fatalities. Many Canadians were killed in the gas attacks at Ypres in Belgium. Following World War I, great effort was made to ban these weapons. There was agreement in the 1925 Geneva protocol but this treaty only banned the use of chemical weapons in war and did not provide for inspection and verification.

This protocol, however, was never adequate. As members will know such weapons were used by Iraq 10 years ago and were threatened to be used during the gulf war. Fortunately they were not used. They have been described, because they can be delivered by missile, as the poor man's nuclear weapons. Without this treaty they would cause a serious threat to many countries in the world.

In comparison to the 1925 Geneva protocol, the chemical weapons convention, which is before us, bans the use, development, manufacture, distribution, transfer and stockpiling of chemical weapons. It also provides for the monitoring, inspection and enforcement of the treaty and provides for penalties when the treaty is broken. One provision provides for the destruction of current stockpiles.

Part of the enforcement machinery is the establishment of the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons known as the OPCW in The Hague as well as the establishment of national

authorities in all countries to monitor the internal enforcement as well as the import and export controls of these chemical weapons.

There is also the provision of criminal penalties for those who violate the treaty as implemented by this law. Consequently some cost is involved, such as the cost of the national and international authorities to monitor and enforce. However we understand that this is essential if we are serious about banning these cruel and horrible weapons.

There is also the cost of destroying existing stockpiles. This could be a considerable amount for those countries which have such weapons. In particular, I refer to the United States and Russia. Under the treaty, if these countries sign and ratify, they will have up to 15 years to destroy those stockpiles. Unfortunately neither the United States nor Russia have ratified although both have signed the treaty.

In conclusion I want to congratulate the Canadian government for its work in developing the treaty and now for its ratification through this bill. It is hoped that with this ratification by Canada impetus will be given to other countries to ratify as well. As I said at the beginning, 65 countries have to ratify before the treaty can be put into force.

I also want to congratulate those Canadian companies that manufacture chemicals and are co-operating with the government in the implementation of this treaty. This is the most advanced, complete disarmament treaty ever developed and I am extremely pleased to stand in the House and support it.

[Committees Of The House, June 16th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present in both official languages the ninth report of the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.

Pursuant to the order of reference of Monday, March 27, 1995 your committee has considered Bill C-72, an act to amend the Criminal Code with respect to self-induced intoxication. After a series of meetings and witnesses your committee has agreed to report the bill with amendments.

This is Parliament and the government's response to the Daviault judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada.

[Criminal Code, June 15th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I have two questions I should like to put to the hon. member who is known to be an eminent lawyer.

Members of the Reform Party have suggested that in section 718.2 certain groups are favoured over others. For example, if people are attacked or a crime is committed against them because of their race, national ethnic origin, language, et cetera, they are favoured in sentencing over people who do not belong to the groups listed. In committee we amended that section to add the words "or any other similar factor" so that there would now be no limitation on the groups to be considered under the hate crime provisions.

Now, with that amendment made in committee, if people were attacked because they were bald, fat, Liberals, or Reformers, they would be taken up in the new wording added in committee "or any other similar factor". I would ask the hon. member to comment on that.

Second, it has been suggested that even if we were to include all other groups, why should we have a harsher sentence for a hate crime against a group than for a hate crime against an individual. Is it not true that if in the Criminal Code the maximum penalty for a crime is 10 years, 15 years or life-and I give the example of the Reform Party member of people in his town going down the street and beating up people because they are hateful, not because they are hateful against the group-the judge can give the maximum sentence? If it is 10 years he can give 10 years.

This clause states that if he was to give five years rather than the maximum he might give two more years; he might give seven years. If it is a crime against an individual, could the judge not give the full maximum sentence even though no hate under this section was allowed?

I will put those two questions to the hon. member.

[Criminal Code, June 15th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I want to pay tribute to the hon. member who worked very hard in the committee. In his speech he suggested that there were provisions in the bill that would give priority to people with brown eyes and blue eyes. He said that the bill might favour people with blue eyes as opposed to those with brown eyes or brown eyes as opposed to blue eyes, that one would be in a more favoured position than the other. That is not correct. I would ask the member to look at this once again.

The bill states, for example, hate based on race. It does not state that any one race would have precedence over another. They are all equal. In other words, if the violence was committed against whites it would be subject to the provisions of this bill, as would violence committed against blacks or against people with yellow skin. No group is given priority over the other.

With respect to nationalities, it states nationality. It does not state English over French or English over Polish. It states religion. It does not state Jewish before Catholics or Catholics before Presbyterians. In other words, there is no prioritizing of any of the groups. They are all equal.

All races, all nationalities, all colours, all religions, all sexes, all ages, all mental or physical disabilities are equal and all sexual orientations are equal. If people were to attack heterosexuals they would be protected by the provisions of this bill as would gays and lesbians.

The member was in the committee when the Canadian Bar Association and the Barreau du Québec, very eminent lawyers, made that very exact submission. How can he say that the bill favours one group over another when it obviously does not? It is in very general terms and no one group is favoured over another. That was the evidence presented to us by the eminent lawyers who appeared before the committee.

[Criminal Code, June 15th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am wondering, with unanimous consent, whether I could put a question to the hon. member with respect to his speech. I know that for his speech there is no provision for questions, but I am wondering if we could have unanimous agreement to put a question to him.

[Firearms Act, June 13th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I do not know what statistics the hon. member is looking at. I do not have them here before me today but I looked at some this morning because I have to give another speech tonight on homicide at another place.

The rate of murder in the United Kingdom is less than 2 per 100,000; less than in Canada where it is 2.19 per 100,000. In the United States the rate of murder is 9.6 per 100,000. I do not know what the hon. member is talking about. Let us hear his figures.

The rate of murder in the United Kingdom is lower than in Canada and the rate of murder with guns is much lower than in Canada and much lower than in the United States.

The member has not presented us with any facts. I challenge him. I will come back to the House tomorrow under a standing order and put the facts on record. In all of Europe the rate of crime committed with guns is substantially lower than in the United States and in Canada. He cannot state otherwise. There may have been a slight increase, but the slight increase is nowhere near that of the United States which has open access to guns.

He asked why we do not spend the money on other programs which might deal with the causes of crime. I am rather surprised by that. Every time the government has put proposals to the House in that direction members of his party vote against them. Not only do they not approve of the cuts the government has made in social programs, they want to cut them even further-what hypocrisy.

The people who will pay for the registration system and the licensing system will be the gun owners, just like those of us who own automobiles have to pay for the registration system and the licensing system. The general taxpayer should not have to pay for the gun control system. It should be paid for by the people who own and use guns, and rightly so. The moneys we would use for general social programs to attack the causes of crime will come out of general tax revenue. They should not be played one against the other.

[Firearms Act, June 13th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, as chair of the justice committee which intensely and thoroughly examined the bill for over seven weeks, I should like to report more fully to the House of Commons.

After the bill was sent to the committee on April 24, we held 52 meetings lasting until June 5. In that time we heard 70 witness groups.

While I am and always have been a strong supporter of gun control and a supporter of Bill C-68, I took the position as chair of the committee that I would bend over backward to accommodate those groups which opposed the bill, to accommodate those members of Parliament and parties who had concerns about or opposition to the bill. I did this because I think the credibility and integrity of the parliamentary system take precedence over partisan views and behaviour. As a result, approximately two-thirds of the witnesses who appeared before the committee were in opposition to the bill and 61 amendments were made.

Further amendments were made last night at report stage. Of course not all amendments were accepted, which is normal in a democratic society where there are opposing views. Some of the amendments would have cut out the essential elements of the bill, and therefore they were opposed. Other amendments which were directed to major and minor improvements in the bill were not convincing to the majority on the committee.

Now I should like to take off my committee chairman's hat and put on my House of Commons hat and show my support for the bill. Ever since I was elected in 1965 I have been a strong supporter of gun control. Nearly all the elements in this bill and in Bill C-17 from 1992 were contained in one or other of my private member's bills from the late 1960s and early 1970s. With this bill nearly all the proposals I made 30 years ago will have been legislated.

Over and over again, before the committee, witnesses opposing the bill said there was no evidence that the licensing of gun owners and the registration of guns would reduce crime. That is not correct. There is overwhelming evidence that where guns and gun owners are more strictly controlled there is less crime with guns.

If we examine the situation in western Europe where in nearly all countries guns are registered, they have a much lower rate of crime with guns. In Canada, where we have had the registration of handguns for many years, we have had a lower rate of crime with handguns than in the United States where handguns or no guns are registered at all.

Some people might refer to some of the states of the United States that have very strict gun laws, but we cannot really consider them because in the United States there is no border control between the states. For example, if one is in New York State one can very easily travel to a neighbouring state where guns are easily available. Therefore the strict gun laws in one American state do not have very much impact on the control of crime with guns.

However, in Canada, as I say, we have had very strict control on handguns which have been restricted weapons since 1934. In Canada 53 per cent of our crimes with guns are with long guns, whereas only 17 per cent of crimes with guns are with handguns. It is interesting to note that in the United States the statistics are exactly the opposite where two-thirds of its crimes with guns are with handguns. This demonstrates that where we control handguns we have a much lower rate of crime with handguns. Because we have no control on long guns most of our crimes with guns are with long guns.

The purpose of licensing is to screen out irresponsible, imbalanced reckless persons who might acquire guns, to screen out people who have problems with alcohol or narcotics. The licensing system in the bill is merely an extension of what we have already had for several years with firearms acquisition certificates.

The registration system will require more responsibility from gun owners and provide police with more tools for crime prevention and crime detection. The purpose of both of these measures is public safety. The bill requires no more of gun owners than we already have in varying degrees for automobiles, boats, aircraft, ski-doos, dogs and bicycles. In other words, the measures in the bill with respect to licensing and registration are for preventive policing, the approach of the police these days, to prevent crimes than after the crime applying a harsh penalty. It is much better to prevent the crime by keeping guns out of the hands of dangerous, irresponsible people than to punish them after they have committed the crime.

Furthermore, I want to make absolutely clear there is no intention at all by me or anybody else in government to ban all guns or ban hunting or competitive shooting.

This is my fourth gun bill debate since I came here in 1965. On those four occasions this fear was raised by opponents of those bills. It never happened. We have as many or more hunters today than we had in 1965 when we first started introducing bills to control guns.

On the other hand, while there has been no real reduction in the number of hunters or competitive shooters there has been a gradual reduction of crime with guns. In 1974, 47.2 per cent of homicides were with a firearm. In 1976, we passed a law that brought in a certain restriction on firearms. That was the year we brought in the firearms acquisition certificate. By 1980 only 32.9 per cent of homicides were committed with a firearm. In 1992 we had Bill C-17 with further restrictions and further controls on firearms. In 1993, the last year for which we have statistics, only 30.6 per cent of homicides were with firearms.

In that period homicides have declined as well. The highest rate for homicides in recent years was in 1975 when we had 3.02 homicides per 100,000 population. In 1993 there were 2.19 per

100,000, a considerable drop after stricter controls on guns and as well the abolition of capital punishment in 1976.

I will deal with some of the myths raised during the hearings of the committee, one being if we control guns more strictly only criminals will have guns. Sixty-six per cent of homicides are committed by people with no prior criminal record. In other words, 66 per cent were law-abiding until they committed homicide. Marc Lépine, who killed 14 women at l'École polytechnique, had no prior criminal record. Valery Fabrikant, who killed four professors at Concordia University, had no prior criminal record.

We will never control professional gangsters or professional criminals; they will always get their guns. The great majority of our murders are not committed by those people but by people who were previously law-abiding.

The other myth is that guns do not kill, people kill. That is true but people kill more easily and more effectively with guns than with other weapons. Guns are the most lethal of weapons. When a gun is readily available what might have been an assault becomes a murder.

There is considerable evidence from Canada, the United States and all over the world that where guns are more available there are more crimes with guns. The bill will restrict the availability of guns to many who might use them criminally. It will also put barriers in the way of those who want to acquire them quickly and irresponsibly. The bill will reduce crime with guns. It will control not only guns but crime.

[Committees Of The House, June 7th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the eighth report of the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.

Pursuant to the order of reference of Wednesday, April 5, 1995, your committee has considered Bill C-68, an act respecting firearms and other weapons. Your committee has agreed to report it with approximately 61 amendments.

I want to mention that in considering this bill the committee heard 70 witness groups over a two-month period, representing all points of view. I want to thank all witnesses for their views on this important matter. I also want to thank the members of the committee, who co-operated through many long meetings to improve and to clear this bill.

[Criminal Code, June 6th, 1995]

Madam Speaker, on May 11 I asked the Minister of Foreign Affairs what was being done to assure the extension of the non-proliferation treaty, which was then being negotiated in New York City. In particular, I asked what was being done to oblige the nuclear weapon states to respect article VI of the treaty.

According to article VI, the nuclear weapon states are obliged to reduce their nuclear weapons. That was part of the non-proliferation treaty bargain. The non-nuclear weapon states agreed not to develop nuclear weapons, while the nuclear weapon states committed themselves to reducing their nuclear arsenals.

What happened? Since the treaty was implemented in 1970 the non-nuclear weapon states, Canada included, developed or acquired no nuclear weapons. In other words, the non-nuclear weapon states totally respected the treaty. On the other hand, the three nuclear weapon states, the United States, the Soviet Union, and the United Kingdom, ignored their obligations under article VI.

In 1970, when the treaty was brought into force, the United States and the Soviet Union had 8,000 nuclear weapons. By 1990 they had 50,000 nuclear weapons. Not only did they not reduce their nuclear weapons, they increased them in a spectacular way.

Since the treaty was limited to 25 years, until March of this year, was necessary to renegotiate its continuation, and that is what was being done this spring in New York. However, one of the major problems with many of the countries that were brought to reconsider the treaty was the failure of the nuclear weapon states to live up to their obligations under article VI. Many non-nuclear weapon states asked why they should support the extension of a treaty that was not respected by the nuclear weapon states.

That was the question I put to the minister on May 11. Unfortunately, the parliamentary secretary did not answer that part of the question. He told me, and I was extremely pleased, that on that very day there had been an agreement to extend the non-proliferation treaty for an indefinite period of time. He did not, however, mention the conditions. He did not say what was being done to oblige the nuclear weapon states to reduce their nuclear weapons in accordance with article VI.

I have since learned that review conferences will continue to be held every five years to promote full implementation of the treaty and that there was a commitment to approve the comprehensive test ban treaty by 1996 as well as the establishment of certain nuclear free zones.

Once again ask the parliamentary secretary what measures are being taken to assure that the nuclear weapon states will comply with article VI of the NPT. Also, what is being done to assure universal adherence to this important treaty?