Boisvenu on convicted murderers: give them a rope

The Conservative senator seemingly has some ideas on reducing prison expenses

Senator Pierre-Hugues Boisvenu has some ideas on reducing prison expenses.

“Basically, every killer should (have) the right to his own rope in his cell. They can decide whether to live,” Sen. Pierre-Hugues Boisvenu told reporters Wednesday.

A victims’ rights advocate and now a senator, Boisvenu also says the death penalty should be considered in certain cases when there’s no hope of rehabilitation. He says limited use of capital punishment could save money. He cited the case of the Shafias — the Montrealers who were convicted this week of killing four female family members. Boisvenu estimates that it will cost Canadian taxpayers $10 million to keep them locked up.

In the case of the Shafias, Mr. Boisvenu apparently said “returning them to their country might be a tougher sentence than to keep them here, where our prisons are a lot more comfortable.”

Update 3:46pm. A statement (en francais) from Mr. Boisvenu.

Ce matin, lors d’un point de presse impromptu accordé à des médias de la Colline parlementaire, répondant à une question au sujet d’un projet de loi privé sur l’avortement, le sénateur Boisvenu a affirmé que le gouvernement n’avait pas l’intention d’ouvrir un débat sur ce sujet pas plus que sur la peine de mort.

Répondant à une question d’une journaliste à savoir s’il était en faveur de la peine de mort pour les criminels en série, le sénateur a tenu à confirmer qu’il était contre cette dernière et que la position du gouvernement est aussi la sienne. Cependant, dans une discussion à bâtons rompus, le sénateur a émis publiquement un commentaire, qu’un proche d’une victime assassinée lui avait déjà fait, au sujet du sort souhaité aux tueurs en série Pickton, Olson et Bernardo.

Le sénateur trouve son commentaire inapproprié. Il regrette ne pas avoir pu clarifier l’idée qu’il voulait exprimer sur les criminels en série. Il désire retirer publiquement cette déclaration. De plus,  si son commentaire a blessé les proches de personnes s’étant suicidées, il tient à s’en excuser.

Le sénateur tient à réitérer qu’il croit dans la réhabilitation et qu’il travaille activement à améliorer les programmes fédéraux qui sont offerts aux criminels incarcérés dans les pénitenciers canadiens, et ce, pour le bien des victimes d’actes criminels.

Ce communiqué est émis parce que le sénateur ne pourra répondre à toutes les demandes d’entrevue faites par les médias au sujet de son commentaire sur les criminels en série.

Update 4:19pm. And here’s the exchange between Nycole Turmel and Stephen Harper in QP this afternoon on this subject.

Nycole Turmel: Monsieur le Président, il est contre la loi de conseiller ou d’encourager une personne à se donner la mort. C’est exactement ce que le sénateur conservateur Boisvenu vient de faire en disant qu’une corde devrait être disponible dans chaque cellule. Le premier ministre appuie-t-il les propos de son sénateur, sinon que fera-t-il?

Stephen Harper: Monsieur le Président, le sénateur a déjà retiré ses paroles. Ce gouvernement existe pour aider les victimes. La famille de M. Boisvenu a été victime d’un crime terrible. Ce gouvernement veut agir pour défendre de tels incidents à l’avenir.

Nycole Turmel: Mr. Speaker, that is not good enough. What Senator Boisvenu did is against the law: we cannot call on people to kill themselves. This is clear. The death penalty debate has been closed in Canada for decades. Why are the Conservatives reopening the old debates?

Stephen Harper: Mr. Speaker, as I just said, the senator has clearly withdrawn those words. I think we all understand that Senator Boisvenu and his family have suffered horribly in the past and obviously we understand his emotions in that regard, but this government is focused on making sure we protect victims in the future.

Nycole Turmel: Monsieur le Président, du grand n’importe quoi, le sénateur Boisvenu. Une autre raison d’abolir le Sénat. Sur un autre sujet, ça fait deux jours que le premier ministre tourne autour du pot. Va-t-il sabrer dans les prestations de la Sécurité de la vieillesse, oui ou non? Le monde sera-t-il obligé d’attendre jusqu’à 67 ans, oui ou non? On veut une réponse.

Stephen Harper: Monsieur le Président, j’ai été très clair. Ce gouvernement ne va pas couper les prestations de nos aînés. Je suis très clair: en même temps, nous allons protéger le système pour les générations à venir. C’est pour l’opposition de faire peur aux aînés, c’est pour nous de protéger les aînés. If I could also just reply once again to the previous comment on the senator. I would encourage the NDP to really focus on trying to help us deal with the criminal justice system, trying to prevent the kinds of victims of terrible crime we have seen in the past and to do things so there are not more people like the Boisvenu family in the future.

Boisvenu on convicted murderers: give them a rope

  1. Mr. Boisvenu should engage his brain. Why should we allow prisoners the freedom to end their own lives.. especially when we don’t allow the same freedom to anybody else in society.

    Here’s the thing, if prisons are for punishment, anybody choosing death over imprisonment obviously thinks prison is worse. Therefore, they’re escaping their own punishment.

    And on the other side, let’s be honest, the number of actual suicides as opposed to killings staged as a suicide in prison would be minute.

  2. But assisted suicide …dying with dignity…can’t be allowed?

  3. Taking this little toad more seriously than he is worth, a rope would be a dangerous weapon to be handing out in prisons, endangering the saffety of all present including guards. 

    Why does this senator hate the police and wish to make their jobs more difficult, placing their lives at even more risk? 

  4. “A victims’ rights advocate and now a senator, Boisvenu also says the death penalty should be considered in certain cases when there’s no hope of rehabilitation. He says limited use of capital punishment could save money.”

    A trial balloon perhaps, since Harper is known to share some of these views?

    * ok got off my lazy ass and read the link. Doesn’t seem plausible that it’s any kind of a balloon or even gutless ,considering the unfortunate senators experience…just a bad idea.

    The senator is entitled to his view but hiding it behind a cost saving proposal is pretty weak and gutless, no?And who gets to decide when there’s no hope of rehab?

    At least have the courage to stand on the simple premise that it’s the price you should pay for deliberately taking the life of another person.
    My principle objection to the death sentence remains the fact that many people who are now free men and women in this country would now be six feet under had we continued to execute people.Two wrongs don’t make a right and neither is justice served.  And victims rights or not, conviction beyond a reasonable doubt in my view is no substitute for having to say, sorry we goofed to new victims and new grieving families years later.
    Are there cases where we can be absolutely sure we have the right person – maybe, but those same arguments have not always held up or proven to be true in the past have they now? And when they have it’s often only after a number of years has past.

    • Also, I believe it’s been proven (or theorized)  that jurors would be far less likely to convict if they knew they would be sending another human to execution — maybe the guilt; maybe just not sure enough – so more criminals would walk away from their trials. 

      • That seems plausible.

      • If this Senator’s idea was adopted and those convicted of homicide were each given a rope or other means of suicide, which ones would be most likely to committ suicide; those who are actually guilty, or those falsely convicted? 

  5. I stand to be corrected but I think I read somewhere that the Senator’s daughter
    was a murder victim some years back. That doesn’t excuse what he said but
    I’m prepared to cut him a little slack.

    • His daughter was kidnapped, raped and murdered in 2002.

    • On the other hand, if people who have had this terrible thing happen to them are going to use it as a basis to act politically and lend weight to their arguments, then tough questions have to be asked publicly: is this the best way to deal with your grief?  You know it won’t bring them back, right?  How do you fill your void after your quest for revenge is over? 

    • I’m not. All the more reason why he shouldn’t be in charge of policymaking on this matter. He’s clearly unable to be objective. This is who will be voting on the “law and order” omnibus!

  6. Why shouldn’t we give convicted murderers the choice of doing the right thing and let them commit suicide? For that matter, why doesn’t the State have capital punishment? 

    State murders tens of thousands of babies every year but convicted murderers get to lead cushy life behind bars. It is more dangerous to be a baby than a convicted murderer in Canada. 

    “Between 1988 and 2005, almost two million babies lost their lives to abortion. The recorded total from Statistics Canada is 1,811,707, a partial record which excludes roughly 10% of the actual number of abortions performed between 2000 and 2005, due to incomplete reporting.”

    • Look — something shiny!

    • If you believe that the potential for a child early in pregnancy should be equated as an existing child, then you should argue against capital punishment, right?
       
      Oh I get it; you’re trying to be “smart” by reversing the argument! Aren’t you clever! LOL
       
      Many however do not agree with you that a 10 to 12 week fetus for example, (when 90% of all abortions occur) is the same thing as a child. It has the potential to become so (66% of the time) certainly, but the very fact that we can make this distinction suggests there is in fact an important difference; One that anti-abortionists like to gloss over.
       
      And if the question were merely the destruction of human “life”, well then male masturbation would be murder! Would it not?
       
      Or you draw the line at conception? Less than a dozen self replicating cells is a human now?
       
      Or perhaps you draw the line at the breathing reflex? Heart beat? Brain waves?

      Gee, this is starting to sound awfully subjective there Tony.
       
      Indeed, no babies have been killed by abortion. The potential for babies has though, I’ll give you that.
       
      But you know, when one is discussing forcing a woman to have a child, essentially overruling her right to control her own body, one should probably be able to demonstrate an extremely exceptional reason to justify it don’t you think?
       
      What you and yours have given repeatedly however is a weak argument to justify taking away someone’s right to self determination, the removal of which in this case results in a lifetime imposition of responsibility.
       
      One you can gleefully pass along without repercussion to yourself.
       
      Which is why it’s a private decision between a woman and her doctor.

      • Biologically speaking, sperm by themselves do not contain a full complement of DNA nor can they grow beyond their current form - so your “masturbation is murder” is nonsense.

        I’m not going to get into the rightness or wrongness of abortion here, but biologically speaking, from the moment of conception the cells constitute “life” as long as they continue to grow and replicate, and are genetically human. So they are human life.

        The question therefore is one of ethics not biology: at what point in the life cycle does this entity gain rights?

        • Then you missed my point concerning the subjectiveness of trying to claim that “human life” equates with “human being”.

          I’m certainly NOT saying that ejaculation is murder. I’m implying it would be silly to consider it so.

          Sperm are living cells of human origin, just like any cell. They do not however equate to a human being, and neither does a fertilized egg, zygote, embryo, fetus etc. precisely because the designation is so subjective and open to interpretation.

          This doesn’t mean we shouldn’t show due respect to the awesome potential of procreation however.

          Most people support a woman’s choice, but expect that choice to made in a timely and respectful manner. Lo and behold, most abortions happen with weeks of a woman finding out she’s pregnant, ie 10 to 12 weeks in 90% of cases.
           
          Most people support an abortion in the case where it is deemed medically necessary, and again, the vast majority of abortions happening later in pregnancy are for just this reason.
           
          For me this comes down to: If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it. Especially since you’re very unlikely to get a consensus on the timing of such things.
           

          “… 90% of abortions in Canada are performed during the first 12 weeks of pregnancy, and just over 9% of abortions take place between 12 and 20 weeks of gestation. A mere 0.4% of abortions take place after 20 weeks of gestation… A very small number of abortions occur after 20 weeks of gestation primarily because the fetus is gravely or fatally impaired, or the woman’s life or physical health is at risk, or both…”
           
          http://www.arcc-cdac.ca/postionpapers/22-Late-term-Abortions.PDF
           
          Supporting Statistics Canada Data Set
          http://www.arcc-cdac.ca/StatsCan-gestation-times-1995-2003.xls

          • I’m trying to avoid a discussion on the ethics of abortion here because it’s not on topic, and my views are elsewhere on this site for anyone who cares to dig. But I reiterate:

            Biologically, human life begins at the moment of conception. Neither egg nor sperm alone can develop into a child or adult; the fertilized egg can. From the moment of conception, a life cycle begins that may last from seconds to over a hundred years.

            Thus, any discussion around temination of life is a moral and ethical, not a biological, one. Stages of development may play a role in making the ethical choice, but it is nonetheless purely an ethical one. As is the line you draw between human life and human being (though arguably that one is also a philosophical distinction).

          • My we’re certainly going around in a circle on this one aren’t we? LOL

            If we are to be absolutely correct, human life starts with the penetration of a living sperm into a living egg. The constituents are not dead or inorganic matter, and they’re not chicken eggs or dinosaur sperm either. The result is a fertilized human ovum.

            I speak from experience: I myself exist because a living human sperm fertilized a living human egg which subdivided billions of times to produce a human: me! LOL

            When discussing how a human comes to be, leaving out the sperm and egg is silly, and frankly, incorrect.

            I’ll agree the discussion is basically philosophical, but the moral/ethical implications are clearly subjective.

            The only point from which one can discuss a human being and it not be subjective, is when a child is born.

            When one points to a woman who is for example 12 weeks pregnant, one correctly says there is a baby growing in there, not that there IS a baby in there.

    • TonyAdams.  That little gem of a phrase after your moniker manages to label you as a thoughtless tyrant, a rascist and a sexist all in only eight words.  Good work defining yourself. 

  7. The Criminal Code prohibits inciting a person to kill himself, though I can’t see how that is constitutional, and the most recent case I am aware of (a prisoner yelling to another prisoner “kill yourself”) resulted in a conviction and 14 day sentence.

    A majority of Canadians support the death penalty.

    • A majority of Canadians can and has been wrong before now and will be again.

      Unless you’re supportive of the idea that nothing is full proof or perfect so you take your chances and if we should inadvertently kill your son or daughter then them’s the breaks and we can always regard you as collateral damage like in wartime – and sorry, but the cheques in the mail.

    • Terence, wrong country. That’d be the Americans.

    • A majority of Canadians voters voted against Conservative candidates. That doesn’t mean we don’t recognize his right to govern.

    • A maximum of one (1) troll per comment, please.

      • So just you then?

      • In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts inflammatory,[2] extraneous, or off-topic
        messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum,
        chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking readers into an
        emotional response[3] or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.[4] The noun troll may refer to the provocative message itself, as in: “That was an excellent troll you posted”.

        While the word troll and its associated verb trolling are associated with Internet discourse, media attention in recent years has made such labels subjective, with trolling describing intentionally provocative actions and harassment outside of an online context. For example, mass media has used troll to describe “a person who defaces Internet tribute sites with the aim of causing grief to families.”[5][6]

    • A majority of people once supported slavery and denying a woman’s right to vote. Weak argument.

  8. returning them to their country might be a tougher sentence

    Sadly, the Shafias might be hailed as heroes in their home country, where honour killings aren’t necessarily unusual or taboo. So I wouldn’t suggest that they’d be “worse off” in their home country.

  9. We introduce death as an option in criminal sentences and we defeat the principals our justice system stands on. If it becomes okay to give up on the rehabilitation of a convicted criminal for monetary gain we might as well focus our justice system on punishment like our friends to the south have (because their monetary situation is clearly much better than our own).

  10. Harder and harder to keep your caucus docile and quiet, huh Harper?

  11. “Boisvenu estimates that it will cost Canadian taxpayers $10 million to keep them locked up.”

    Anybody else noted the irony of that statement when one considers that the tory crime bill increase the prison population?!

  12. Harper’s strategy to control spiralling Senate costs – give Senators enough rope to hang themselves in the press.

  13. Either we have the courage of our convictions or we do not.

    Support for capital punishment is just another way of saying that the powerful deserve a monopoly on murder, in direct contradiction to the belief that it is inherently wrong.

    This position makes a mockery of our constitution and our laws.

    And given the number of wrongful convictions, I consider it pure hubris to suggest we can determine who can be rehabilitated and who can not, given we don’t even know for sure who’s guilty!

    Frankly, Boisvenu’s position sounds like pain and anger, neither of which are reliable indicators of rational thought.

  14. I have never heard of this Senator before, but I now like him a little bit. :)

  15. If Turmel honestly believes the Senator has committed a criminal offence, then she doesn’t understand what that means.

    • Turmel is a Union negotiator who finds herself very much over her head—–a cruel joke was pulled on Canadians when she was appointed Leader of The Loyal Opposition.

      • She’ll be gone soon enough, and very justly forgotten.

    • Well, apparently you aren’t allowed to counsel some individual to commit suicide. While the Senator did not address anyone in particular, and he did not explicitly advocate suicide in general, a convicted murderer reading the Senator’s thoughts could infer that the Honourable M. Boisvenu thinks maybe he (the murderer) should be considering that option. So you see where she went with that. You just can’t be too careful about something like that.

    • So…now someone has filed a criminal complaint.

      Turmel’s ignorance (or hyperbole) is contagious.

  16. Boisvenu is the founding president of the Murdered or Missing Persons’ Families’ Association, which he founded after the 2002 murder of his daughter Julie.[2]
    He is also co-founder of the Le Nid centre, a shelter for abused women in Val-d’Or, and of a camp for underprivileged youth in Estrie.[

    Interesting how the grievence mongering ndp pretend to feel everyones pain as long as it fits their version of injustice.I’ll take a realist Boisvenu over an opportunistic idealist Turmel any day.

  17. Probably the best argument for lifetime appointees in the Senate is it produces gems like this nobody in the House of Commons could ever sneak by their party leader.

  18. Also, Wherry, you write for an English language publication. Why are you posting these exchanges in French?

    • Because they are quotes, and that’s the language in which the speakers were conversing.

      • I get that, but again, it’s an English publication. Even CPAC and Hansard, who try to be as “strictly the record” about things as they can, translate. Maybe it wasn’t available in English yet.

        • I would imagine that it hasn’t been translated yet.

          That said, given that this is a blog entry and not a formal written article in the magazine, I’d have thought that Google translate would be more than sufficient for most commenters’ purposes.

  19. Given the propaganda that could choke a seal these days, i wonder why this wasn’t spun with the “toxic sugar” story that is sliming its way through the social psyche… Instead of ropes, we should gives these convicted killers unrestricted free access to the white stuff, that is, sugar. Given the propaganda, these lost souls will die protracted and painful, entirely avoidable deaths… seems like good enough punishment, if you’re a propaganda cow, chewing on your propaganda cud.

    What is ACTUALLY happening is a series of unannounced and clandestine public polls most of which are probably commissioned in boiler rooms by our leaders-that-ought-to-actually-be. I’m sorry for your loss Boisvenu, truly sad… however, when a professional such as him can’t separate
    emotion from logic and work from home, i question his fitness to do his job, irregardless of apologies or cognizance of his mistake. He is emotionally compromised and lacks the integrity (no fault of his own) to carry out the requirements of his position and he should be relieved of his duty and replaced by someone with integrity intact.

    To Harper and our other leaders-asleep-on-the-pot, DO YOUR JOBS AS PROFESSIONALS, NOT SCOUNDRELS. If you want to know how Canadians feel ask us, don’t manipulate us and marginalize us. A time is FAST APPROACHING where Canadians will unite and tell their ‘leaders’ the quality of life and ethical standards in this country will not fall any lower, will not sink to new depths. We will collectively draw a line in the sand, and we will expect our leadership to listen…. OR…. we will rewrite THEIR laws to incarcerate THEM.

    LISTEN TO THE PEOPLE; don’t manipulate and hurt, or your actions will come home to roost.

  20. Given the propaganda that could choke a seal these days, i wonder why this wasn’t spun with the “toxic sugar” story that is sliming its way through the social psyche… Instead of ropes, we should gives these convicted killers unrestricted free access to the white stuff, that is, sugar. Given the propaganda, these lost souls will die protracted and painful, entirely avoidable deaths… seems like good enough punishment, if you’re a propaganda cow, chewing on your propaganda cud.
    What is ACTUALLY happening is a series of unannounced and clandestine public polls most of which are probably commissioned in boiler rooms by our leaders-that-ought-to-actually-be.

    I’m sorry for your loss Boisvenu, truly sad… however, when a professional such as him can’t separate emotion from logic and work from home, i question his fitness to do his job, irregardless of apologies or cognizance of his mistake. He is emotionally compromised and lacks the integrity (no fault of his own) to carry out the requirements of his position and he should be relieved of his duty and replaced by someone with integrity intact.

    To Harper and our other leaders-asleep-on-the-pot, DO YOUR JOBS AS PROFESSIONALS, NOT SCOUNDRELS. If you want to know how Canadians feel ask us, don’t manipulate us and marginalize us. A time is FAST APPROACHING where Canadians will unite and tell their ‘leaders’ the quality of life and ethical standards in this country will not fall any lower, will not sink to new depths. We will collectively draw a line in the sand, and we will expect our leadership to listen…. OR…. we will rewrite THEIR laws to incarcerate THEM.
    LISTEN TO THE PEOPLE; don’t manipulate and hurt, or your actions will come home to roost.

  21. Given the propaganda that could choke a seal these days, i wonder why this wasn’t spun with the “toxic sugar” story that is sliming its way through the social psyche… Instead of ropes, we should gives these convicted killers unrestricted free access to the white stuff, that is, sugar. Given the propaganda, these lost souls will die protracted and painful, entirely avoidable deaths… seems like good enough punishment, if you’re a propaganda cow, chewing on your propaganda cud.

    What is ACTUALLY happening is a series of unannounced and clandestine public polls most of which are probably commissioned in boiler rooms by our leaders-that-ought-to-actually-be.

    I’m sorry for your loss Boisvenu, truly sad… however, when a professional such as him can’t separate emotion from logic and work from home, i question his fitness to do his job, irregardless of apologies or cognizance of his mistake. He is emotionally compromised and lacks the integrity (no fault of his own) to carry out the requirements of his position and he should be relieved of his duty and replaced by someone with integrity intact.

    To Harper and our other leaders-asleep-on-the-pot, DO YOUR JOBS AS PROFESSIONALS, NOT SCOUNDRELS. If you want to know how Canadians feel ask us, don’t manipulate us and marginalize us. A time is FAST APPROACHING where Canadians will unite and tell their ‘leaders’ the quality of life and ethical standards in this country will not fall any lower, will not sink to new depths. We will collectively draw a line in the sand, and we will expect our leadership to listen…. OR…. we will rewrite THEIR laws to incarcerate THEM.

    LISTEN TO THE PEOPLE; don’t manipulate and hurt, or your actions will come home to roost.

  22. Sen. Boisvenu was commenting from the gut. I can understand his pain; he needs to get grief counselling and stay out of politics. Politicians need to think before they speak. Besides it is against the law to counsel someone to commit suicide. Let’s see if the Harper gang is going to get “tough on crime” in this case.

    • Who did he counsel to commit suicide?

  23. Comedy Central will have a field day with this stuff.  Harper’s worst enemy couldn’t make this up to get more critical effect.  It would appear that somebody put Harper’s propaganda machine in reverse. 

    • I think the Senator’s comment was totally stupid, and I oppose the death penalty, but I doubt that it will actually cause much political damage.

      People who hold “liberal” and “progressive” views on crime and punishment would do well to visit a typical bar, or hockey rink, or whatever, and talk to ordinary folks about their views on the topic.  I find that most people have a pretty harsh, hang-em-high attitude.

      • I think at the very least people will acknowledge that a civilized country wouldn’t operate this way, but if a murderer does hang himself, hey, life goes on. It’s a kooky suggestion by a guy nobody had heard of before today, so I really don’t understand why opposition politicians thought there was much to be gained by raging over this.

      • Yes, if one sets the bar low enough, even conservative Senators can jump over it. 

  24. Canada: a country of wimps.

    We should reinstate the death penalty to permanently deal with those which commit unspeakable crimes and who are irredeemable.

    Unfortunately, enough Canadians are concerned to a sufficient degree with the “rights” of criminal to obstruct justice.

    • Morin, Truscott, etc.

      •  Charles Randal Smith, forensic pathologist.

  25. Bingo. Excellent point.

  26. No, but one can reasonably argue that he’s suggesting that the government do so right?

    Since he’s in a position to introduce just such a law, he’s really pushing the line.

  27. WRT the death penalty (as opposed to assisting them in suicide) I don’t question the conviction of the Shafias for a moment, and it seems to me to have likely been the correct verdict, but given the nature of the case against them, is it not highly likely that had they been facing the death penalty that they wouldn’t all have been convicted of first degree murder?

    Also, it seems to me that appeals are more likely, longer, and more expensive in death penalty cases. The savings in prison costs would be dwarfed by the increase in court costs, would they not?  I don’t think that cost savings have ever been shown to be a good argument in favour of killing convicts.

  28. Some will say this crime bill hasn’t gone far enough. I thought Senator Boisvenu was on the way to the mark with his suggestion of rope for some prisoners but he didn’t cast his noose far enough. If we examine the impact of crime by the colour of one’s collar we can see that white collar crime is devastating. When we find indictable crime amongst government executives, Members of Parliament or the Senate there is merit in discussing the value of capital punishment for such despicable behaviour. The debate seems to have reopened. There are a hundred ways to throw the common man in jail but those who make the law, enforce and interpret evidence rise above it all like a five dollar parking ticket. It’s possible for the House of Commons to create laws that are not in the best interest of the people and not possible for people to live by. We need a House of Commons Canada can live with where we can forget that over a hundred Members of Parliament have been found guilty of indictable offenses, in recent times, and move forward knowing that the threat of capital punishment may caution their pen writing hands in the future.
     

Sign in to comment.