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.
House of Commons photoWon his last election, in 2015, with 48% of the vote.
Business of Supply March 12th, 2008
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.
Business of Supply March 12th, 2008
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.
Business of Supply March 12th, 2008
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.
Business of Supply March 12th, 2008
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.
Business of Supply March 12th, 2008
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.
Afghanistan March 11th, 2008
Mr. Speaker, it is quite interesting to hear the NDP member talk about this mission as failing. We will never build anything if we have NDP logic. Those members nitpick what is not right and what has gone wrong. They never dwell on what has been achieved in Afghanistan and they never talk about it.
When the British defence committee was visiting here, and I met its members, I asked them one question: “Do you have any party in your parliament calling for the withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan?” I asked them that question and they said no. I asked the Germans and they said no. There was a German NGO here that was a left-leaning NGO with the same ideology as the NDP. She had come here to tell the NDP members not to abandon Afghanistan.
If their international cousins do not want to leave Afghanistan, and want to rebuild Afghanistan to provide security, why are they the only party among all the alliances that are there that is advocating to leave tomorrow? Why are they different from all their own ideology partners from around the world? Perhaps if they were to go and visit Afghanistan, they would join them.
Afghanistan March 10th, 2008
Mr. Speaker, the NDP is an extremely amazing party. It is unbelievable how it comes along with the logic of this thing, and totally forget about reality.
He talks about unilateral and multilateral. He says that there is not a difference between unilateral and multilateral. There is a difference.
First, the members of the NDP say that they want a UN mission. This is a UN mission under the UN authority by the security council. However, they do not want to recognize that. What other UN authority they want, I have no idea.
Then they say that we need to have capacity out there to go ahead now that NATO is working under the UN. I have no idea what peacekeeping they are talking about, and with people who do not want to even comment.
Perhaps my hon. colleague has seen the neighbour reconstruction offered by the neighbours of Afghanistan. Every country, India, Pakistan and China are all putting money into reconstruction of that country. Perhaps he should look at those reports and understand what is happening there.
Afghanistan March 10th, 2008
Mr. Speaker, I listened to the hon. member and I know about his background as a refugee from Hungary, on which he just elaborated on, and the failure of the international community to react when tanks moved into Hungary. My colleague from Edmonton—Strathcona talked about coming to Canada as a refugee.
When we have failed states, it is very important that the international community take action. Where it has taken collective action, we have seen some positive results. South Korea is one of the greatest examples where the Korean ambassador appealed to the UN. The UN responded and Canada, as part of the allies, took part in the international effort.
We lost 587 soldiers in Korea. I was at the memorial in South Korea for the 587 Canadians who lost their lives. When I visited the tunnels and the demilitarized zone, all the people thanked Canada for giving them freedom because they could see a very clear difference.
The NDP has put forward an amendment saying that the UN should take the peacemaking process and be involved in this. I am sure my colleague will answer this. Is this not a UN mission?
Afghanistan March 10th, 2008
Mr. Speaker, before I start my comment, I extend the government's deep condolences and share the pain of the loss of a Canadian soldier, including his cousin. Every time there is a loss of life of a Canadian soldier, it impacts all of us. It is like losing a member of our family, as we all support our troops. It is always a sorrow for Canada as a whole and we would like to extend our condolences to the family for this loss.
My colleague spoke about talking with the Taliban. He said that we needed to engage the enemy. We have an enemy that does not want to come to the table. We have an enemy with a different set of rules. It has a totally different idea of how a society should be. This is the group that has proved, when it was in power, how murderous it was. It does not hold values that are dear to Canada, to Canadians or to the international community.
These people have a very narrow thinking of the world. They want women to be put behind burkas. They do not want women to go to school. They do not want development because it threatens their power.
I do not understand how we would talk to these people who refuse to come to the table. It is always a good thing to bring people in to talk about peace, to talk about peacekeeping, but we cannot do it with people who are not willing to so. Those who are willing to come to the table, an opportunity is there. Mr. Karzai has extended his hand. The government has asked all of us to come to the table, and it will take a little time. As Afghanistan develops, I am sure the majority of those who are fighting for the very few who do not want to talk with the leadership will probably come on this side, but we cannot talk to this leadership.
Perhaps the member can enlighten us as to how we can talk to Omar Mohammed. Maybe we can give him a call, if he has a phone number or something. I do not know. However, how do we talk to somebody who does not want to come to the table?
Business of Supply March 10th, 2008
Mr. Speaker, I answered his question. He should listen very carefully to what I am saying. All I am saying is that for military officers, for the commanders, for everybody, it is they who are on the ground who will make the decision on what is best, what the objective is and how to achieve the objective that we have laid out there. The decision should be theirs, not ours.