1987-02-13

Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Yesterday in my office, Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for Shefford (Mr. Lapierre) and I had the visit of the Deputy Minister of Public Works who came, so it seemed, to bring us up to date with these 3,000-odd sheets of information concerning the Drummondville contract. I should like to share the contents of one of the letters contained in this kit. The letter is dated April 24, 1985, relates to a visit to Drummondville, and thus ends very briefly:
Chances are very good that the lease will be renewed at the same place. However, there is political pressure. Manon Lafleur was about to draft her submission to Treasury Board when her boss stopped her because of the aforementioned pressure.
This is one of the documents concerning the Drummondville case which was handed to me yesterday by the Deputy Minister of Public Works.
Mr. Speaker, a public inquiry is needed to shed light on this whole affair and on the scandals of the Conservative Party.


CANADA WINTER GAMES
Mr. Lawrence I. O'Neil (Cape Breton Highlands-Canso):: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the people of Cape Breton I want to extend an invitation to all Canadians to attend the Canada Winter Games to be officially opened Sunday, February 15. The Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) will be in Cape Breton Sunday to officially open the 1987 Winter Games. These games will be the best ever. Ski events will be held on the slopes overlooking the Atlantic Ocean and adjacent to the beautiful Cabot Trail, which is also in my riding. Other events will be held in industrial Cape Breton.
Cape Bretoners are looking forward to welcoming their Prime Miriister to the most beautiful part of Canada. The
Canada Games provide a national forum for Nova Scotians to display their cultural richness, uniqueness, and hospitality.
On behalf of the people of my region I congratulate the Minister for Fitness and Amateur Sport (Mr. Jelinek), the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. MacKay), and the Prime Minister, for their continuing support of all Nova Scotians and, in particular, the people of Cape Breton.


EDUCATION
Ms. Lynn McDonald (Broadview-Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, Canadians pride themselves on their educational institutions and their commitment to international aid, yet somehow these two concerns do not get together. Canada gives only 1,500 scholarships to students from developing countries, which is less than 1 per cent of our ODA budget. Britain, by comparison, gives 20,000 scholarships.
Of the limited aid we do give, little goes to students from the poorest countries. For those students who do get to come here, there are bureaucratic hassles to endure over visa renewals. Groups assisting international students suggest we could do much more by providing up to 10,000 scholarships, for example, and simplifying bureaucratic procedures.
Most of the non-Canadian students at Canadian universities and colleges are not on scholarships but are paying their own way, aiding the Canadian economy by doing so. Surely we could be doing more to making our post-secondary institutions accessible to those who cannot afford the fees and, in the meantime, winning friends for Canada and partners in our development.


HISTORIC EVENTS
Mr. Andrew Witer (Parkdale-High Park):: Mr. Speaker, on February 16, 1918, Lithuania became an independent democratic nation. Lithuania lost that treasured status in 1940 when the Soviet Union invaded the Baltic States.
Freedom has always been an important aspect of Lithuanian life. In the 1890s, the first Lithuanians to arrive in Canada

February 13, 1987
were refugees from Czarist Russia. In 1945 Lithuanians were fleeing the ravages of two occupiers, the Nazis and the Soviets. Both waves of immigrants from Lithuania have made a significant contribution to the growth and development of Canada.
When at times we take for granted the many freedoms we enjoy in Canada, we need only recall the adversity and strife suffered by Lithuania to appreciate our good fortune as Canadians. It was the promise of freedom and justice which brought Lithuanians to Canada. It is the fulfillment of that promise which makes them proud to be Canadians.
Let us join with them in marking this day as one of special significance for all who value freedom and the pursuit of liberty and justice.


THE ADMINISTRATION
Mr. Jean-Claude Malepart (Montreal-Sainte-Marie):: Mr. Speaker, this Government has now been in office for two years and a few months and I think that the only conclusion one can reach is that it has been a series of scandals. Scandals to various extent, be they incidents of corruption, appointments of friends, contract awards, nepotism, or even in cases of major decisions. For example, Hyundai in Quebec, with a $50 million grant which people were unable-
Mr. Speaker, the situation is such that people even call us to know whether they should fill in Statistics Canada forms because they say: Considering this Government and everything that is going on, should we fill in these forms?
I think it is important and even imperative that the Prime Minister take immediate action to put an end to this series of scandals in an attempt to improve the image of his Government. He has two options: either he gets rid of the incompetent and minor-league people around him, or he simply hands in his resignation if he cannot make people in his Party respect a code of ethics.

[DOT] (mo)


HUMAN RIGHTS
Mr. Bill Attewell (Don Valley East):: Mr. Speaker, Inna Meiman, one of several Soviet Jewish cancer patients whom Montreal physician Dr. Gerald Batist has championed, was
finally allowed to leave the Soviet Union after years of trying. She was allowed to leave for treatment purposes only, having to leave behind her husband and son. But the exit visa for treatment purposes really came too late.
Inna Meiman died on February 10, 1987, in hospital in Washington. Her funeral will be held on Tuesday. Her husband and son are still in the Soviet Union.
Benjamin Charny, on behalf of himself and other refusnik cancer patients, sends this message:
We grieve the loss of Inna Meiman and express support for her husband Naum. The tragedy here is not only Inna's death, but that she had to struggle for so long just to leave the Soviet Union. It seems as though the Soviet authorities waited until her condition became hopeless. We hope the same is not true of us.
The harassment and persecution of prisoners of conscience are serious human rights violations. Denying exit visas to refusniks is also a flagrant abuse of human rights. But it is nothing short of deplorable to deny exit visas to cancer patients seeking medical treatment in the West which is not available in the U.S.S.R.


FISHERIES
Mr. Jim Fulton (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, in March of 1985 a joint committee of Parliament brought to the attention of the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans the fact that the international Pacific halibut regulations were illegal. He did nothing.
The committee called on the Minister on February 6, 1986, to revoke the regulations and have them legally drafted. The committee pointed out:
We also wish for a formal assurance that, pending the formal revocation of the Regulations, fishery officers will be instructed not to enforce them and that no one has or will be charged for a breach of the Regulations.
Again, the Minister did nothing.
Article 111(2) of the Convention as passed by Parliament confers the regulation-making powers on the commission, not on the Minister. Regina v. Feraco, 1965, confirms that regulations made by the Minister in their present form mean that they are null and void.
The Minister has been and is as of this date breaching an international agreement with the United States. From 1959 to 1984 the regulations were passed legally.
Since part of the B.C. halibut fishery begins in two weeks, I call upon the Minister to put in place legal regulations to protect the fishery and the rights of B.C. commercial and sports fishermen.
February 13, 1987


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Rob Nicholson (Niagara Falls):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to say that on February 4 the principal U.S. and Canadian government agencies responsible for environmental protection signed an agreement for the clean-up of the Niagara River. The agreement calls on the four participating agencies to report to the public every six months on the progress being made to reduce toxic chemicals from entering the Niagara River. Most important, it calls for a target reduction level of 50 per cent for loadings of persistent toxic chemicals from sources on both sides of the Niagara River by 1996. This is a tremendous step forward. I congratulate all parties to the agreement but, in particular, our federal Minister of the Environment (Mr. McMillan) for his leadership.
My constituents will be particularly pleased because, for 20 years, they watched while the federal Liberals did absolutely nothing for the toxic chemical clean-up of the Niagara River. They know they did nothing. That has now changed under this Government.
* *
*


SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
Mr. Bill Tupper (Nepean-Carieton):: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) announced yesterday that the first meeting of the National Advisory Board for Science and Technology will take place next Monday, February 16. The establishment of this board was one of the major initiatives in the October Speech from the Throne. I was a proponent of the creation of such an advisory board and am delighted to see the board become a reality.
The board will be chaired by the Prime Minister. It is comprised of a wide range of qualified scientific, business, labour and professional people. The board will advise the Government on science and industrial technology priorities, and on how such priorities can be implemented.
The creation of this board reflects the Prime Minister's recognition of the strategic national importance of science and technology to the economic future of Canada and to my constituents in Nepean-Carieton.
In my role as Chairman of the Standing Committee on Research, Science and Technology, I look forward to assisting the board in attaining the Government's objectives for progress in science and technology in Canada.


NUCLEAR ARMAMENTS
Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Mr. Speaker, we are receiving an increasing number of letters and comments on nuclear testing.
As we all know, Canada is against the use of nuclear arms and the testing of such arms on its territory, and this position has been very well received.
Recently, the Soviet Union announced its plan for a moratorium on nuclear testing, for an indeterminate period, which is a step in the right direction.
Unfortunately, and this is the concern raised by my constituents, the United States has not reacted positively to the moratorium proposed by the Soviet Union and is continuing its tests.
In the light of this concern, I sincerely hope that both superpowers will agree on a temporary moratorium on nuclear testing and eventually on a complete test ban.


CANADA POST CORPORATION
Mr. Vic Althouse (Humboldt-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, postal service is a vital link for rural communities in Canada. Rural communities consider access to stamp purchase, money orders, parcel service, et cetera not only a right but an absolute necessity. Green boxes only offer a receptacle for incoming mail, and ignore the necessary service required for outgoing mail.
Recent announcements by Post Office Ministers of the Government to give 90 days for rural residents to be surveyed concerning their options are not real consultation, but an information and public relations exercise to let people know what the predetermined new lowers levels of service will be. The options are either green boxes or complete abandonment of the postal point altogether.
There has been no change in post office policy in rural areas. The existing policy continues. Rural residents served by small postal stations receive no reassurance from the Government's actions and policy on the Post Office.

February 13, 1987
5. O. 21 HEALTH


AIDS DISEASE-LACK OF TESTING OF PROSPECTIVE IMMIGRANTS
Mr. Reginald Stackhouse (Scarborough West):: Mr. Speaker, at the present time anyone suffering from AIDS is not admissible as an immigrant to Canada. Equally, no mandatory testing for AIDS is required of anyone applying for admission to this country. AIDS is a highly infectious disease, and there is great public concern over it. Many provinces are implementing educational programs. Twenty-three per cent of the cases of AIDS in Ontario have involved people originating from outside Canada.
Surely it is reasonable to expect that the Department of National Health and Welfare, and the Immigration Medical Review Board take another look at the requirements for admission to Canada, and assure the public that every reasonable step is being taken to exclude this disease from our country.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, the ozone layer in the atmosphere protects us from ultraviolet sun rays and possible skin cancer. Chlorofluorocarbons, or CFCs, are substances which remove ozone from the atmosphere, and therefore are dangerous. CFCs are used as propellants in aerosol sprays, in foams for insulation, fast-food packaging, coffee cups, in solvents, in cooking sprays, and in medicating sprays. They are released when foam products decay, and when refrigerants are released in the environment.
The reduction in the ozone layer could increase the rate of skin cancer, reduce production of food crops, and enhance the rate of global warming. Canadians should press the Government to ban the use and importation of products containing CFCs. In the meantime, to be part of the solution of the problem, consumers should stop buying foam products containing sprays which use CFCs, and press manufacturers to stop using CFCs in their products.


CANADA WINTER GAMES
Mr. Don Ravis (Saskatoon East):: Mr. Speaker, this weekend the opening of the Canada Winter Games in Sydney, Nova Scotia, will unite young athletes from all corners of the
country. The event will give the residents of Nova Scotia, and visitors to the Games, an opportunity to experience first-hand the outstanding sportsmanship of young Canadians.
In 1989 the City of Saskatoon will have the opportunity of hosting Canada's Summer Games. It too will be a super event. All three levels of government have contributed $2.5 million toward this project, which will not only boost tourism, but it will subsequently inject $20 million into the economy of Saskatoon.
All volunteers in Sydney and Saskatoon, as well as the Minister of Fitness and Amateur Sport (Mr. Jelinek), should be condemned for their efforts in making such events possible. The best of luck must be extended to our athletes in Nova Scotia who share the common characteristic of dedication, and who strive for excellence in their performance. See you in Saskatoon in 1989!


Donald Paul Ravis: Mr. Speaker, I want to retract something I said this morning under Standing Order 21. I want to assure the volunteers of Sydney and Saskatoon, as well as the Minister of Fitness and Amateur Sport, that I commend them, not condemn them. I apologize for that.


Mr. Speaker:: It is certainly an intervention on behalf of civility.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


BANKS AND BANKING
Ms. Margaret Mitchell (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, banks and other mainstream financial institutions seem to go out of their way to avoid dealing with poor people, according to a study by the National Anti-Poverty Organization. Low-income Canadians are finding that their access to financial services is restricted. Because they are poor, they are unable to obtain services that moderate and upper-income Canadians take for granted. This is not referring to services that could be considered luxuries, but basic services like having social assistance cheques cashed in order to buy food for your family, or obtaining a small loan to replace a refrigerator which has finally given up the ghost.
Mainstream institutions are wary of cashing government cheques, because they fear fraud. Most poor people cannot provide the identification that is needed. The Government should investigate this situation, and make sure all Canadians have equal access to these institutions.
February 13, 1987


RECITAL OF SOVIET ARMY CHORUS AND DANCE ENSEMBLE
Mr. Marcel Prud'homme (Saint-Denis):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to extend to you, on behalf of all those present, our thanks for allowing us to hear a most entertaining and moving performance by the Soviet Army Chorus and Dance Ensemble.
As you said yourself, Mr. Speaker, in the presence of our esteemed Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Hees), "it was significant that this event took place in the Hall of Honour beneath the Peace Tower".
You have done more for rapprochement and understanding by allowing this event than those with myopic political views.

We never heard Gilles Vigneault's Mon pays sung with so much warmth and emotion, such sensitivity and rythm. We say: Thank you, to their director, Mr. Anatoly Matlsev and we ask him to accept, on behalf of his group, our very best wishes.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. Jacques Guilbault (Saint-Jacques):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. Last night, the CBC's English network revealed some troubling facts involving another Minister. This time it was the Minister of State, the Member for Joliette, who allegedly attended a fund-raising party where guests paid $5,000 a head, in the hope they would get government contracts. I would like to know whether the Prime Minister has called his Minister since last night. If he did, is he still satisfied that the Minister may keep his seat in the Conservative Cabinet? And if he did not call him, why not?


Right Hon. Brian Muironey (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, as far as these allegations are concerned, a number of facts were brought to my attention early in January 1986. I immediately passed on the information to the Secretary to the Cabinet with instructions to ask for a full police investigation by the RCMP. This investigation was conducted and, if I am not mistaken, has led to number of complaints, one concerning a Member of this House. The RCMP is still investigating, and what transpired meanwhile is public knowledge.
Oral Questions


PRIME MINISTER'S RESPONSIBILITY TO ASK FOR EXPLANATIONS
Jacques Guilbault: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has given us some information, which is quite welcome, but he failed to answer my question. I asked him whether he had been in touch with his Cabinet colleague since last night's broadcast, because Canadians saw this program, Mr. Speaker, and they are all concerned about the integrity of this Government. Is the Prime Minister telling us that he would have acted responsibly by failing to call his Minister to find out exactly what his involvement was in this matter, to find out what happened from the Minister himself?


Martin Brian Mulroney: The
allegations in last night's broadcast are nothing new. These are certain facts that have been investigated, if I am not mistaken, by the RCMP. I decided to call for an investigation after being informed of a number of facts that I found troubling. I immediately gave the information to the Secretary to the Cabinet, with instructions to request a police investigation that I assume included some of the allegations reported last night. This is not new. These were some of the reasons for requesting the investigation.


REQUEST FOR PUBLIC INQUIRY
Jacques Guilbault: Mr. Speaker, the last revelations are that in July, 1985, a year and a half ago, a number of businessmen were invited to dish out $5,000 apiece to get on the gravy train. That is what we learned last night. Certainly the Prime Minister cannot tell us that there is nothing suspicious about that. Is this not one more reason why there should be a public inquiry, a full public inquiry, into the way the Government is conducting business? Why would the Prime Minister not grant this, if he has nothing to hide?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend asks if we have anything to hide. Perhaps I would ask him to examine my conduct and that of the Government faced with allegations to which he refers having taken place in July, 1985. Whatever transpired in July, 1985, the allegations concerning that were conveyed to me in very early January, 1986. That was a few months later. As these matters surfaced they were brought to my attention.
Immediately these matters to which the Hon. Member refers, which were reported last night, which had taken place, were brought to my attention, I immediately spoke with the Clerk of the Privy Council, Mr. Tellier, and instructed him immediately to order a police inquiry into the allegations to which my hon. friend presumably refers. That full police inquiry initiated by me as soon as I was apprised of the allegations was thorough and exhaustive, as the RCMP always conduct inquiries, and has resulted in a number of criminal charges being laid, including charges against a Member of this House. Therefore, that matter is presently before the courts. Surely in the light of that my hon. friend will agree that the
3406

February 13, 1987
Oral Questions
Prime Minister and the Government acted swiftly and properly in the interests of justice.


CAPITAL PUNISHMENT
Hon. Bob Kaplan (York Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I want to turn to the subject of capital punishment and ask the Prime Minister to set the record straight on a statement made yesterday in British Columbia by the Minister of State for Science and Technology, who clearly said that an agreement had been reached with the Official Opposition about the way in which the capital punishment debate would be conducted. Would the Prime Minister confirm that there has been no such agreement and that this is nothing but an attempt to implicate the Opposition in the Government's campaign promise?


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Deputy Prime Minister and President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of the precise statement that the Minister of State for Science and Technology was alleged to have made. I can only say that there is a motion that will be introduced. I will be making a statement later on this day with respect to it. I can indicate to the Hon. Member that there has been no agreement with opposition Parties with respect to the timing of the debate or the way in which it proceeds. The resolution will be introduced. It will be there for members of all Parties to examine and, indeed, for the public to examine, after which we will embark upon a debate.


TIMING OF DEBATE
Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the Prime Minister. He has said on a number of occasions that the capital punishment debate would be brought forward at an appropriate time. What is appropriate about this time to bring forward the debate, other than the fact that the Government is perhaps on death row?


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Here we go again, Mr. Speaker. The Hon. Member raises a very important and serious question but he cannot even put it in a serious vein without attaching sleaze and a bit of innuendo to it.


THE ADMINISTRATION
Hon. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister and has to do with the situation of the Hon. Member for Joliette. The Prime Minister indicated a few minutes earlier that, as Prime Minister, he was made aware of this situation one year ago. At the time he had decided to ask the RCMP to investigate. However the Prime Minister can fully appreciate that it is also a question of morality. I should like to ask the Prime Minister if, at the time, he had inquired of the Hon. Member for Joliette concerning his moral responsibility in this field.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I said to my friend that this question which had been raised by another Member is now before the courts. It is therefore very important that we proceed with caution in the comments we make here. I can tell my friend that once the facts had been brought to my attention I immediately referred the whole matter to the Secretary to the Cabinet with instructions to launch a full and immediate police investigation. This investigation led to certain charges being laid. All other persons who might have been involved in this have been, I presume, the subjects of RCMP investigations. Since no charges have been laid against other individuals, I assume that the behaviour of all other Canadian citizens has been considered to have been in accordance with the law at all times. If my friend is referring to another aspect, he is aware of my position and of the statements I made, and he knows what I always expect from my Ministers in this field.


USE OF PATRONAGE-STATEMENT ATTRIBUTED TO FORMER MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I am indeed dealing with another aspect of it and that is the moral responsibilities of Ministers of the Crown which the Prime Minister has said on other occasions must be totally beyond reproach. The Minister in question, said not too long before the conversation he presumably had with the Prime Minister a year ago, said the following:
Patronage-was a tool that was used by the Liberals during their tenure in office and I don't intend to pass up our opportunity.
Those were the words of the Hon. Member for Joliette defending what I would call the lowest form of patronage practice in contracts. He was defending it then as a Minister of the Crown.
Since the Prime Minister has now told us that he was aware in January, 1986, of the allegations made on television last night, did he as Prime Minister ask the Minister at that time if
February 13, 1987

he was living up to his moral responsibilities as a cabinet Minister in the Government of Canada?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend can assume that absolutely. In regard to the statement he made about me being aware of allegations made on television last night, I was travelling last night and I can only assume that the information that was imparted last night on television was in fact related to the matters that gave rise to the police inquiry. I have no reason to believe anything but that. If anyone has any allegations at variance with that, I would be happy to hear them. In regard to the first question, however, obviously.


PAYMENTS ALLEGEDLY REQUESTED FROM BUSINESS PEOPLE
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, there are allegations that involved the Minister of the Crown taking part in meetings in which $5,000 was requested from business people, without receipts, clearly including the possibility of influence-buying to put it in its most direct form or, perhaps, in the less legal sense, possibly implicating the Minister in more wrongdoing of the worst kind. When will the Prime Minister speak to the Minister directly about this and report back to the House? When, finally, will he clean up the moral act of this Government?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, my friend says that there were allegations made last night against the Minister. First, I understand that those allegations were denied by the Minister. Second, they would have been completely investigated by the RCMP. As a result of that investigation, certain specific charges were laid against individuals and certainly not the Minister.
Surely the Hon. Member is entitled, as we have discussed in the past, to some degree of presumption of innocence. There has been a formal denial by him. There has been a formal police inquiry by the RCMP. Can we not assume that someone is innocent until proven guilty?
This matter is before the courts. It would be completely improper for me to go beyond that except to give my hon. friend the full assurance that (a), on the question of morality, or (b), on the question of illegality, when the facts were brought to my attention, I did not wait for anything. I immediately initiated a full police inquiry which resulted directly in charges being laid. That is the way the Prime Minister of Canada and members of the Government should conduct themselves.


AWARDING OF PUBLIC WORKS CONTRACTS
Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister and concerns the same subject. The Prime Minister said that all this is not a new revelation. Indeed, on April 8, 1986, I first asked a question in the House concerning the Public Works contracting procedures which later resulted in the RCMP investigation referred to last night on the television report.
Oral Questions
First, does the Prime Minister agree with a statement attributed to the same Minister of May 15, 1986, which is the following: "I certainly don't mind showing my gratitude to people who deserve it." He was referring to the awarding of Public Works contracts. Can the Prime Minister also tell us what bearing this whole affair had on the subsequent removal of that Member of Parliament, the Hon. Member for Joliette, from the Public Works portfolio?


Hon. Stewart Mclnnes (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, we have had considerable dialogue about the awarding of Public Works contracts and we have focused on Drummondville. Perhaps the Hon. Member would like to restate the question when he has knowledge that Hana was sole sourced the Drummondville contract originally in 1973, and again there was a renewal of the contract in 1980 without tender, those affairs being under the conduct and direction of that administration.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, if the Minister wants to speak of the Drummondville contract, I would have half a dozen questions to ask him about that at the moment, but we are sticking with this issue. Perhaps he could limit his answers to the subject which is the most embarrassing for his Government rather than weaseling his way out.


INQUIRY IF RECEIPTS WILL BE ISSUED FOR ALLEGED FUNDING CONTRIBUTIONS
Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, so far, neither the Prime Minister nor the Minister of Public Works have answered questions about the possible involvement of the Hon. Member for Joliette in mysterious fund-raising parties. Could the Prime Minister inform the House whether he has any confirmation that these events did in fact produce the kind of contributions that were mentioned last night? Where did the money go? If part of it went to the Conservative Party, will receipts be issued as required by law?


Mr. Speaker:: These are important matters, as the Chair has said. The Chair is a little troubled by the question. I think, if the Chair heard it correctly, the Hon. Member, who has been asking specific questions in a tightly controlled way, for which the Chair is grateful, was getting very close to charging that the Minister was involved in some wrongdoing. I think he used the words: "the possible wrongdoing of the Minister".
There is a proper provision under the rules of this place if a charge is to be laid. The Chair is concerned that in matters of this gravity, all Hon. Members on both sides of the House should strain mightily, if I could put it that way, to respect the fundamental rule of this place, and that is that if an accusation is to be made, then there is a formal way to make it.
The Hon. Member is asking what the Prime Minister did when the Prime Minister may or may not have heard certain things. In the view of the Chair, that is certainly completely legitimate but I would ask, please, that every respect be given

February 13, 1987
Oral Questions
to the rules and to all Hon. Members in this place so that a question does not amount to a charge, no matter how veiled.
[ Translation]


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I will rephrase my question. Since according to an article by Canadian Press, the Minister in question admitted he attended the parties that were held to collect $5,000-contributions without receipt, could the Prime Minister inform the House whether the Conservative Party drew any benefit from these funds and if so, will he, as the Prime Minister, take steps to ensure that receipts are issued as required by the legislation with which all Members of Parliament are expected to comply?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister can assure the House that, as soon as he received information that was the least bit troubling on this matter, he made the right decision, I think, by giving immediate instructions to Mr. Tellier, the Secretary to the Cabinet, to ask for a full police investigation. Following this investigation, charges were laid, and today, these matters are before the courts. If there have been any further troubling or unlawful or doubtful occurrences, the RCMP will no doubt inform us accordingly.


THE ADMINISTRATION
Mr. Neil Young (Beaches):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. More and more Canadians are beginning to believe the Government is out of control.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Neil Young: The Government may not like it but it is a fact.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member is using a preamble to lead to a question but the preamble is so far just a statement of opinion which the Hon. Member has stated as fact. I ask Hon. Members to be careful in preambles. Lay the groundwork for the question, but there is no particular reason to start with an obviously provocative statement.


Neil Young: I will put it another way. Recent opinion polls have indicated just what I said.
Last weekend the Prime Minister suggested he had some specific proposals that he wanted to bring forward to reassure Canadians that the Government was in control of the situation.
On Monday my Leader asked the Prime Minister if he would be prepared to bring those proposals forward in the next two weeks. When can Canadians expect to see these proposals which he indicated last weekend he was willing to bring forward?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I have dealt with that very fully in my responses to questions put by other Members. My hon. friend says he believes the Government is out of control and certain consequences will necessarily follow. I know he presumes that, but I should tell him what my mother used to say, that presumption is a mortal sin.


ALLEGATIONS MADE AGAINST MINISTERS-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Neil Young: Mr. Speaker, whether or not the Prime Minister wants to agree that Canadians are concerned about this, I think he should listen to the questions being asked. The question is when can we expect the Government to bring forward proposals which will finally, we hope, give some direction toward ending the kind of allegations made against Ministers of the Crown so that in the future Canadians can expect half-decent Government here rather than the kind we are getting?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I do not know when the allegations against Ministers and members of the Government will cease, based as they are in many cases on rumour and unsubstantiated facts. I will point something out to my hon. friend and perhaps ask for his advice in this regard. Here is an article in The Toronto Star of February 11 and the headline says:
RCMP probe allegation top Tory aide sought payoff
After advertising this to, I assume, about 700,000 of their subscribers, the article then says down at the bottom:
Based on the strength of the ministerial denial-
Because it was denied by the Minister:
-and an inability to substantiate the allegation. The Star has decided not to identify the Minister alleged to have been involved.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Edward Broadbent: I agree with you.


Martin Brian Mulroney: In other words, "we will accuse the entire Ministry but because we have found out it is unsubstantiated and may be absolutely false we will not name the poor bugger we are accusing. We will invite you to smear everyone and assume everyone is guilty"!


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
February 13, 1987


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Benno Friesen (Surrey-White Rock-North Delta):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. The Royal Family of Ethiopia have been in prison for almost 14 years. They are aging and some of them are ailing and in poor health. Chairman Mengistu has promised to release them but has taken no action. Canada has provided a good deal of help for the Royal Family should they be released. Would the Prime Minister use his good offices to urge Chairman Mengistu to release the rest of the Royal Family so they can enjoy their remaining years in freedom?


Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Hon. Member for raising that question. It is helpful that Ethiopian authorities know this is a matter of concern not simply to the Government but to Members of the House of Commons. We are making representations and will continue to do so. If it appears that it would be helpful to intensify those representations, we will intensify them.


NUCLEAR ARMAMENTS
Hon. Donald J. Johnston (Saint-Henri-Westmount):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the Secretary of State for External Affairs back in the House and we look forward to a statement on his trip, as well as to a statement by the Prime Minister on his trip to southern Africa.
I want to ask the Minister about statements by Mr. Shultz to the effect that allies should not be criticizing the broad interpretation the U.S. administration wants to put on the ABM Treaty of 1972 in order to permit extensive testing of the star wars technology. Can the Minister confirm a report I have seen that he has written to the U.S. Government with regard to the interpretation of the Treaty and said that his Government, as do we in the Opposition, believes in strict adherence to that Treaty? Would he be good enough to publish that letter so Canadians will see the strong stand Canada should be taking vis-a-vis a treaty affecting the future of all mankind?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I can confirm that I have written to the U.S. Secretary of State indicating the very grave importance Canada places on the U.S. continuing to adhere to a restrictive interpretation of the ABM Treaty. The Hon. Member will know there are certain conventions regarding the publication of letters which require agreement by both sides. I am not sure that would prevail in this case, but in any event I have just indicated to the Member, the House, and the public, the tone and content of the letter to Mr. Shultz.
Oral Questions


INQUIRY WHETHER GOVERNMENT CAN CONFIRM FUTURE SPACE STATION WILL SERVE NO MILITARY PURPOSE
Donald James Johnston: appreciate the answer, Mr. Speaker. But speaking of Star Wars, there were talks yesterday in Washington about Canadian participation in building a space station.
Could the Minister confirm to the House now that he is satisfied the space station will not be used for military purposes?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I am not satisfied with the answer we got from the U.S. authorities. As I said before the Committee, the Canadian Government will insist on the interpretation that was given by the United States Administration when the project was announced. Use for defence purposes was supposed to be very minimal.


THE ADMINISTRATION
James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Right Hon. Prime Minister. When allegations were made which might involve the Minister of State for Transport the Prime Minister properly began an RCMP investigation and fired the Minister. The case of the Hon. Member for Joliette came to the Prime Minister's attention in January of 1986, but he did not suspend or fire the Hon. Member for Joliette. What is the difference between the two cases?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, the difference is that the facts are fundamentally different. I was obviously confronted with two different situations. The response in one was the response I initiated which led to charges being laid against a Member of the House and others. In regard to the second matter, it was my judgment that the action I took was the kind of action which should be taken given the facts brought to my attention. My hon. friend will understand that because of the police inquiry and the possibility of charges I can go no further at this time. However, I think he would agree with the celerity and thoroughness of my response.
[DOT] (U50)


DECISIONS MADE BY PRIME MINISTER
James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, what I am asking the Prime Minister in terms of conflict of interest is whether he would make clear at what point he makes a judgment in these kinds of cases? In the case of the Minister of State for

February 13, 1987
Oral Questions
Transport, the Prime Minister undertook an RCMP investigation, had discussions with the Minister, and fired him. I assume he held the same kind of discussions with the Member for Joliette. Will he tell us and the people of Canada what the difference is in these cases, because both involved RCMP investigations and very serious allegations?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, the question is: when do I make the judgment in regard to these matters? As soon as the facts are brought to my attention. The instant they are brought to my attention I try to assess them and respond immediately with the Secretary of the Cabinet, and the appropriate law officers of the Crown get involved in the matter. I believe that is what a Prime Minister should do and it is certainly what I do.


FOOTWEAR INDUSTRY
Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister for International Trade, and I would remind her that, when her Government did away with footwear quotas 14 months ago, the Government stated that this decision would not lead to layoffs, that it would even benefit all Canadians since footwear prices would drop in this country. Can the Minister explain why, 14 months after this decision, the footwear industry has lost 1,400 jobs and Canadian consumers are now paying higher prices for shoes?


Hon. Pat Carney (Minister for International Trade):: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member raises a point that has been occupying me in my representations from the footwear industry this week. Let me point out to him that when the policy was introduced it was anticipated that there would be a surge of imports. We expect that surge to moderate. We are undertaking consultations with some of the countries which supply footwear to ensure that they are being prudent in their exports. However, may I tell the Hon. Member that the weight of the representations made to me by this industry, particularly by the import and retail part of the industry, is that they want us to maintain the present policy. That is our intention. [Translation]


GOVERNMENT POSITION
Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, spokesmen for the footwear industry felt quite let down after their meeting with the Minister. Is the Minister prepared to admit today that the decision to abolish quotas is a failure for consumers and Canadian workers in that industry? In addition, could she tell us what she intends to do to stop this hemorrhage, because next year 2,000 more jobs will be lost,
footwear imports will flood the market, and prices will keep rising? What will her Government do to stop this haemorrhage in the footwear industry?


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, I have already established that we are in consultation with some of the countries which supply footwear to ensure that the surge is not extended. May I point out that the retailers and the importers, and some of the footwear producers themselves, are asking us to maintain the present policy. They are pointing out that there is expansion in the industry, new jobs being created over-all, and that Canadian consumers are entitled to a wide range of products, particularly lower cost items.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Ian Waddell (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. I want to welcome him back to the House and say that I, as I am sure all Members, appreciate his travels on behalf of Canadians.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ian Gardiner Waddell: I will not let him off the hook, though, and will come back to my question. It concerns Trans World Arms, the Canadian company in Montreal. A few minutes ago I talked to our ambassador in Lisbon, Mr. Francis, who told me that if a Canadian came to Portugal, a known arms centre, and brokered arms there, it would have nothing to do with the RCMP since it was not breaking Canadian law. Will the Minister reconsider his announcement yesterday of an RCMP inquiry-surely a growth industry in Canada-and seriously consider a parliamentary inquiry as a better vehicle to study Canadian arms sales to Central America?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, there is an RCMP inquiry because we have reason to believe that there are aspects to this transaction which would require an RCMP inquiry. I am sure the Hon. Member would not want us to take any action that would prevent that from happening. He has made certain allegations in a letter to me that I am prepared to pursue if that pursuit would not interfere with the RCMP inquiry. We are trying to determine that fact.
He has made a suggestion of a parliamentary inquiry. That also may be affected by the ongoing RCMP investigation. Again, I am prepared to look at that, in a reasonable way, and perhaps it might be helpful if the Hon. Member and I, sometime next week, could meet to discuss what we both know about the circumstances.
February 13, 1987


REQUEST FOR PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY
Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, since CBS News in Washington is carrying this Canadian arms connection as a major story, it affects our foreign policy and reputation in the United States. CBS News claims that Mr. Emmanuel Wiegensberg of Montreal, President of Trans World Arms, refuses to answer their questions, specifically the question of the connections of the Canadian firm with Secord-Hakim and Lieutenant-Colonel Oliver North. Will the Minister not agree that a parliamentary inquiry could issue a subpoena and ask Mr. Wiegensberg the key question of who contacted Trans World Arms and whether that person was representative of the U.S. Government in some capacity? Is he prepared to supplement the RCMP inquiry with a recommendation to the powers that be here for a parliamentary inquiry so that the key questions can be answered?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, first, I am not inclined to take an action which would limit the effectiveness of an RCMP inquiry. Second, I have some doubts about the propriety or the wisdom of the precedent of the Parliament of Canada establishing a committee of this Parliament to look into answering questions that Americans want answered but cannot get answered through their own processes. Third, I repeat my willingness to meet with the Hon. Member to discuss what we both know about the circumstances and determine whether there is a view that it might be worth while to pursue some other form of investigation.


EDUCATION
Hon. William Rompkey (Grand Falls-White Bay- Labrador):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. It concerns the subject of post-secondary educational funding. He will know that this year Established Programs Financing has been limited from the rate of increase of about $700 million. Furthermore, the Canadian Jobs Strategy Program has been disastrous for the funding of community colleges. Third, the Canada Student Loans Program is heaping debts as high as $20,000 on the backs of Canadian students. Why is the Government allowing the serious decline in first-class Canadian universities through this inactivity? More particularly, why is he denying a decent future to young Canadians through government inactivity in this area?


Hon. Tom Hockin (Minister of State (Finance)):: Mr. Speaker, as the Hon. Member knows, the Government announced a number of months ago major increases with regard to EPF financing. I believe that for the first time in history the federal Government is convening a major forum to
Oral Questions
discuss the whole problem of post-secondary education, to bring together all of the interested participants. That is the way to approach this, rather than acting unilaterally.


ESTABLISHED PROGRAMS FINANCING
Bill Rompkey: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Minister for that answer, but will he give an undertaking that Established Programs Financing will be on the agenda of that forum, which I hope will be held soon? Will he give an undertaking that the Government will accede to the recommendation of the Canadian Federation of Students and make the Canada Students Loans Program less of a loans program and more of a grant program? Will he give that undertaking?


Thomas Hockin: Mr. Speaker, I don't believe it is appropriate for the Government of Canada to decide unilaterally on the agenda. It will be worked out with all participants. However, I will take those suggestions into account.


SHIPBUILDING
Margaret Anne Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. Hundreds of shipbuilders are without jobs in British Columbia. Yesterday Versatile Shipyards laid off 28 management personnel because they have no new contracts. I have asked the Deputy Prime Minister before, and will ask him again when he and his Government will award the long awaited contract to build a Polar 8 ice-breaker, as has been promised? Is the Minister just going to sit there and let our shipbuilding industry die? When are we going to hear the announcement?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the Hon. Member is aware of the restructuring which is taking place within the Versatile organization. That process is still taking place, and until such time as it is concluded, the Versatile Pacific shipyards are not really in a position to undertake this. However, I would hope that in the next two weeks or so many of those elements might be settled and it will then be in a position to make a firm proposal with regard to the building of the Polar 8 ice-breaker. In fact, the Government still remains firmly committed to it.


Mr. Speaker:: I would ask Hon. Members to keep their questions short. We are running out of time.

February 13, 1987
Oral Questions GOVERNMENT POSITION


Margaret Anne Mitchell: It sounds very much like the kind of delays we had from the Liberals who also delayed on this Polar 8 ice-breaker.
In 1984, the Prime Minister promised to revitalize the industry. What is he going to do to start on this promise? Is there not something he can do to expedite this? We had the same answers the Minister just gave us several months ago.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: The Liberals were in office for 25 years and all they did was study the prospect of building a polar ice-breaker.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: That is all you are doing.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: We have made a firm commitment, and I am sure the Hon. Member would understand and realize that, in spite of my desire to move in with both hands to resolve the restructuring, there is a certain process it has to go through. I would ask the Hon. Member to be patient and allow that to take place.


REFUGEES
Reginald Francis Stackhouse: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Two and a half years ago Canada inspired the world by going to the aid of Ethiopians facing the spectre of starvation. People around the world now seem to be helpless as we see the plight of hundreds of thousands of refugees in South Lebanon. What can Canada do now to help these people find life? What can we do to help the UNRRA supplies get through to them?
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External
Affairs): Mr. Speaker, the situation of the inhabitants of those camps is appalling. There are limits on what Canada can do. What we are doing is approaching the Amal militia to request them to allow food and health supplies through. We are also approaching the Government of Syria, asking it to use all the influence available to it, to allow health and food and other supplies to go through.


CANADA POST CORPORATION
Mr. George Baker (Gander-Twillingate):: Mr. Speaker, door-to-door mail delivery has been reinstituted but on Parliament Hill only. Last night all Members of Parliament
received a hand-delivered letter from Canada Post in which it said:
Canada Post will be placing the majority of its retail services into the hands of the private sector. The change will-greatly reduce the cost of maintaining its retail network.
Does the new Minister responsible for Canada Post agree with this privatization, this cut-back of service, which will mean a closure of rural post offices?


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Hon. Harvie Andre (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: I think the honeymoon is over, Mr. Speaker.
On the general question of whether privatization can be beneficial or not, my feeling is definitely yes. In fact I would generally support what has been the view, as I understand it, of many committees of Parliament which have looked at the matter over the years, that in fact through privatization we may be able to have significant increases in service to the public, all the while saving money.


George Baker: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has changed the wrapping on the postal package with the appointment of this new Minister, but the contents remain the same, and we say the contents are unacceptable for delivery and should be returned to sender.


LEVEL OF SERVICE
George Baker: Does the Minister really believe that a part-time businessman can provide the same level of service which our dedicated postmasters and postmistresses do in rural Canada?


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, I am surprised at the Hon. Member's interest in the Post Office. I thought for sure he used voice communications for all purposes no matter what the distance.
Yes, I think it is very possible to have improved service if we have a retail postal outlet in a corner store which stays open 12 hours a day, as opposed to a service in a dedicated post office which shuts at 5 o'clock in the afternoon. I think it is very possible to have improved services all the while contracting to the private sector.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Dan Heap (Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Defence. As the Minister knows, Canadian civilian pilots have been warned to beware of U.S. war planes which are scheduled to start on March 8 low-level flight training from just above treetop levels and upward in Ontario between Sault Ste. Marie, North Bay, and Wawa.
February 13, 1987

When the request was received, did the Government obtain noise impact and environment impact reports, and did it consult with relevant civilian air service and pilots before giving approval, or was this all left to Major Donald Marsh?


Hon. Perrin Beatty (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, this is the reactivation of a route which was in service for many years. As a consequence, we already have data with respect to it. There was full consultation with the Department of Transport.


TRAINING OF AMERICAN PILOTS
Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, will the Minister tell the House whether this training of American pilots for low-level flight over Canadian terrain, hilly, wooded terrain, as an extension of the routes they use in the United States, is part of the deep strike policy of NATO of attacks into the Soviet Union?


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, this is part of the training which is necessary for the U.S. Air Force in order to provide for the defence of the West.
I am surprised the Hon. Member would feel that Canada should not shoulder its fair burden of the defence of the West. This is something which is very much in our interests.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Don Valley East. The last question.


REGULATORY REFORM
Bill Attewell: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for Privatization, responsible for the status of women and regulatory affairs. The Nielsen Task Force was the most comprehensive review ever undertaken by any Government to assess the size, cost, and efficiency of the federal bureaucracy. Several months ago recommendations emanating from a review of approximately 1,000 programs were assigned to the appropriate committees of the House. Since action on these recommendations was to create a much more efficient Government and significant cost savings, could the Minister give this House a progress report on the results achieved thus far?


Hon. Barbara McDougall (Minister of State (Privatization)):: Mr. Speaker, I would be very pleased to give a progress report to the Hon. Member because I think this is one of the most noteworthy achievements of any Government in the history of Canada with regard to government management.
There are a number of elements I would like to point out about regulatory reform. First, this has now commanded ministerial attention, and the attention of a cabinet committee, so it has very strong control because there is a very strong
Statements by Ministers
political will to ensure the regulatory environment improves. We have published, as well, a Citizen's Code of Fairness which, I think, is very important. My predecessor, the Minister of Justice, was responsible for introducing that publication.
There are 43 specific reform initiatives, including a working group on drug submissions, reform of the Combines Investigation Act, and there is a publication of a federal regulatory plan. The first one came out on December 15. I know that every Hon. Member of the House has read it from cover to cover.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to inform Members of the House that yesterday I filed with the Clerk a Notice of Motion with respect to capital punishment. The wording of the motion is available to Members on today's Order Paper and Notices. I would like to make it clear at the outset that the introduction of this motion does not indicate that the Government supports or opposes the reinstatement of capital punishment.
The intent behind the motion is to permit a full parliamentary debate to be concluded by a free vote on the capital punishment issue. By a free vote I mean that all Members of the Progressive Conservative Party will be free to vote according to their individual wishes and will not be bound by party discipline.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Of course, the opposition Parties can similarly release their Members if they so choose.
Furthermore, the vote will not be considered a matter of confidence by the Government. If the motion is defeated the Government will not consider it a vote of non-confidence.
The Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) made a commitment to Canadians that a free vote would be held on capital punishment during this Parliament. The Government has examined a number of ways of bringing this question forward. We want an open debate and a truly free vote, and a question formulated in a way to leave all stages of disposition in the hands of Members of the House, outside of the restrictions of the Standing Orders on Private Members' Business.
This issue is a matter of national importance and one that a majority of Canadians want Parliament to consider. It should be debated openly and voted upon in a free manner without

February 13, 1987
Statements by Ministers
impeding the independence of Members of Parliament. We believe the motion introduced today meets those goals.
It is our intention to permit the motion to stand on the Order Paper for a period of time to allow those interested parties in the public to make representations to their Members of Parliament. Indeed, I would expect all Canadians to make their views known through letters, briefs or meetings, or any other form of representation to Members on all sides of the House.
The motion seeks the opinion of the House with respect to the reinstatement of capital punishment. If the motion is defeated, then the matter will end there. If the motion is supported, then the motion will establish a parliamentary committee to prepare and introduce appropriate legislation. While such a practice is permitted under Standing Order 107, it is clearly not a common one. I would remind the House that the McGrath Committee in recommendation 4.12 of its third report stated:
We recommend wider use of parliamentary committees to review draft legislation, to conduct general inquiries when policy choices have not yet been made, and to bring in draft Bills.
In keeping with that recommendation, the motion has been drafted to ensure that all Members of Parliament have the opportunity to have input into the legislation, should the House choose to support reinstatement. This goes to the heart of our efforts to increase the role of the private Member with respect to public policy issues.
As one who has participated in a previous debate on this important issue, I recognize that it is a most difficult and emotional question. I trust that all Members will accept the importance and seriousness of this issue and approach the matter in a thoughtful and reasonable manner. The Government wishes to have a frank debate, a full debate, and a constructive debate. I trust that all Members will examine the question in that spirit.
The motion as presented is amendable. The Government has presented a motion which we feel will leave the House free to shape its decision. The motion now belongs to the House and its Members. The issue is theirs to decide.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, capital punishment is indeed an important and serious issue. We in this House and in the country have been expecting the Government to act on its commitment to introduce a debate on which there will be a free vote with respect to this subject. There is great interest in it. There is also passion.
There are those who feel strongly that the sanctity of life prevents the use of capital punishment by any Government. There are others whose concern with crime and social order lead them as passionately to believe that capital punishment should be reinstated. I call upon both these groups on both sides of the issue to recognize the extent to which they are
being manipulated and abused by this callous and hypocritical Government which introduces this motion at this time.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: For two-and-a-half years you did nothing!


Robert Phillip Kaplan: To take an issue as important and serious as this and introduce a motion at this time marks a new low in the performance of the Government. I hope that Canadians will not forget that.
The Government has indicated that the vote is to be a free vote. Yet the motion put forward in the name of a Minister of the Crown supports the principle of capital punishment. I know that in places in the country where the Government can advance its interests by putting this issue forward as a motion of the Government, that is what it is; it is a motion of the Government which supports the reinstatement of capital punishment.
Like the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Mazankowski), I participated in a number of debates on capital punishment. They are not cool, rational or dispassionate discussions. I object strongly, as do members of my Party, to the establishment of a committee which will travel and hear public opinion, which every Member of this House believes has already been heard. Members have made up their minds on this question. The establishment of a committee with a mandate to travel only indicates the attempt of the Government to divert attention from an issue about which opinion is largely settled. No good purpose will be served by the creation of such a committee, other than to create passion, emotion and pressure on all Members of Parliament to vote in one way or another. In any event, this will only distract attention from the most incompetent and perhaps immoral Government in the history of Canada.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Robert Phillip Kaplan: The Government has hit a new rock bottom with the timing of its motion and the method by which it proposes to proceed.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lynn McDonald: Mr. Speaker, it is certainly interesting to see the Government promoting the possibility of greater importance for private Members. It is astonishing to see that the Government does not want to take any leadership. It does not even have an opinion on this most crucial question of life and death which is involved in the issue of capital punishment.
One wonders why capital punishment should be treated as a moral issue, as if there were not other moral issues that we have been addressing, such as poverty and environmental pollution. These are also moral issues. I do not see why this moral issue should be treated in a different fashion from other deeply moral issues that we consider from time to time in the House.
February 13, 1987

The Government is keeping a promise it made in the election campaign. I remind the Government that it also made promises to the arts community with respect to funding, and to students with respect to education, not to mention the sacred trust regarding social programs. The Government promised scientists funding for basic scientific research. These were some of the promises it made.
Yet what is the Government's priority? The Government wants to keep its promise in an area which it knows is highly charged and at a time when its own credibility is sorely at risk. The Government does not look good on account of influence peddling, corruption charges and investigations. But it certainly looks good when murder and capital punishment are being discussed. This is a cheap way for the Government to make itself look good when its own reputation is very much at stake.
The questions as put in the government order are loaded questions. They do not deal with the real issues. If we must have a debate on this subject, I would prefer that the real questions at stake be those before us, namely, the morality of the state in taking life, the effectiveness of capital punishment as a deterrent, the effects in other countries after the elimination of capital punishment, the number of mistakes made in the execution of innocent persons wrongfully convicted of murder and the establishment of the impact upon society generally if capital punishment is reinstated.
I would prefer to see this subject put in a more positive way, if the Government feels it has to keep this promise, of all its promises. Canada has abolished capital punishment, with other enlightened countries. Why not put the question in a positive way, that we will continue this enlightened policy of abolition of capital punishment, and let those who wish to return to the dark ages vote against enlightenment.


Mr. Caccia:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I understand that in reply to a statement there can be the recognition of more than one speaker from each Party. I wish to participate in this series of interventions.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Is there unanimous consent?


Some Hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I regret that there is not unanimous consent.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: That's free speech, that is what you are advocating!
Petitions


INTERPARLIAMENTARY DELEGATION
Mr. Bob Hicks (Scarborough East):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 101, I have the honour to present to the House the thirteenth report in both official languages of the Canadian NATO Parliamentary Association.
The report pertains to the participation of the Hon. Member for Northumberland-Miramichi (Mr. Jardine) in meetings of the North Atlantic Assembly's Sub-committee on Defence Cooperation of the Political Affairs Committee.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]


COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Scott Fennell (Ontario):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the twelfth report of the Standing Striking Committee. If the House agrees, I intend to move concurrence in this report later this day.


PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS-SECOND REPORT OF STANDING COMMITTEE
Mr. Bill Kempling (Burlington):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the second report of the Standing Committee on Private Members' Business in both official languages.
This report deals with a selection of votable items pertaining to the second draw which took place on January 27, 1987.
Pursuant to Standing Order 36(l)(b) this report is deemed adopted and laid upon the Table.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]


PETITIONS
Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I have approximately six petitions from constituents and visitors to the national capital who wish to present a grievance.

With respect to what is known as the Rideau Hall grounds, these people say that the decision to close Rideau Hall grounds was made by the National Capital Commission, the Department of Public Works, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and the office of the Governor General without prior notice;

February 13, 1987
Petitions
that the closure of this attractive and tranquil park affects thousands of visitors to the capital from across the country who held Canada's uniquely accessible Rideau Hall as a symbol of the trust, openness and democracy of which Canadians are so justly proud; and that area residents from the entire national capital region who have used and enjoyed the grounds of Rideau Hall, recognizing the security concerns that prompted the closure decision, cannot accept a blanket closure of the 120-acre park to public access.
Wherefore the undersigned petitioners humbly call upon Parliament to open the decision for consultation with citizens' representatives of the large and growing opposition in order that a modus vivendi be created that would satisfy the Government and the public.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, it is my honour and duty to present a petition, which has been duly approved by the Clerk of Petitions, from a number of residents of North Vancouver, Burnaby, and other areas of British Columbia. The petitioners are concerned about the cost-cutting measures of removing letter drop boxes that people use to mail their letters. This began in Toronto, but it is now being implemented in other cities. The petitioners of Vancouver are protesting against this measure. They point out that it causes a great inconvenience, particularly to the elderly and to young children. Therefore, the undersigned petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to ensure that Canada Post replaces the mailboxes that have been removed, and that it consult with the residents of the affected communities before it removes these boxes, and other services in future.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: I have a further petition from many residents of Vancouver, and other areas nearby. The petitioners object to the Government's proposal to change the Patent Act regarding prescription drugs. The petitioners believe this will raise the prices of prescription drugs, and it will bear particularly hard on people of low or fixed income. They believe it is a mistaken example of Canadian concessions to the United States in the free trade negotiations. Therefore, they call upon Parliament to reject these proposals on the ground that they will increase drug prices for Canadians with no compensating benefit.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Finally, I have a petition from residents of Vancouver, and areas nearby regarding the low-level flight training of pilots of NATO countries at the Canadian Forces Base in Goose Bay, Labrador. The petitioners say that it disrupts the way of life of the people, it is not the most satisfactory available form of industry for earning a living and it is a provocative and aggressive war-fighting action that tends to endanger world peace. Therefore, the petitioners
call upon Parliament to ensure that the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) will end all the low-level flight training at the Goose Bay Canadian Forces Base, and cease negotiating with NATO for the establishment of a larger base.


Mr. Stan J. Hovdebo (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions to present. The first petition is signed by a number of people from my home constituency of Prince Albert. It calls upon the Government to ensure that it knows what it is doing as far as the increase in prescription drug prices is concerned. The petitioners call upon the Government to reject the proposals which would increase prescription drug prices for Canadians.


Stanley J. Hovdebo: The second petition is a plea from people of Canada to pray and call upon Parliament to ensure that the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) end all low-level flight training at the Goose Bay Canadian Forces Base, and cease negotiations with NATO for the establishment of a larger base. The petitioners do not recognize the low-level flight training as a defensive measure in Canada, and recognize it as endangering world peace.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Mr. Speaker, I have petitions from residents of Canada pointing out that the low-level flight training of pilots of NATO countries at the Canadian Forces Base at Goose Bay, Labrador disrupts the way of life of many of the native people living there. Hunting, fishing, tourism and mining can provide more stable, healthy, and peaceful employment than can the Goose Bay Canadian Forces Base. The petitioners therefore call upon Parliament to ensure that the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) end all low-level flight training at Goose Bay, and cease negotiations with NATO for the establishment of a larger base.



STRIKING


Thomas Scott Fennell: Mr. Speaker, if the House gives its consent, I would move that the twelfth report of the Striking Committee, presented earlier this day, be concurred in.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Does the Hon. Member have unanimous consent of the House to move the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
February 13, 1987


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Mr. Doug Lewis (Parliamentary Secretary to Deputy Prime Minister and President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions among the Parties, and I think Your Honour would find unanimous consent to pass the following motion:
That, pursuant to Section 39 of an Act to facilitate financial arrangements between farmers and their creditors, Statutes of Canada, 1986, C.33, the Standing Committee on Agriculture be the committee to review the Act.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Does the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary have the unanimous consent of the House to move the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I would ask that all questions be allowed to stand.


@Acting Speaker: Is it agreed?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Before recognizing the Hon. Minister of State for Privatization (Mrs. McDougall), I wish to inform the House that because of the ministerial statement Government Orders will be extended by 11 minutes beginning at 1 p.m.
Teleglobe Canada



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Barbara Jean McDougall: that Bill C-38, an Act respecting the reorganization and divestiture of Teleglobe Canada, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.
She said: Mr. Speaker I welcome this opportunity to introduce the legislation respecting the reorganization and divestiture of Teleglobe Canada, the international telecommunications carrier, authorizing the Government to sell the Crown corporation to Memotec Data Inc. in Montreal.
The transaction is particularly exciting because the dynamic entrepreneurship of Memotec is thus allied with Teleglobe s experience, technology and market access. The resulting combination will certainly attract the attention of the Canadian business world in the years to come.

The privatization of Teleglobe is an important milestone for the Government's privatization process which is itself an integral part of our plans to ensure more prudent management of the whole public sector, including both government Departments and Crown corporations.
Better government management has been a central element of our agenda for economic renewal, an agenda described in the November 1984 document, A New Direction for Canada. The agenda is pragmatic, coherent, and responsible. It is working and it is working well, to the benefit of Canadians.
Our policy recognizes that Crown corporations have played a central role in Canada's economic life. In the main they have served Canadians well, but few Canadians understand just how extensive our network of Crown corporations has become. In 1984 we inherited a vast collection of corporate holdings. Together they employed over 200,000 people, almost as many as in the federal Public Service.
Our policy is to manage better all Crown corporations, to wind down those entities which are no longer required, and to privatize on a case by case basis those Crown corporations where the public interest can be better served through private ownership with public regulation as and when required. This policy is consistent with Canada's traditionally pragmatic approach to public ownership.
We are all prepared to use public ownership when we see it as the best way to serve the public interest. We should all be equally willing to move away from public ownership when that too is in the public interest.
Therefore the Government's approach is sensitive and pragmatic. It is evident that many of the leading spokespersons

February 13, 1987
Teleglobe Canada
on the other side of the House are still wrapped up in the ideology of the 1950s and 1960s and are not aware of how far we have progressed since then.
Essentially the legislation places Teleglobe Canada on the same basis as CP Rail, Bell Canada, CTV, CHUM, or any other of our privately owned, publicly regulated companies.
Some have said that Teleglobe is profitable, a crown jewel, and because it is profitable we should not divest the company to the private sector. Our answer to this plea for the status quo is a simple one. As the late David Lewis once reminded doctrinaire socialists, "you don't have to own an industry in order to have some control over it". Crown ownership is not necessary for Teleglobe to serve the public interest.
In many ways Crown ownership is inhibiting to corporations. For example, Teleglobe is a well managed and profitable company, but it is extremely restricted in what it can do. It cannot be entrepreneurial. It cannot move into new ventures built around its own technological sophistication and its link to international markets. This synergy is precisely on what Memotec proposes to build to develop new products, expanded markets, new exports, and ultimately more jobs for Canadians.

Mr. Speaker, the Bill before the House is only a means to an end. That end is a privatized, dynamic and growing Teleglobe. The means are perhaps less exciting but just as important. The Bill describes the structure of the transaction, clarifies policies, identifies employee benefits and authorizes the sale.

Clauses 1 through 3 of the Bill are simply definitions. Part II, Clauses 4 through 6, is more substantive. These clauses provide for the creation of a new company organized under the Canada Business Corporations Act. The new Teleglobe will take over the assets of Teleglobe in exchange for securities. The securities, including shares representing 100 per cent of the new Teleglobe, will be sold to Memotec. The only major asset not to be transferred to the new Teleglobe will be the cash on hand in Teleglobe at the time of the sale. This is expected to be approximately $102 million.
We also believe it is sound public policy to ensure that Teleglobe remains Canadian owned and Canadian controlled. Accordingly, foreign ownership will be limited in Part II of the legislation. Non-resident ownership of Teleglobe will be restricted to 20 per cent. Non-resident telecommunications carriers will be totally excluded from Teleglobe's ownership now and in the future. Subsidiaries and affiliates of such nonresident telecommunications carriers will be similarly excluded with specified exceptions.
In addition, limitations are established on the extent to which domestic telecommunications carriers can own shares in the new company. This is designed to prevent the carriers from acquiring effective control of the new company.

The third section of the Bill, clauses 7 to 12, provides that the new corporation has an obligation to provide public telecommunications services such as co-ordinating telecommunications services between Canada and places outside Canada with the telecommunications services of other countries, making use of developments in cable and radio transmission or reception for public telecommunications services between Canada and places outside Canada, and conducting research and development for the purpose of improving telecommunications services.
Teleglobe will be designated to represent Canada in international agreements such as Intelsat, Inmarsat and the Commonwealth Telecommunications Organization, and under Section 15 of Part IV it will also be subject to Government policy directives for a narrow range of national security, foreign relations and international communications policy considerations. But perhaps more important than what the company must do is what it may do. It will not be restricted as to its mandate. It will in the future be free to pursue new business opportunities. This section also designates that the headquarters of the new company shall be located in Montreal.
Part IV of this Bill deals with Teleglobe's regulatory framework by empowering the CRTC to regulate its telecommunications business. By bringing the company under the jurisdiction of the Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications Commission, we will ensure that rates and other conditions will be both fair and reasonable into the future for both users and Teleglobe itself. Consumers will benefit from average reductions on overseas telephone charges exceeding 13 per cent in 1988. That will be good news for those many, many Canadians with relatives overseas. More important, the consumer interest will be protected into the future by the CRTC, a protection not present now under Crown ownership.
Later sections of the Bill, namely sections 28, 29 and 30, provide for a transitional regulatory regime to be established immediately. It is under this regime that the Government will require Teleglobe to reduce its rates, and will establish the rules by which rates will be regulated until the end of 1991. The Government will also ensure that Teleglobe remains as Canada's "single-interface" for overseas telecommunications for at least five years. This does not, of itself, provide complete protection for Teleglobe. Some critics have suggested that the telephone companies might attempt to route overseas traffic by way of the U.S. to bypass Teleglobe. However, even if they were to do this, those under federal regulation would require CRTC approval of their actions. It is the policy of our Government that, to the greatest extent feasible, overseas telecommunications shall be provided over Canadian-owned and Canadian controlled facilities. I should say, in fairness as well, that the telephone companies have said publicly that it is not their intention to bypass Teleglobe.
February 13, 1987

Part V, Sections 19 through 22, provides for the sale of Teleglobe. Let me clarify once again the financial implications of this. As Hon. Members know, the gross proceeds of the proposed sale to be received by the Government are $608.3 million, composed of $488.3 million from Memotec, an estimated $102 million in accumulated cash in Teleglobe at the time of the sale, and a special dividend of $18 million in December, 1987. Direct costs are estimated at $7 million, and a contingency reserve of $10 million has been created.
On the accounts of the Government of Canada, the only entry with respect to Teleglobe is a loan for approximately $2 million. Therefore, the impact on the deficit, on the consolidated revenue account, will, in total, be $608.3 million, minus the costs, the contingency reserve and the loan, for a final total of $589.3 million.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Barbara Jean McDougall: Let me also take this opportunity to clarify some further misconceptions that have arisen with respect to this sale. The securities to be sold to Memotec will, at the date of closing, be on the books of Teleglobe-and I do hope the Hon. Member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell) is writing down these numbers-at a value of approximately $378 million. Therefore, the sale price represents a premium of $110 million. That is not, by anybody s measure-even the Hon. Member for Vancouver Kingsway-a fire-sale.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: It is being sold for $350 million.


Barbara Jean McDougall: But the Opposition is correct in one respect. We could have structured this transaction to get a higher sale price, but only if we had been prepared to sacrifice the interests of Canadians by allowing higher overseas telephone rates, or allowing the new buyer to charge monopoly rates, or if we had been prepared to allow foreign bidders who might have bid higher. The Opposition may want Canadian consumers to pay higher phone rates to support monopoly profits, they may want foreign ownership, but this Government does not, Mr. Speaker.
The final substantive part of this Bill is Part VII, Sections 24 through 33. I have already described the interim regulatory regime. Much of the rest of this part is concerned with the provisions we are making for employees.

In legal terms, these clauses provide that all collective agreements will remain in force and they also provide for the transfer of pension plans.
A number of benefits and numerous guarantees are included in the sale of Teleglobe to Memotec, more specifically:
continuity of bargaining agreements;
creation of a new pension plan for present Teleglobe employees that is comparable in every detail to the plan now in force in the Federal Public Service;
Teleglobe Canada
within six months, the opportunity for Teleglobe employees to purchase five per cent of Teleglobe's shares at 90 per cent of the price paid by Memotec, through interest-free loans repayable over five years;
a long-term share purchase plan at a later date;
eligibility of the employee share ownership program for the purposes of the Quebec Stock Savings Plan, if possible;
and maintaining the corporation's headquarters in Montreal, as I mentioned earlier.

This is yet another item to add to the mounting pile of evidence that all points to the fact that privatization is a good deal for employees as well as for everybody else. Take, for example, the sale of de Havilland to Boeing. We all remember the cries of anguish from the Opposition benches during the sale of de Havilland to Boeing and the Opposition's predictions of doom and gloom and the sky falling in. But we hear nothing now from these particular "Chicken Littles" because the sale has been good for de Havilland. It has been good for the Canadian aircraft industry. It has been good for Canadian workers. The sale has been held as a natural partnership by industry experts around the world.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Maybe we should have sold this to a foreign company. Be consistent.


Barbara Jean McDougall: Consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, Mr. Speaker.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Barbara Jean McDougall: Some may ask why the Government did not choose a broad public share issue as a vehicle for Teleglobe's privatization. It is a valid question that certainly deserves an answer. The answer is that we are pursuing privatization on a case by case basis. An in this case, it was our judgment that a strong and dynamic major shareholder will help guide the company during its transition from public ownership to private ownership with regulation. We believe that Memotec will ensure an exciting future for this company. The public interest will be better served by having Memotec establish how it will operate Teleglobe and then go with a public share issue which is already part of its permanent refinancing plan. While a strong majority shareholder is desirable in the case of Teleglobe, public share issues directly by the Government may well be more appropriate for other privatization candidates.
Of course, we fully expect opposition Parties to say otherwise about the benefits of privatization, to take all positions and, like Stephen Leacock's famous horsemen, to ride madly off in all directions. For example, Liberal Members will conveniently ignore the fact that when they were in Government they presented legislation to privatize Teleglobe. I invite Canadians to compare their current rhetoric with their position

February 13, 1987
Teleglobe Canada
while in office as enunciated by the former Minister of National Revenue when he introduced Bill C-25, the Bill respecting the Canada Development Investment Corporation, the holding company for many Crown corporations, on May 28, 1984. At that time, the Liberal Government adopted the following position:
A second function of CDIC is to privatize... In its divestment activities, CDIC is to ensure that sales are made according to commercial standards, so that the public realizes a fair return from assets which are sold. CDIC has made initial assessments of the prospects for commercial sale of certain of the assets including consideration of market conditions and timing factors.
Despite these intentions, it was not until this Government came to power that any action was taken. Let Canadians judge the current credibility of the Official Opposition in light of its own statements.
Of course, there is always the NDP. According to the Hon. Member for Vancouver-Kingsway, the NDP is, "Not necessarily against privatization. The NDP are not saying that in every case we should not privatize; we are saying you have to have sound economic reasons for it". Of course, in this case, we have sound economic reasons.

Mr. Speaker, in the light of these official positions, this Bill should rally the unanimous support of all Parties.

A privately owned, publicly regulated Teleglobe will be able to meet public policy objectives even better than a Crown corporation. Not only will we continue to enjoy first-class overseas telecommunications, but this sale will bring additional benefits to Canada through greater consumer protection, broader business opportunities for Teleglobe and the freeing up of scarce public resources to do the things that Canadians want this Government to do. I look forward to the support of the entire House in proceeding with this legislation.


Mrs. Sheila Finestone (Mount Royal):: Mr. Speaker, I was listening with great interest to what the Minister said. I just want to make sure that I address some of those issues.
It is a pleasure for me to speak to Bill C-38, an Act respecting the reorganization and divestiture of Teleglobe Canada.
[ Translation]
Nonetheless I find it regrettable that the Minister, giving her views in the speech she has just made before us in the House, would imply that the sale of Teleglobe was in our best interest and because a Crown corporation cannot operate in a certain financial circle from which society can profit. The proof is that it is a corporation which has always been profitable-


Mr. Lanthier:: Not enough.


Sheila Finestone: I regret that the Hon. Member for LaSalle (Mr. Lanthier) does not believe it was profitable, because figures indicate that it is a very profitable corporation, well
managed, managed by Canadians here in Montreal. And I think we do have some pride at home.
The reason why I am disappointed , and I even think that the remarks of the Minister are somewhat shameful, is that the sale was made for ideological principles, not on the basis of the sound operation of a corporation, because if it were in the interest of all Canadian men and women the Government would have kept this magnificient small corporation in the public sector as a source of funds paid every year into the public treasury. It did not cost us a cent, Madam, and it is very important to understand that. Indeed, it was built with the money of Canadians, for Canadians, and in the interest of all Canadians.


An Hon. Member:: That again.


Sheila Finestone: No! No! It is somewhat different. I hope, because if she accused us, as Liberals, of having projects in May 1984 to privatize certain Government instruments, it is true, but we are not-

-frozen in the philosophy of Conservative thought that wants to sell at any price. One should sell when it is indicated that something is well worth selling.


Some Hon. Members:: It is.


Sheila Finestone: Yes, you need good economic reasons and you didn't have any. Teleglobe is a very good Crown corporation that produces well and is well administered. That is what we need. We need annual profits going into the general revenue fund of Canada from this corporation.
Teleglobe was established as the Canadian Overseas Telecommunications Corporation, the COTC, in 1950, with a legislative mandate to provide overseas telecommunications services for Canada and to participate on Canada's behalf in various international communication organizations such as the CTO, Intelsat, Inmarsat and ITU. The facilities the corporation took over were those of the Canadian international operations of Canadian Marconi Limited and Cable and Wireless Limited.
Two purposes were alluded to in the parliamentary debates on the Act which established the COTC. The first was that Canada had made a commitment during the 1945 Commonwealth Telecommunications Conference to public ownership of the providers of overseas telecommunications services. Second, it was felt that national security related overseas telecommunications facilities would be promoted by public ownership. Here, rather than promoting through public ownership, we have sold the furniture to pay for the rent.
Since 1950, international telecommunications demands have expanded enormously because of the economic growth and rapid technological developments which have resulted in higher quality and lower priced services. Teleglobe has also grown rapidly and profitably. Nevertheless, the corporation, with over $200 million in annual revenues, remains a relatively
February 13, 1987

small player in the Canadian telecommunications scene, accounting for only approximately 3 per cent of the Canadian market.
Financially the corporation gives an impression of strength and security. It has assets of $574 million and profits of over $40 million per year. The corporation has benefited from the policies of the Government which, until recently, required minimal dividends although corporate income taxes have been paid. The result has been that retained earnings have been rather large in proportion to the fixed capital stock of the company as compared to other telecommunications companies.
I would like to give an over-view of the attempts to sell Teleglobe. To date, the Government has engaged in a series of unco-ordinated initiatives and conflicting statements in its attempt to sell off Teleglobe Canada. The Government's actions with respect to this privatization can be summed up in one word, bungled. Permit me to review the Government's actions to date.
The former Industrial Expansion Minister was an early proponent of privatization. Remember his list of fire sales, Nordair, Northern Transportation Company Limited, Canada Development Corporation, de Havilland Aircraft of Canada Limited, Pecheries Canada Incorporated, CN route, Canadian Arsenals Limited, Canadair Limited and Nanisivik Mines Limited. The total Crown assets sold amounted to $883 million.
As I said before, we sold most of those corporations and many of them could have been profitable right where they were. While I am pleased some of them were sold, to say the least, we have to judge them case by case. I was pleased to hear the Minister say that, and that she might plan to do it that way in the future. It is too bad she did not use that yardstick in this particular instance.
Teleglobe Canada was the apple of the eye of the former Minister responsible for industrial expansion. It was a Crown corporation about which very few Canadians knew anything. It is said that in the fall of 1984 the Minister invited the former Minister of Communications and a senior official in his office to dinner. Somewhere, so the story goes, between the fish and the meat the Teleglobe sale was proposed. Immediately the official protested. There was no policy framework in which the sale could take place, he said. Without a national telecommunications policy debate, which was being planned, he said the whole bidding process was bound to get fouled up. Maybe he was thinking back to a report commissioned by the Conservatives when in opposition, although never released, which advised that Teleglobe should only be sold after a White Paper on telecommunications policy had been debated. The official must have had a crystal ball because he was certainly right. We have no national telecommunications policy and we are still in the process of meeting with our provincial counterparts to build one; co-operative federalism and national reconciliation.
Teleglobe Canada
Let us take a few moments to review what has happened in the two and a half years since that meeting. On August 1, 1985, then Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion announced that the Government was proceeding immediately with the privatization of Teleglobe. He stated that the bidding procedure put in place on that date was designed to provide all serious potential purchasers a fair opportunity to acquire Teleglobe. By letter dated September 9, 1985 Dominion Securities Pitfield, the Government's financial advisor, wrote that all bidders would be advised by October 30, 1985 whether their respective offers were acceptable and that an agreement of purchase would be signed by December 15, 1985.
In a subsequent letter dated September 11, 1985 the date for advising bidders of the acceptability of their offers was changed and they were told an agreement of purchase for Teleglobe would be signed by January 15, 1986. That was great financial management and certainly gave the businessmen a sense of confidence.
If that was not enough confusion for prospective purchasers, Dominion Securities issued a further letter dated November 12, 1985 stating, "The timetable for the sale of Teleglobe has been delayed by the temporary unavailability of the Minister responsible." As a result, they were compelled to advise that the date for the sale was being pushed back once again.
All through the spring of 1986 rumours persisted that the Government would be announcing the successful bidder for Teleglobe, but no such announcement was ever made. Then in November, 1986, almost one full year after the deal was supposed to close, what does the Government announce? It said the bidding process for Teleglobe will start all over again with new rules. Is that what the former Minister meant when he said the Government would proceed immediately with the sale of Teleglobe? Was that government policy and was it changed en route? Is that what the Minister meant when he said the bidding procedure would be fair to all parties? I suggest the Government not only changed the rules in the middle of the game but also changed the game itself.
How can we expect taxpayers to have confidence in the Government given the behaviour it has demonstrated in its management? It is no wonder that newspaper headlines in The Globe and Mail read, "Teleglobe Canada sale is act first, think later", or that The Financial Post labelled its headline, "Bidding chaos for Crowns", or most recently an Ottawa Citizen story was headed, "A privatization shambles".
The Minister alluded to the fact that the sale of Teleglobe would free up funds for other government activities. I find that rather strange in light of the fact that Teleglobe paid money to the Government every year and it certainly was not costing the Government any loss of revenue. What was the price to be paid for Teleglobe? The Government points out that the sale will result in a one-time reduction of the federal deficit. What the Government fails to indicate is that in 1985 Teleglobe wrote a cheque to the Government of Canada in the amount of $108.1 million. I call that a rather sizeable sum. I would not mind a

February 13, 1987
Tele globe Canada
cheque like that to help us move forward. Then what happened? In 1986 the company issued another cheque for $80 million. Can you tell me how that is costing the Government money? That is a very nice return to the people of Canada for the faith they had in investing in a well organized and well run public corporation. Teleglobe has been a profit generator for the Government in the past and there is every indication that that pattern would have continued in the absence of privatization.
I do not think privatization at any cost or keeping a company in the public sector at any cost is the right philosophy. We need a middle of the road, well balanced point of view which is not ideologically frozen to the left or right. That is why the Liberals were good Government and why we saw this country grow and prosper.


Henry Perrin Beatty: That is why you were thrown out.


Sheila Finestone: Certainly there has been enormous expansion in the telecommunications field over the history of our Government. I wish I could say the same for the present Government. Had we wanted Teleglobe to develop its research and development, manufacturing and marketing, it could easily have been done through enlargement of its mandate.
You have indicated the House will now recess for lunch, Mr. Speaker. I will return and further address my ongoing concerns over the privatization of Teleglobe. Let me just say that, despite the ideological bent of the Government and its decision to sell Teleglobe, I am pleased to see that Memotec Data of Montreal was the winner. It is a Cinderella story and I am pleased they were able to prevail. I compliment the Minister and CDIC on their choice. I will finish my remarks after lunch.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I will look forward to that. The Hon. Member will have 23 minutes left when we come back at 2 o'clock.
At 1.10 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order. When the House rose at 1.10 p.m., the Hon. Member for Mount Royal (Mrs. Finestone) had the floor.


Sheila Finestone: Mr. Speaker, when the House rose for lunch, I believe I was reviewing the chronology of this divestiture. On November 19, 1986, the Minister of State for Privatization (Mrs. McDougall) and the Minister of Communications (Miss MacDonald) announced that the final bidding stage for Teleglobe Canada would take place. Bidders were asked once again to submit bids by January 9. On December 19, the Minister of State for Privatization tabled in the House draft legislation for the divestiture of Teleglobe. On
December 30, the Government rejected a proposal from the telecommunications companies Bell Canada, BC Tel and others, which would have allowed them to purchase 40 per cent of Teleglobe Canada.
On January 9, the last day for the receipt of bids, CDIC had seven bidders for the purchase of Teleglobe. On January 19 a story appeared in The Financial Post about the bidders for Teleglobe. Included in that list of bidders is Memotec Data Incorporated. On January 27, the CDIC board met with the various bidders and, at the conclusion of that meeting, the management of CDIC was instructed to correspond through Dominion Securities with each of the bidders to allow them to reconsider their bids.
On January 30, Mr. David Torrey of Dominion Securities sent a letter regarding the revision of bids with particular reference to by-pass, pursuant to a directive from the board of CDIC. It is interesting to note that not all the bidders changed their bids.
It should be noted that on February 2 there was no significant activity on the Toronto stock-market and some activity on the Montreal stock-market. Tuesday, February 3, was the due date for revised bids for Teleglobe Canada.
On Thursday morning, February 5, the CDIC board conducted a telephone conference call to consider the revised bids. In a memorandum to the Minister dated February 5, the board stated that it had considered all the bids for the sale. Following the conference call, it sent a very detailed letter to the Minister advising her that the bids it considered acceptable were from Caisse depot, City Financial Corporation, Gordon Investment Corporation, Intercity Gas Corporation, Memotec Data Corporation, and Power Corp. of Canada. The summary of the bidders' material was attached to the letter. The board also acknowledged that the bid from Canadian Telecom Carriers was determined to be non-compliant with the terms and conditions and their bid was conditional upon modifying three conditions of the government guidelines for the divestiture of Teleglobe Canada. Therefore, that bid was rejected.
Finally, the board suggested to the Minister that of the three highest bids received, Memotec was the first at $488.3 million. The CDIC board unanimously recommended Memotec Data as the proper company to be considered for the divestiture, or privatization, of Teleglobe. There was a halt of trading of Memotec shares on the stock-market.
A very interesting article appeared in The Toronto Star on Feburary 6. It reported the previous day's activity on the Toronto Stock Exchange and questioned why some concern had been manifest on Thursday, February 5.
Late in the afternoon of February 10, the Minister of State for Privatization informed Memotec that it was the successful bidder. All that activity on the stock exchange took place the week before the successful bidder was advised late in the afternoon on February 10.
February 13, 1987

The Minister announced at a noon hour press conference on February 11 that Memotec was the successful bidder for Teleglobe Canada. Trading in the stocks were halted for a short period of time. Philosophically I did not agree with the sale of Teleglobe, because I think it was a good and substantial company producing well with fine management, good employees and an ability to give money back to the federal coffers. Nevertheless, I did rejoice in learning that this small company had beat out some of the giants. It seemed like a very happy Cinderella story. Therefore, it was quite sad that an unfortunate cloud had now come over the head of the successful bidders.
I asked some questions in the House. At one point the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Andre) decided not to answer my question, but answered a question outside of what I was asking. I particularly wanted to know if the Minister would conduct an immediate investigation into who in the Government, in Crown corporations or on the ministerial or departmental staff knew the name of the successful bidder and when did they know that? The Minister was as concerned, I think, as I was about this particular matter. However, what she was not able to explain was that when she knew the successful bidders, and when she knew there was some unusual activity in the stock market, why she did not stop the announcement of the sale of Teleglobe until that matter had been cleared up. I am sorry that did not take place. It would have been much better had that been done, and she could have then put her own investigation into place and this would never have become the kind of public issue which puts a cloud over this exciting moment in terms of the history of this company.
I was not happy that we have another blunder in the ongoing saga of the selling off of our Crown corporations. You must remember, Mr. Speaker, that the Canadian Development Investment Corporation is an agent of the Government and is part of the procedures which have to be taken into consideration as well, and it did send the very important letter to the Minister on February 5.
The Minister talked about the price to be paid for Teleglobe.
1 think I said to the Minister that because we had such a profitable company, the question of the dollars was not significant. It is a one-shot deal to wipe out a part of the deficit which the Government is well intended towards reducing. However, is that the best way to reduce it? If the Government intends to sell off its Crown jewels to reduce the deficit it will soon run out of assets. I think that is very serious. Frankly, what we are looking at seems to me to be sales which will yield short-term gain at the cost of long-term pain to our federal Treasury. Therefore, I am not particularly pleased about that and I think we are going to have to look into it a little further.
With respect to the tariffs to which the Minister alluded and the fact that she has directed, through the memorandum of sale, that there be a reduction of 13.5 per cent, it had been
Teleglobe Canada
suggested that Teleglobe's tariff was too high, and that was the prime reason for the privatization. In a brief presented to the Minister of Labour (Mr. Cadieux) in August, 1986, by the Teleglobe Technical Supervisors Association, Local 1653, and the Canadian Overseas Telecommunications Union, quite the contrary was revealed. The brief stated:
Our tariffs are a matter of bilateral international agreements and we must often acquiesce to the traffic structure of the overseas partners, the foreign administrations, even though Teleglobe is capable of operating profitably with lower rates.
In the case of telephone traffic, Telecom Canada receives an average of 50 cents on a dollar per conversation-minute. However, this and other problems can easily be resolved by making Teleglobe subject to CRTC regulations. Privatization is certainly not necessary to accomplish these ends.
With respect to those rates, on November 19, 1986, when the Minister of State for Privatization and the Minister of Communications announced that the Government would be proceeding with the final bidding stage in the privatization of Teleglobe Canada, it was suggested to Canadian consumers that, as a result, rates would be reduced. The Minister of State for Privatization said:
Canadian consumers and business users will benefit through reductions in overseas phone rates of at least 13 per cent on January 1, 1988, with further rate reductions likely in subsequent years. Telex charges would also fall by 10 per cent on the same date.
But this was a planned reduction. It was going to happen anyway. We did not need the privatization and divestiture for this rate reduction which will enable all Canadians to make long distance phone calls to their aunts, uncles, or friends at reduced rates. Canadians love to phone across the world because we are such an interesting mutlicultural society and come from so many areas of the world. This reduction could and would have been in place and did not require selling off this asset in order to accomplish that goal.
The Standing Committee on Communications and Culture was told when Mr. Jean-Claude Delorme, the President of Teleglobe Canada appeared before us that:
The corporation was giving consideration to a plan that consisted of a number of phases. We were considering collection rate decreases of the order of 10 per cent in 1988.
When asked whether there were further projected declines for 1988 into 1989 and 1990, the President indicated yes, but would not elaborate on what those planned reductions were. Therefore, the question of rates would have been resolved in any case.
Let us look at the monopoly status. In Bill C-38, as well as when the Minister of Communications and the Minister for Privatization announced the final round of bidding at that marvelous press conference, we were told that Teleglobe would have a monopoly staus for five years. After that date there would be no assurances that Teleglobe would continue to have such status. I must say, I am concerned about that.
When Mr. Delorme appeared before the Committee on Communications and Culture he said:
If Teleglobe is not a monopoly under the present circumstances, its viability is in serious jeopardy. By that I mean we receive our traffic and therefore our

February 13, 1987
Teleglobe Canada
revenues from two pipelines: The Telecom Canada Pipeline, which is basically the telephone pipeline, and the CN-CP pipeline, which is telex and telegraph. We do not have access to the subscribers.
Therefore, if it were to become permissible tomorrow for anyone to operate a network similar to or in competition with that of Teleglobe, then I believe the existing carriers would probably be the first candidates. And obviously, and naturally, they would seek to route their traffic via their network rather than ours. That is the reason why I say that without the protection of what we have called, in our jargon, "the single interface policy", Teleglobe's viability is in real jeopardy.
This is not me, Mr. Speaker, and it is not the Opposition who are telling the Government. This is the President of Teleglobe Canada giving a report to the Standing Committee on Communications and Culture, and he has serious questions. If the Government is such a good consulting mechanism, why does it not listen to the President who has had years of experience in developing a profitable company which brings very fine revenue into the coffers of this country, and recognize that without a regulated monopoly the potential for the development of this company may be seriously in jeopardy? I will examine this issue with the Minister very carefully when the Bill gets into committee. I believe this to be one of the two major flaws in the Bill, and I really regret that decision.
With respect to by-pass, because that also relates to the fact that this may not be a regulated monopoly five years down the road, if we look at November 19 of last year, when the Minister of State for Privatization reopened the bidding process for Teleglobe Canada, I indicated at that time that there did not seem to be any method by which we could prevent carriers from by-passing the Teleglobe system and by transmitting information to our neighbour to the south, the United States, and then using the American systems, which are considerably cheaper for transoceanic communication. There is the theory of the magnitude and economies of scale which come into play in terms of the American scene. The population of Canada is one-tenth the population of the United States. I think we do well, given that consideration.
The Government has taken some steps to demonstrate that carriers will not be able to by-pass the system. Under the Radio Act, the Telegraphs Act and the Railway Act the Government, we are told, will exercise its existing powers to ensure that Teleglobe remains the sole Canadian operator of facilities to provide Canada-overseas telecommunications services for a period of at least five years.
As well, under Section 64(1) of the National Transportation Act the Governor in Council is given statutory authority to vary or rescind any order or decision of the CRTC. I hope that will be enough. However, we can re-verify that when the Bill is considered in committee.
The participation of the carriers leads me to another concern, that is, the lack of participation of the telecommunications carriers in the ownership of Teleglobe. We have been told that the Memotec bid makes no provision for the domestic carriers to own a portion of Teleglobe. I find that particularly distressing as these same carriers supply 70 per cent of
Teleglobe's traffic. The November 19 guidelines for bidding provided that no more than 40 per cent of Teleglobe could be owned by telecommunications carriers. On December 29, 1986 CDIC received a bid for 40 per cent of Teleglobe from Canadian Telecom Carriers International Incorporated. It was determined to be non-compliant because it was conditional on modifying three conditions of the government guidelines for the divestiture of Teleglobe.
Having been rebuffed in their initial efforts, the telephone companies joined the bidding group that included the Caisse, other pension funds and Spar Aerospace Limited of Toronto. That bid also failed. I sincerely hope that some way will be found by the new owner, Memotec, to integrate part of the telecommunications carriers into the new Teleglobe.
My last point deals with the workers. It must be remembered that since 1979, when privatization was first advocated by the short-lived Conservative Government, all employees have been living in an atmosphere of fear and uncertainty. They operate under the continual stress of adapting to the volatile technological change that is always present in the telecommunications industries. But being asked to assume this additional stress over the last seven years can easily be perceived as indicative of the insensitivity of the present Government toward the employees of Teleglobe. I have been told that many employees have opted for early retirement, more out of fear and uncertainty than from personal desire.
Over the past year I have been in constant contact and have had the opportunity to meet and come to know many of the employees of Teleglobe whom I found to be highly organized, articulate, informed and sensitive to the important issues surrounding the privatization of a company in which many have invested their whole lifetime. I strongly believe that if it had not been for their strong voice, their futures might be less secure than they are today.
Clause 15 of Bill C-38 gives the Governor in Council, on its own or at the request of the CRTC, the power to give policy direction concerning any matters within the jurisdiction of the CRTC, and the CRTC shall give effect to the policy directives which are issued by Order in Council. I hope that these issues will be addressed in what will be an amicable way around the table as we sit down to discuss them in the legislative committee. I am looking forward to the study of Bill C-38 at which time we will examine it more closely, with particular reference to the conditions of sale and the valuation studies for the deal.
I take this opportunity to congratulate the Minister of State for Privatization for her handling of the sale. I sincerely hope it will go well. It certainly has been the best of the procedures to date in terms of the divestiture of our assets.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, I rise as the NDP's privatization critic, the only male critic in this area. I mention that because the tone of the debate thus far has been so good and so positive. I hope I will not spoil it.
Since we have become so complicated in our analysis of this Bill I would like to state what the Bill is all about. We are
February 13, 1987

dealing with Bill C-38 which deals with the privatization-the selling by the Government-of a Crown corporation called Teleglobe Canada. Teleglobe has the responsibility for all overseas telecommunications entering and leaving Canada. So if one phones one's grandmother in Scotland or one's grandmother in Italy the calls must go through Teleglobe. These communications include telephone, telegraph, cable and telex communications. Teleglobe is a joint owner of submarine ocean cables and telecommunications satellite systems. Thus Teleglobe has an effective monopoly in Canada on all overseas telecommunications. In what a great Canadian, Marshall McLuhan, called the global village, overseas telecommunications are really very important. That is to say, the world has shrunk and we all live in the same village. That is why this is an important Bill.
I will not mince words. I think that the Government is selling off a crown jewel to a little known private company at a reduced price, a fire sale price. I think that the deal is bad.

Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada is going to sell a very profitable company to a small little-known company. I did not hear ... Memotec, a small Montreal company.

That is not to say that it is a bad company, but it is a small company. It is like a minnow swallowing a whale.
The Minister anticipated my speech by saying that I wanted to maintain the status quo. In this particular case I admit that I am for the status quo. In British Columbia we have an expression which I believe was borrowed from Saskatchewan farmers. There are many retired farmers from Saskatchewan who live in British Columbia. It is 10 degrees or 12 degrees above zero in British Columbia today while it is 40 degrees below zero here with the wind-chill factor. The expression is, when something works, why fix it?
In the Minister's own words at the press conference she held the other day she said that Teleglobe had good management, that it is a well run corporation and making money. Then why sell it? In 1983 Teleglobe had profits of $53.23 million. This is money that went into the coffers of the Government of Canada. In 1984 the profits for the company were $41.17 million, while 1983 was a better year with profits of $54.6 million. This is a company which made $53 million in profits. It has good management, according to the Minister, and it is well run because of its good employees. It also has a good reputation. Why are we selling it?


An Hon. Member:: Because we have a deficit.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: An Hon. Member states it is because we have a deficit. One way to pay the deficit would be to take the $50 million profits for the next few years and apply it to deficit reduction. The profits could be used in the company. Do not sell the company at a fire sale price for a short term cash
Teleglobe Canada
amount to temporarily reduce the deficit. In the long run the deficit could be reduced by keeping the company. I again ask why the Government is selling this company. The answer is that it is an ideological decision. The Government is following the trend of the Reagan administration and the Thatcher Government to privatize, sell off Crown corporations, and deregulate.
When the Government in the United States deregulated nursing homes it produced scandals in the treatment of older people. The deregulation of the airlines produced problems with respect to service for consumers. When transportation was deregulated, it was not the ordinary person who benefited, but big business interests and usually friends of people in Government. Everybody knows that this particular Government has a lot of strange friends in the business community. This decision is ideological, it is based on a theory and not on practicality.
The Minister quite rightly said that we in the NDP are not against privatization per se, but there must be a practical reason for selling a Crown corporation. For example, if there was bad management in the Crown corporation, it did not have sufficient money, or there was no public policy reason for keeping the corporation, then maybe it could be sold to the private sector. We are not being ideological about this and bianketly saying that it should not be sold, but there has to be a good reason for selling it.
I wish to give an example of what I mean by public policy. Everybody knows about Petro-Canada, the government oil company. It seems to me that when a company is out there with the big sharks, the international companies, or the oil industry, scrambling around to find energy security and supplies in a world oil crisis-we had two crises in the 1970s and we will have another one in the 1990s-there should be a window on the industry, and a government corporation in place like Petro-Canada. It would be foolish to sell off Petro-Canada and the role that it plays in the exploration of oil. For example, if we need to explore the tarsands the Government could direct that company to develop the tarsands, or Hibernia. It does not have to be done alone, it could be done in co-operation with private Canadian companies. That is a public policy purpose for having a Crown corporation.
The Government spent $886 million to buy the Gulf gas stations for Petro-Canada. I have not heard all of the arguments on this issue, so I am not coming to a firm conclusion. But one might argue that it is not a matter of public policy for the Government to own gas stations, that it may be better for small business people, community people, co-ops, or a small city. For example, in Flin Flon, Manitoba the co-ops took over gas stations. There may be no public policy argument for the Government owning gas stations. It may come as a surprise that someone from the NDP would be saying that, but it has to be looked at in that manner. In my view, there are public policy reasons for keeping Petro-Canada as an element in finding oil, and the oil plays in Canada.

February 13, 1987
Teleglobe Canada
What is the public policy argument for selling this corporation? Before I try to answer that, I wish to say that I think the onus is on the Government to show us why it is selling a company that is well managed, profitable, and which is giving good service. Another way it could be advanced is by saying that from a public policy point of view we believe that it should be in the hands of the private sector. What are some of the most important areas of life in the modern world that Canada must deal with? I would think that energy is important, and we have Petro-Canada. Transportation is important, and we have Air Canada. Communications are vital, and we have Teleglobe. Do we want the control of all of our communications to be given up to the private sector? My answer to that is no. So from a public policy point of view it should be kept in the public sector.
I wish to reiterate what I have stated. I do not think that all companies need to remain in the public sector. There could be room for privatization. The argument has to be made, and the onus is upon the Government. It has to tell us whether it is a practical reason. I do not see it here. Is there a public policy reason? I cannot see it here.
As the Minister has said, we can regulate. We will sell it to the private sector and we will regulate the company by using one of our regulatory agencies, like the National Energy Board, the Canadian Transport Commission, or the Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications Commission. In looking at the history of regulation, the problem is that the regulators have not been very strong. They tend to get in bed with the regulated. As a lawyer, I have appeared before every regulatory agency in Canada, and in my view there is not a strong regulatory system. As a matter of fact, the companies that are being regulated are pushing the regulators around, or there are weak regulators. The cable industry is a good example. So it is not good enough to say that we can regulate.
The Minister said that Crown corporations had a central role, and they have served Canada well. I ask again, why sell this corporation? I listened to the Minister's speech very carefully. It was a good speech. This Minister is a good speaker, and a good debater.


Pat Carney: A good Minister.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Well, we will see if she is a good Minister. The proof of the pudding will be in the eating and we will see whether she can do her job successfully. So I will suspend my judgment in that particular matter, for what it is worth.
I followed the Minister's speech very carefully, as I am sure you did, Mr. Speaker. The Minister said that Teleglobe was well managed and profitable, but it was limited. Why is it limited? She did not say why it was limited. If it is limited by law, the law can be changed. If it is limited by a mandate that has been given to it, the mandate can be changed. We should be looking at the mandate given to Crown corporations. They should be given a specific mandate, and then made accountable to Parliament and the Canadian people. But that is a reform of a Crown corporation, not a reason to sell it.
The Minister finally said it was the synergy. I notice that this was the same word that was used at the press conference the other day by Mr. Mackenzie, who is the President of Memotec, the company that is buying Teleglobe. I thought that was the key, so I asked a page to get me a dictionary. Being a traditionalist, I got it from the former Hon. Member for Winnipeg North Centre, Mr. Knowles, who is at the table today. He sent me The Oxford Illustrated Dictionary, an older dictionary. I looked up the word "synergy" in that dictionary, and it defined synergy, synergetic or synergism as co-ordination in the action of muscles, organs, or drugs. I do not know how drugs could get into the debate, so that could not have been the definition.
Then I thought, given that the Minister is a trendy person from Toronto, that it was one of these new Toronto yuppie words and that I had better get a modern dictionary. Therefore I got the Webster's Thesaurus-


Mr. Dick:: Are you filibustering?


Ian Gardiner Waddell: No. I looked at the word "synergy", and it listed: "co-acting, co-active, coefficient, conjunct, synergetic". That did not help me. Finally I went to the Webster's Dictionary.


Paul Wyatt Dick: Do you want me to send over Winnie the Pooh for you to read?


Ian Gardiner Waddell: I suggest that the Hon. Member should look at Webster's. I looked in it for the word "synergy" and discovered that it came from the Greek word synergos which meant working together or, broadly speaking, combined action or operation. I concluded that it was magic, that the Minister was hoping that this synergy or this magic in the private sector would somehow work. That does not make much sense. There is no reason for the Government to sell the company other than pure Conservative ideology.
The company is being sold to Memotec Data Incorporated which is a small Montreal-based data processing communications company. The Government claims to have sold the company for $608.3 million. However, when we analyse the sale carefully we find that the most Memotec will pay is $488.3 million for the company. Memotec is to pay $488.3 million to the Government for Teleglobe, and the Government is to get $102 million in accumulated cash out of the company, plus an $18 million dividend, for a total of $608.3 million. The latter payments cannot be considered part of the purchase price because they represent funds already in government hands, held by the Crown corporation.
It is also understood that as part of the $488.3 million purchasing price Memotec has said it will assume Teleglobe's debt liabilities which amount to $143 million. If this is the case, and it was not denied by the Minister in her speech- indeed, she confirmed it-the Government will only receive $345 million for Teleglobe, as no actual funds will be paid for
February 13, 1987

the debts. In other words, the company will pay $345 million and will assume the debts. That is private sector accounting, and I challenge any Tory Member to refute that. If the Government is to become involved in privatization or the private sector, let it use some of the accounting methods of the private sector.
They do not have to take money out of their pockets to pay for the debt, they just assume it. The company is in fact paying $345 million for Teleglobe. I would suggest then that the Minister start out her career as privatization Minister by telling us the truth and telling us what is the actual sale price.


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The Hon. Member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell) has just accused the Minister of State for Privatization (Mrs. McDougall) of not telling the truth, which is unparliamentary.
I would ask him to withdraw that totally unparliamentary remark, which is unusual for a Member of his character to use.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: If the Hon. Member said it directly, I wish he would withdraw it.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Of course I would withdraw it, Mr. Speaker, if it fell to the ears of the Hon. Member for Vancouver Centre (Miss Carney) that I was in any way suggesting that the Minister of State for Privatization was trying to do this, perhaps inadvertently. I would certainly withdraw that totally, if that were the impression left.
Let me suggest that the figure is $345 million. Let me also suggest that it is a leverage buy-out, as it is called on the stock exchange. This minnow which swallowed the whale-Memotec which swallowed one of the crown jewels of the Government, the company being privatized, Teleglobe-in fact used what is called leverage buy-out. In other words, it went to the National Bank of Canada and borrowed $345 million, and then it will give it to the Government to buy Teleglobe.
How will it pay back its bank? It will use the revenues from Teleglobe, that $50 million per year. That is called a leverage buy-out. There is nothing behind Memotec. To put it more accurately, there is not that kind of money behind Memotec. It is risky business to do that, in my view. As long as the cash flows keep coming, there is no problem. However, what happens if there is a strike or some problem with telephone companies? What would happen if telephone companies suddenly found ways to reroute calls through the United States? In that event the new Teleglobe, the privatized Teleglobe, could go belly-up. The Government should not assume that particular risk. I am informed that $345 million has been confirmed by the President of Memotec and that the debt has been assumed. I think my figures are right. It is a leverage buy-out and it puts the company at risk. Quite frankly, it is a serious matter.
The Minister said that it was good for the employees.
Teleglobe Canada

Recently in this House I asked a question to the Minister of Labour (Mr. Cadieux) concerning the employment situation at "La Cite" in Montreal-I think it was "La Cite", a cooperative housing unit in Montreal-the Government of Canada sold this building to private sector interests and two days after the sale some employees lost their jobs.

I think they were janitors and they were simply canned or laid off. How soon the Minister forgets. The case of "La Cite" is conveniently forgotten. I know the Minister of Labour (Mr. Cadieux) is trying to remedy the situation. I give him credit for that. He told me that he had a meeting with Louis Laberge, President of the Quebec Federation of Labour, and that he was trying to remedy the situation. It was a privatization situation, and the employees were thrown out on the street.
I have some concern that the employees in this particular case be protected. I am concerned that their pension plan be protected. Apparently it will be, but perhaps the pension plans of new employees will be different or will not be as good as the pension in the public sector. I point out that the record of the private sector in employing and dealing with women in terms of certain benefits is not as good. I ask the Minister of State for Privatization, who is also responsible in the Government for the status of women, to consider these questions in terms of privatization.
In the documents provided with the Minister's package announcing the sale no reference was made to the book value of Teleglobe. The company's book value is reported to be anywhere between $300 million and $450 million. Furthermore, its sale value is much higher, as it has an extremely good profitability picture.
When the Hon. Member for York-Peel (Mr. Stevens) was the Minister responsible for the sale of Teleglobe, British Telecom reportedly made a bid of $750 million for the company. That is a heck of a lot less than the $345 million selling price. I know the Minister of State for Privatization could say to me, "Well, would the Hon. Member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell) want us to sell Teleglobe to a foreign country?" She is proud that Teleglobe is not going to a foreign country. But then the Minister cites, in about the next paragraph of her speech, the fact that de Havilland was sold to Boeing and it is doing great. She cannot have it both ways.
I cite this figure of $750 million to show British Telecom's projections that the company was worth a heck of a lot more than the Government sold it for. The Government, by all analysis and by all accounts, thought Teleglobe would bring in at least $600 million, and it was expected that that price would be achieved. Sadly the Government has let the company go for almost half of that $600 million. The $600 million mark also explains why the Government has tried in its press kit, and

February 13, 1987
Teleglobe Canada
press bumph, to create the impression that the company has been sold for $600 million. I said, and I will say it again, that that is not an auspicious start for a Minister who showed such great promise in the area. In my view, we should have more accurate figures.
We are completely opposed to the sale of Teleglobe because the company has been a consistent money maker. It is a monopoly and it will continue to be one. It occupies the field of communications where there is a legitimate public policy interest to be protected. It adds insult to injury to receive the paltry sum of $350 million for such a lucrative company, so valuable to the people of Canada. This is a fire-sale. Memotec is a company with reported revenues in 1985 of just under $17 million. Compare this to the revenues of Teleglobe-I am not talking about profits, I am talking about the revenues-which were $678 million in 1985. A minnow is swallowing a whale and there are some risks to it.


Claude Lanthier: You used to say that about Bombardier.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: I do not think Bombardier is a minnow.


Claude Lanthier: It was.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: We will see.


Claude Lanthier: Yes, we will see.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: The Government of Canada should not put Teleglobe at risk. That is a real problem.
There is another problem, Mr. Speaker. Memotec's purchase has been clouded by the possibility of trading irregularities in its shares. On February 5, the day that Paul Marshall, Chairman of the Canada Development Investment Corporation, advised the Minister that Memotec had won the bid, its stocks jumped by $2.38 a share to a value of $13 a share on the Toronto Stock Exchange. Shares had previously sold for $10.60 a share. Not a bad little coup for some people who made money on those shares.
Share trading was halted that day but resumed the next day. More than half the number of the total number of shares traded in 1986 were traded in the next two days. People have asked whether insider trading took place.
I phoned a journalist in British Columbia from The Vancouver Sun and asked him to make some comments about Teleglobe. I had a lot of information, but there were only two comments from the journalist. First, "We are not really interested in the sale of Teleglobe in British Columbia". I found that strange. British Columbia is still in Canada. It may be because The Vancouver Sun is the only major newspaper without any correspondent or columnist here in Ottawa. I consider that a real shame for my city.
The other comment, and I will pass it on to Hon. Members, was, "Did the Prime Minister's friends have any access to the shares? Did they have consultants", and there is no evidence of
that and I am not alleging anything. But it is sad that people have that reaction.
There are some problems with the sale of the shares and we should not be debating this Bill today. It is too soon to bring the Bill before the House. We do not have the proper documentation and the circumstances concerning the sale are being examined right now by the Toronto Stock Exchange. We should be waiting, because there is no great hurry on this Bill, until we get the report from the Toronto Stock Exchange. Since the company is going for $350 million and the debt has been restructured, we should be waiting until we get better and more accurate figures from the Government. We will have something to say about that later on.
There has already been debate by my friend in the Liberal Party on monopolies and the by-pass matters. I will not go into that, just to say that the Government is not doing the consumer any big favour, and it could be doing damage.
Canada does have international obligations. We are party to the Intelsat Treaty of 1964 which deals with telecommunications satellite traffic. My speech is being heard and seen in my office in British Columbia. It is being beamed out to space then coming back. I hope nothing is lost in the transmission.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Teleglobe is part of that. I am worried that the Government is privatizing part of its responsibility for international affairs. I say that seriously and I will pursue that part in committee. Teleglobe will now represent Canada on the Board of Governors. I know there are provisions in the Bill to deal with that, but this is a very strange situation with Canada giving up part of its foreign affairs in a crucial area. Australia, New Zealand, France, West Germany, Italy, Norway and Sweden all have Government controlled overseas telecommunications systems. In the United Kingdom, even the British Government, after having done a major privatization of British Telecom, has retained just slightly under 50 per cent ownership with a controlling interest. That is not the case in Canada.
Let me summarize matters, Mr. Speaker. Teleglobe has proved itself to be an effective money maker. That is undeniable, and the Minister had admitted that. It has proved itself to be among Crown corporations what one calls a crown jewel. Why sell it? Teleglobe has proved to have good management. Why sell it? It has proved itself to have given good service to Canadians. Why sell it? Other countries have either controlling interest or full ownership of international telecommunications systems. So why sell? Teleglobe has been sold for about half of what we thought it would sell for. Why sell it for half? What is the hurry? What are the real reasons for selling the company? I am looking, but I cannot find the reasons. I am not saying ideologically that we should not sell the company because it is a Crown corporation, but give me the practical and the public policy reasons. We are selling it because it is synergy-man! What is this synergy, this magical term? Will it increase the profit? What is it? Maybe some Conservatives Members will deal with it in their speeches. I would like to nail
February 13, 1987

this synergy down and find out how magical it is to convince a Government to sell a company.
The long range outlook is that the company will stay a monopoly beyond the five-year guaranteed monopoly. There is simply not a demand in Canada to have another overseas telecommunication service. The company effectively is a utility, like Ontario Hydro. Therefore, it should remain in public hands, in my view.
Despite the fact that under the sale, the Government will be able to give directives to Teleglobe for a narrow range of national security, foreign relations and international communication policy considerations, in a broader sense Teleglobe will be in a conflict between the broad policy international objectives of the Government and the profits of its shareholders, both of which are quite legitimate interests. This company will now be a hybrid and will be in a position of conflict.
There are inherent contradictions in the act of selling the company. Because it is a monopoly service, the Government does not want to sell it to the telephone companies and increase their already existent monopolies. By not selling it to the telephone companies, the company decreases its market value due to the spectre of the bypass of calls through the United States raised by the telephone companies. The upshot is that a lucrative, world-class Crown corporation is being sold for a song to a private company that will be able to maintain it as a cash cow in a guaranteed and protected monopoly environment.
What kind of business sense does the Government have? Why is it selling this corporation? I can find no public policy reason for it and I can find no practical reason for it. That is why we in the NDP will oppose this Bill.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The first three speeches have now been completed. Under Standing Order 55(2), we are now entering the third phase which provides for 20-minute speeches plus 10 minutes of questions and comments.


Mr. Ken James (Sarnia-Lambton):: Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to be able to speak in support of the privatization of Teleglobe Canada, the latest transaction in the privatization process. The Hon. Member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell) spoke of the criteria for the sale of Crown corporations. I think those criteria were put very plainly in a document dated August 18, 1986, which stated the following:
The May Budget outlined the basic principles the Government is following to carry out its privatization initiative: to be sensitive to the concerns of management and employees in corporations considered candidates for sale; to consider the impact of privatization on consumers and market competition; to consult with provincial Governments; to avoid selling at distress prices for the sake of privatization; to follow commercial objectives when considering stages of privatization where there may be periods of mixed, private and public ownership; and to examine all related policy and financial considerations on a case-by-case basis before considering the privatization of any given corporation.
Teleglobe Canada
I think that that is very plainly and well put. As the Minister stated, the Government is proceeding on pragmatic case-bycase basis to privatize Crown corporations for which Crown ownership is no longer necessary to achieve a public policy purpose, and it is structuring these transactions in a way that maximizes future benefits for taxpayers, employees and the companies themselves.
The Opposition's tactic is to criticize these initiatives as ideological obsessions. However, Canadians know better than to believe this kind of rhetoric. The Canadians who most support privatization are those with knowledge of the performance of companies that have already been sold.
The Hon. Member for Vancouver-Kingsway asked over and over: "Why sell it, why sell it, why sell it?" Let us talk about why we want to sell Crown corporations and let us see what a review of past privatizations reveals.
Crown corporations that have been privatized are doing much better in the private sector than they were under government control. Benefits have accrued not only to the corporations per se but also to the management and the employees, and that was one of the Government's stated objectives. Commercial benefits can be identified because of greater freedom to compete, easier access to financial markets, and expansion of markets internationally and through joint ventures. Privatization has given these corporations the opportunity to provide better and more services to customers, to attract new customers and, in certain circumstances, to lower the cost of services.
New alliances of parent corporations and Crown corporations have enhanced technological know-how. For example, de Havilland has benefited from privatization in terms of its commercial orientation. With less bureaucratic red tape, management has become more aggressive and more private-sector oriented.
Happily, in a number of cases, the employees are the ones who are benefiting the most from privatization. Again, I would return to the question of the Hon. Member for Vancouver- Kingsway: "Why sell it, why sell it?" I know the Hon. Member is very interested in workers, and if privatization will benefit the employees, that should be a good reason to sell it.
Let us take a look at some specific cases. As Hon. Members know, the Northern Transportation Company Limited was mandated to provide reliable and comprehensive marine transportation and related services on a profit-oriented basis in the North. The Government sold this company in July of 1985 to an Inuit development corporation and it is, of course, run by the Inuit. The purchase price was $27 million. More important is what has happened since that time.
I believe it is true to say that the Northern Transportation Company Limited was well run before privatization, but it was not as aggressive as it could have been. Even though the corporation's mandate was to provide economic, reliable and comprehensive marine transportation and related services on a profit-oriented basis in northern Canada and the Arctic, the

February 13, 1987
Teleglobe Canada
Government was careful not to compete in other activities related to marine transportation in the North. Now, the new owners of the corporation see some possibility of expansion in the offshore and in eastern Arctic supply work. As they become more involved in northern development, the corporation will be able to diversify its activities. Presently, it intends to take a lead role in the north warning system.
Very often the Government will restrict the operations of a Crown corporation in order that it does not get into direct competition with other corporations in the same sector. This was true for NTCL which has now been given more freedom to compete more aggressively. The corporation is now transferring its services in the eastern Arctic area and is also entering into joint venture for the north warning system. The new flexibility given to the corporation by the privatization will serve to make it more efficient. Wider services are provided in more areas and the corporation is more able to meet local concerns. I also understand that the corporation is exceeding its own business plan. Why sell? Privatization has been good for this company, and I am sure Hon. Members are interested to know that it has been very good for the native people of the North.
What about de Havilland? Hon. Members will recall the political posturing of opposition Parties during the debate on the privatization of de Havilland to Boeing Corporation, a Seattle-based company with plants in Winnipeg and Arnprior. We have heard little since from Members of the Opposition because they do not want to bring de Havilland's success to the attention of the public.
The purchase of de Havilland Canada by Boeing has been hailed as a natural partnership by industry experts around the world. The Boeing Company has customers all over the world and more foreign customers are now looking at de Havilland products. As regional carriers become more sophisticated and solidify their links with larger airlines, the new alliance is expected to create opportunities for both companies to meet the needs of a broader base of customers in a rapidly changing and evolving market-place.
On a personal note, the regional airline on which I travel, Air Ontario, has eight Dash-8s on order. Soon I will be flying back and forth on Dash-8s. Of course their order book is so heavy we will have to wait a while for ours.
The new partnership has enhanced de Havilland's ability to compete in a highly competitive market and provided some joint venture possibilities. The company recently signed an agreement with Short Brothers PLC of Northern Ireland, a maker of small commercial planes, to explore collaboration on a new short-haul aircraft to add to their line.
These are all very good signs, of course. Yet even better news is the fact that the major beneficiaries have been the employees. The previous speaker asked, why sell? Not only do the employees have better job security but their number has
increased since the acquisition from 4,005 in January, 1986, to 5,204 in October, 1986. The privatization of de Havilland has meant jobs and more jobs in Winnipeg and Downsview. As a matter of fact, some 800 new jobs. That is why there is good reason to sell.
Let us look at the record of another company, a holding company for the fish processing corporation, Les Pecheries Cartier Inc. As Members know, that holding company was sold for $5 million to the Prudel Agrifood Corporation in April of 1986. The privatization of that company gave it greater commercial freedom by allowing it to enter into contracts with foreign enterprises. For example, a contract has been signed with Danish and English companies for the distribution of fish products. The corporation will also be expanding its marketing into the U.S. The privatization has given more freedom to the corporation and access to more and better fish markets. Pecheries Canada was able to negotiate a line of credit one week after the agreement was signed. Before privatization it had been struggling for months to increase its line of credit. With privatization it was able to lower the cost of service through cost control, particularly administrative costs. On the other hand, the company has responded better to the needs and expectations of its customers, and its employees have once again benefited a great deal. Why sell? Because it is good for the employees. They now have better job security and longer periods of work because of the greater demand in this very seasonal industry for fish products.
Those are three case studies on privatization, three very different companies handled on a very pragmatic, case-by-case basis, by this Government. They are proof that privatization means more jobs and a bright future for the employees, not to mention the taxpayer or the companies themselves. I am confident that history will repeat itself in the case of Teleglobe under the leadership of Memotec.
I would like to spend my few remaining minutes today to talk about the specific issue before this House this afternoon, the sale of Teleglobe to Memotec. Teleglobe is an important company in the Canadian telecommunications industry. Through Teleglobe our principal communication links with countries outside North America have been assured. These services are vital today and will become even more so as Canada's dependence on foreign trade continues to grow. As well, the social importance of Teleglobe cannot be ignored. The company provides the Canadian people with communication links with the rest of the world. For the many thousands of new Canadians this link with family and friends back home cannot and must not be ignored. Consequently, the Government of Canada is using this legislation, policy statements, regulatory powers, and other mechanisms to ensure the continuation of Teleglobe's vital service.
We will not allow the made-in-Canada telecommunication functions of Teleglobe to be altered or challenged. Given Teleglobe's international responsibilities this legislation will allow the Government of Canada to issue policy directives to the company within a narrow range pertaining to national

February 13, 1987
security, foreign relations and international telecommunication policy matters. Teleglobe will continue to act as a signatory to Intelsat, Inmarsat, and the Commonwealth Telecommunications Council. Our Government will retain its responsibilities and obligations as a party to these agreements. As well, the legislation subjects Teleglobe to federal regulatory authority given the vital importance of the industry to all Canadians.
The Government is committed through this legislation to ensuring that telecommunication services to all parts of Canada be provided by Canadian-owned and controlled companies as much as possible. Our Government will exercise its powers under existing legislation to ensure that Teleglobe remains for at least five years the sole authorized Canadian company in the provision of Canada-overseas telecommunications. We will ensure that Canadian domestic and international telecommunication traffic be routed through Teleglobe facilities. It is a long-standing policy of this Government that Canadian domestic and international telecommunications be carried on Canadian facilities.
As Teleglobe is a vital and viable company, Crown ownership is no longer considered necessary for the achievement of public policy purposes. The best possible terms have been found, private ownership combined with public regulation will provide significant benefit to all Canadians. Rate reductions are one of the first benefits. Overseas phone rates will fall by at least 13 per cent in January of 1988, with further reductions likely. The benefits to Teleglobe and its employees are immeasurable. The company will now have new opportunities to expand and grow through an ability to pursue new business opportunities. Given the history of past privatization efforts by this Government we have every reason to expect that many new jobs will be the result of this sale. Additionally, tax dollars used for Teleglobe will now be freed up for other priority initiatives of our Government.
In the bidding process a number of restrictions were put on interested companies. First, provision was put into place to ensure effective Canadian control at all times. Total nonresident ownership is restricted to 20 per cent. As well, to restrict domestic telephone companies from gaining control of Teleglobe they are restricted to acquiring a maximum of 40 per cent of the company initially. It was essential that some company shares be made available to employees through a share purchase plan. As well, after a period of adjustment for the new owners, the Government will take steps to ensure that some shares in the company will be sold publicly. It is nice that the employees can participate in this very successful company and own a piece of it. That is another reason that it is so very good for employees. As well, any successful bidders had to ensure that employee concerns would be addressed. Memotec has met and in some cases exceed the Government's expectations with respect to the future of the employees.
Memotec has agreed that the headquarters of Teleglobe will remain in Montreal, and it has agreed to continue existing collective agreements. It has agreed not only to provide pension coverage which meets existing industry standards for
Teleglobe Canada
new employees, but to continue coverage for existing employees in a plan equivalent to what they now enjoy as federal government employees. In addition, the employee share purchase plan to which Memotec has agreed exceeds our requirements. The company is offering employees a 5 per cent share in the company at 90 per cent of the relevant purchase price with a five-year interest-free loan. What more could be asked to ensure the security of these employees?
The Government has made every possible effort to ensure that the sale of Teleglobe does not interfere with the national telecommunication network which our Government realizes is of such importance to all Canadians. Teleglobe cannot cease business or amalgamate without the approval of the House. CRTC approval is necessary for transfers of effective control or the disposition of substantive amounts of assets of this company. If Teleglobe contravenes these conditions, the CRTC has the authority to force the disposition of the offending shares.
Along the same lines, the Government has taken special care to ensure that telephone communication companies will never be in a position to control Teleglobe.
Since they are compatible industries, it is obvious that telecommunication companies of Canada must be represented on the board of directors of Teleglobe. This legislation guarantees them a continued representation proportionate to their holdings, but is limited to a maximum of one-third of the total membership of the board. Additionally, as a further precaution, officers of Teleglobe cannot be officers of either the telecommunication companies or their affiliates.
Please do not get the idea that Teleglobe will have its hands so badly tied that it cannot move. The Government has set down minimum requirements. These requirements are essential if they are to ensure that all Canadians have access to the same levels of service they are currently enjoying. Beyond these, Teleglobe is free to enlarge, expand, and grow as its own business interests dictate.
Clearly the sale of Teleglobe is a good deal. These are enormous benefits. This sale will provide enormous benefits to everyone.


Donald Paul Ravis: Mr. Speaker, I enjoyed the speech given by the Hon. Member for Sarnia-Lambton (Mr. James), in which he made a number of interesting points. I want to comment on his speech as well as that of the Hon. Member for Vancouver- Kingsway (Mr. Waddell) with respect to why Crown corporations should be sold.
I come from Saskatchewan where Crown corporations have been plentiful over the years. I believe the people of Saskatchewan have learned a very interesting lesson about Crown corporations. During the last provincial election in Saskatchewan the CBC conducted a poll of 1,600 people. It asked their opinion of Crown corporations and whether the Government should be involved.

February 13, 1987
Teleglobe Canada
Since Saskatchewan has had a number of socialist Governments in the past, I expected that the number of those opposed to Crown corporations would be low. However, 76 per cent of those questioned responded that they did not wish the Government to be involved in Crown corporations. Furthermore, in a poll conducted during the last federal election in 1984, a large percentage-I believe 50 per cent or 60 per cent-had the same opinion. I suggest that a consensus is beginning to develop against the Government investing in these activities where there is a major risk to taxpayers' money. Perhaps the best example I can give is the Potash Corporation of Saskatchewan which has hundreds of millions of dollars at risk in a market that is very volatile at the moment. In fact, that corporation is losing literally millions of dollars every year. I believe these risks should be left to the private sector.
I am sure there is a cross-section in the Hon. Member's riding that is representative of all three Parties and the people of Ontario. Do his constituents believe that the Government should be involved in this kind of activity which risks their funds, in spite of the fact that this Crown corporation was making money, as indicated by the Member for Vancouver- Kingsway? I suggest that regardless of whether it is making money we should not be risking public funds.


Kenneth Albert James: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his support. When I have talked to my constituents about the objectives of the Government and our principles on the privatization initiative, I have found them to be very supportive. I began my speech by mentioning those principles, and I believe the majority of my constituents support privatization.
I come from an area that is very private enterprise oriented, in which there are multinationals in the hydrocarbon energy field. Privatization is very beneficial to employees in my area because of the operations there. I believe this is a good deal about which they would be very positive. I am sure they are applauding it at home this afternoon.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, perhaps you can help me. I can comment on the Member's speech, which was very good and thorough, but I cannot comment on a comment. However, considering that the Hon. Member followed with a reply to the comment, can I comment on his comment?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I would appreciate it if the Hon. Member would stop trying to confuse the Chamber and would ask his question or make his comment. Then we can settle it at that point. It has been a great Friday the thirteenth, and it is almost Valentine's Day. Let us not confuse the whole issue.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, I did not realize that it was Friday the thirteenth. Now I am worried. I would offer you a valentine but I do not want to be misinterpreted since you are a Member from Alberta.
Canadians may say in a public opinion poll that they favour privatization. However, if they are asked if they favour reduction of service, they will say no. If they are asked if they
favour bad health standards, they will say no. If they are asked if they favour poor deals for the employees, they will say no. If they are asked if they favour giving Crown corporations to big business so they can make a big buck, they will say no. My point is that it depends on the question.
I did not ask the Hon. Member for Sarnia-Lambton (Mr. James) why the Government wants to sell all Crown corporations. I wanted to know why it is selling this Crown corporation, since it is profitable, well managed, and has a good service. I do not see any reason why the Government is selling it, other than for ideological purposes.
The Hon. Member mentioned the employees. Is he aware that Fred Pomeroy, President of the 40,000-member Communications and Electrical Workers of Canada, says that the sell-off serves the interest of neither taxpayers nor employees. How can the Member say that the employees believe this is a benefit?


Kenneth Albert James: I thank the Hon. Member for the question on Friday the 13th. I think the Hon. Member will know that TPF&C limited did an evaluation, and in connection with the pension plan-and I know the Hon. Member is very interested in that-the company proposes:
-to provide a pension plan which is identical in all respects to the Public Service Superannuation Act (PSSA). This design is not typical of the industry. Contributory plans exist in the industry but the PSSA differs in two respects: it has a higher employee contribution rate and full automatic indexation.
The value of the plan, in terms of employer provided pension, is at least equal to the industry norm. In the context of higher inflation, it would have more value.
A last point: if a PSSA type of plan were adopted, this would obviously minimize the transition and implementation tasks.
The evaluation speaks very highly of the pension plan and it was done by a reputable company. It is the ideology of the Government to privatize, and this has been substantiated by many people. It is said that Government does not do very well in the business of the private sector and that Government cannot run things as well as the private sector. Privatization, we think, will reduce the size of Government. I know the Hon. Member would like to see that happen. We have talked about making more room for private sector initiatives. We think that taking these corporations out of government hands and into private initiatives will allow the private sector to grow and become more competitive. I think the Hon. Member would have to agree that any time the Government is involved, there are a million rules and regulations and bureaucrats who are always asking for 14 or more reports. Any time Government has any part of business, it tends to make it less flexible. What the Hon. Member wants is the very same thing I want, more jobs, better working conditions for employees, more opportunity for advancement and all of those good things.


George Baker: Mr. Speaker, I have just a very short question. I would like the Hon. Member to answer the question put by his colleague a few moments ago. Does the Hon. Member for Sarnia Lambton (Mr. James) agree with the same principle of
February 13, 1987

getting rid of Crown corporations when the Crown corporation we are talking about is a very profitable one? Does the Hon. Member think that the same principles he enunciated a moment ago would apply whether the Crown corporation was profitable or whether it was a drain on the federal Treasury? Could the Hon. Member address that question?


Kenneth Albert James: Mr. Speaker, I think again we have to go back to the principles we have set out as a Government, and I enunciated them previously. It has nothing to do with whether or not the company is profitable. Certainly, we would be suspect in trying to sell a company which was not very profitable. I think someone could then say it was a fire sale or looked like a fire sale. It is important that the company is profitable and doing well so we can get the best price possible. Some people have quoted $750 million when they did not have to be too serious and it was a foreign investor. That is easy to say. It is the same as the New Democrats being in Opposition, they can say all sorts of things because they do not have to follow through. The same goes for the Liberals.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I regret but the Hon. Member's time has expired. The period for questions and comments has now terminated. Debate.


Lynn McDonald: Mr. Speaker, I join in this debate on the matter of the privatization principle itself and, of course, the specifics of the sale of Teleglobe which is proposed and is up before Parliament for approval, and the bargain basement rates which have been permitted in this sell-out of a very important Crown corporation. I would like to quote the Communications and Electrical Workers of Canada as they look at this issue. It has an Ottawa by-line:
For sale: One world class telecommunications company. Provides a vital Canadian presence in international communications. An impressive track record of efficiency and productivity. Consistently one of the most profitable corporations in the country.
Must sell quickly as present owner getting out of business. Will sell to highest bidder. No preconditions. Contact Mulroney and Company, House of Commons, Ottawa.
This is not quite the advertisement the Minister put in the newspapers, but I think it is very much the sense of the approach of the Government to the sale of Teleglobe. If we look at the concerns of the employees, the people who have made this a very profitable company, we find that in this case the Communications Workers of Canada have urged that any privatization decision be put on hold until the completion of the former Minister of Communications announced review of the national telecommunication policy. The suggestion is, and I think it is very reasonable, that the privatization of a particular company in the telecommunication field should not be looked at alone, but should be looked at in the context of a national policy on telecommunications, a national policy which we do not have at present, and is a question of some speculation.
Teleglobe Canada

Teleglobe Canada is a Crown corporation whose responsibility is to ensure the transmission of international telecommunications in Canada. These telecommunications are made mostly through telephone, cable distribution, and telex transmissions. Teleglobe is active co-owner of intercontinental submarine cables and satellite communications systems. Throughout this country, overseas telephone calls account for 85 per cent of its revenues.
Teleglobe Canada had demonstrated its obvious profitability. Why should we sell such a Crown jewel? That is the question which a good many Canadian men and women are asking.
In the long run Teleglobe will probably remain a monopoly beyond the five years it will be guaranteed. The demand in this area of overseas telecommunications is simply non-existent. This company is not just a profitable concern but it should remain part of the public sector.
Although the Government will provide directives for tightening national security in connection with external relations and for international telecommunications policies, Teleglobe Canada will to a considerable extent be in a conflict between policy-dictated objectives on the one hand and the normal considerations of a business that is supposed to make a profit, on the other. That is the case at Intelsat.
There are some very definite contradictions, down to the actual conditions of sale. Just because this is a public service that has a monopoly in its field, the Government did not want to sell to another telephone company, claiming that this would further enhance an existing monopoly. However, not selling to another telephone company means the market value of the company drops, owing to fear that the company's further development could be delayed. This puts downward pressure on the sale price. In the final instance, a profitable Crown corporation with an international reputation has been sold for a song to a private company that can use it as a source of funds to protect it against other monopolies on the market. What kind of deal does the Government think it is making?

Teleglobe has always been a money-maker. Its profit has improved considerably over the years. With respect to its profits, its net income after taxes in 1985 was $53.2 million. In 1984 the company's profit was $41 million-plus. In 1983 the profit figure was $54.6 million. In 1982 it was $47 million. In 1981 it was $36 million. In 1980 it was $35.9 million. In 1979 it was nearly $20 million. In 1978 it was $14.5 million. In 1977 it was $14.9 million. In 1976 it was $12 million, and in 1975 it was $11 million. The company has had consistent and sizeable profits over the years. In recent years its profits have been substantial when one takes into consideration the size of the company. It is known as the jewel of Crown corporations.

February 13, 1987
Teleglobe Canada
In their original approach to privatization the Conservatives' idea was to make a package of companies, including some that they wanted to get rid of because they were not doing well. To sweeten the package the idea was to include Teleglobe because it is such an attractive company. That was the first reason for putting Teleglobe on the block. We have now gone by that point. The other companies have not been sold, or they will be sold separately. In this case Teleglobe has been put on the block by itself.
The Government wishes to sell Teleglobe to Memotec Data, a small Montreal-based data processing and data communication company. The Government claims that the sale price is $608.3 million. Estimates of the company's worth are certainly around that amount. Given its continued profitability some people might think it is worth even more. However, no one is suggesting that anyone is paying too much by having to pay that amount of money for the company. The figure of $608 million is an exaggeration. It makes the price look a lot better than it is in fact. When one looks at the terms of the sale more carefully the total begins to diminish. It goes down to a considerably more modest sum.
Memotec is to pay $488.3 million to the Government for Teleglobe. The Government will receive $102 million of accumulated cash from the company, plus $18 million in dividends. That is what brings the total up to $608.3 million in total. However, the figures with respect to the dividend and the money in the accumulated cash account are not really part of the purchase price since this is money which the Government already has. It is money already in the hands of Teleglobe. This is a sort of a buying-out of oneself. It is not a genuine transfer of money from a private company to the Government. It is not looking after the interests of taxpayers by getting a good price for this jewel of Crown corporations.
As part of the $408.3 million purchase price Memotec has said that it will assume Teleglobe's debt liabilities which amount to $143 million. If this is the case then the Government will only be receiving $345 million for Teleglobe, since no actual funds will be paid for the debt. Memotec has said that it plans to raise $345 million through a loan. It will borrow $225 million from the National Bank and raise the additional $125 million through an issue of debentures to institutional investors. This is a situation of a very small company buying a much larger company with not very much money. It is borrowing some of the money and getting the rest out of the accumulated funds of the company. It is not in any sense an infusion of new money from the private sector to purchase and pay a fair amount of money for this going concern.
In the press the sale of Teleglobe has been described as a minnow swallowing a whale. It is remarkable how this very small company should be able to proceed in this fashion. We are all concerned with some of the irregularities that appear to have occurred in terms of the share trading in this stock. There
are too many coincidences with respect to the value shooting up very quickly. That has to be a matter of concern as well.
One improvement the Government has made as a result of a criticism of the Bill and its original intentions in selling Teleglobe has been to give better protection to the employees of the company. They have been very clear. Several of their unions have made strong representations with respect to protection of the employees, especially with regard to pension funds.
The employees of Teleglobe have had the benefit of Public Service pensions. It is a good pension plan. The Government's initial position was that the employees of the new corporation would have to accept what the going pension benefit package was in that industry, whereas in fact they had a superior one. I am glad to see that the Government has agreed to ensure that existing employees at least will continue with the superior benefits which they have. Pensions are certainly important for people. We would like to see people have better pension plans, not reduced pension entitlements, especially for those who have fought for them and who have obviously given up collective bargaining to get good pensions. We would rather see more people getting good pensions than fewer. Unfortunately, this will not hold for any new employees of the company. We will have the very unhappy situation of a two-tiered system in which new employees will not be treated as well as previous employees of the company.
The Government has also said it will be introducing legislation to prevent the possibility of telephone companies bypassing Teleglobe and routing overseas telephone calls through the United States overseas telephone systems, which is a deregulated system and one with a larger market. This is important because one of the reasons Teleglobe is reported to have been sold for such a modest price is the alleged threat of bypass by the Canadian telephone companies. If a bypass is permitted then consumers will take advantage of the lower prices through the United States and the company would certainly not survive either in public hands or in private hands. It would not be able to survive that very substantial competition.
So we have a situation in which the company's survival, whether in public hands or private hands, depends on this type of protection. In effect, it has to be a monopoly. It has been guaranteed monopoly status for five years. It seems likely that it will continue as a monopoly after that. The point is that right now it is a monopoly. If it is to continue as a monopoly then it should be treated as one, as a utility. There is a public interest in regulating it very carefully. I suggest that there is a public interest in owning it as a utility which provides a service needed by everyone. It is a service in which the Government has a particular concern in seeing it well handled. I note that other countries have maintained public companies in this domain. There are security reasons for having a single company under public control. This ensures the protection of this extremely important telecommunication link.

February 13, 1987



Teleglobe is a profitable Crown corporation in an industry that must be regulated by the Government, even after privatization. In other countries, the same service is provided by public corporations. Privatization of Teleglobe is not necessary, useful or sensible.
I also would like to raise some questions about the treatment of employees. The Government has met the demands of employees now working for the corporation, but it has not responded to the demand for justice for all employees with respect to pensions.
Mr. Speaker, I think my twenty minutes are up.
Before concluding, I move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Spadina (Mr. Heap):
That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word "That" and substituting the following therefor:
"Bill C-38, An Act respecting the reorganization and divestiture of Teleglobe Canada, be not now read a second time but that it be read a second time this day three months hence."


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The motion is in order. On questions or comments, the Hon. Member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia).


Charles L. Caccia: I listened with great attention to the intervention by the mover of the amendment. I was particularly intrigued by the motion for a three month hoist. I wish to learn the reasons for this particular motion.


Lynn McDonald: One reason for the three month hoist is that an investigation is currently taking place through the Toronto Stock Exchange. We do not have the results of this investigation, and it seems to be unwise to proceed. We are not clear about the price or the proper value of the stock. This investigation should proceed, and the House should have this information before coming to a decision.


George Baker: I wish to ask the Hon. Member how she feels about the selling price in relation to the profits. The profits of the company have grown in the last few years and this year are up to about $100 million.


Lynn McDonald: Mr. Speaker, that is a pertinent question. The profits of the company have grown radically over the past 10 years and are substantial profits. It is a most remarkable situation that we have a smaller company with less profit, less revenue, and operations through one of these magnification deals taking over a company which is much more substantial in revenues, profits, and obviously in value.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: The Hon. Member is the communication critic for the NDP Party. From a broader point of view, I wish to ask her about the communication policy in terms of letting go a Crown corporation which is engaged in international
Teleglobe Canada
communications. Could the Hon. Member tell us a little about the importance of the international communication aspect in the modern world, and give us the benefit of her experience in the communications committee, or her knowledge of communications and how important it is in terms of public policy?


Lynn McDonald: Telecommunications is a very important industry. Overseas telephone calls are an important part of life. Our population uses the telephone more than any other population in the world, and telephones are used substantially for overseas communications. Canada has a large number of immigrants who wish to keep in touch with their families. Our telephone patterns are rather different from American patterns where more of the international communications are for business reasons, and rather less for family and social purposes. The pattern in Canada is an enormous amount of use of international telecommunications for keeping families and communities in touch. That pattern is a rather distinctive one, and people want high quality services.
Some countries have gone the deregulation route. For example, Britain has sold its international telecommunication company, however it did maintain a 49 per cent public share. Of course, countries which have permitted private operation are highly regulated. That has been the pattern. If we proceed with this, there would still be a great deal of regulation. So the situation is neither fish nor fowl. If it is a private company, it will have the advantages of a monopoly and those of making a lot of money, yet there will still have to be that protection. It seems it is a little bit unfair that way. A previous Conservative Member talked about the market and conservatism and competition. There is no competition where there is a monopoly. The only manner in which we could have competition is if the calls were placed through the United States. If that happens, the company would fold completely.
So there is a protected market in order for the company to survive, whether it is public or private, yet the company reaps all the benefits of this monopoly without facing real competition. It is protected in this fashion. It seems to me that it is quite fraudulent and hypocritical to talk about conservatism and promoting enterprise. That will not happen, it will continue to be protected. This is phoney politics in trying to protect the virtues of the small entrepreneur out there competing. That will not happen. Telecommunications is a different type of industry, and it is futile to use that model.


Mr. Hawkes:: When the Member said hypocrisy and phoney politics, it reminded me of a Party that wallows in the waves of public opinion and whatever is at the peak and is popular. I listened to the particular Member give the House a lecture on the financial aspects of Teleglobe, and it makes me a little nervous. I can believe parrot behaviour where somebody writes something, it is read and understood to that extent because somebody can understand English.
But does the Hon. Member really understand the difference between efficient and inefficient management? There are many monopolies in society. But does the Hon. Member really

February 13, 1987
Right to Life
believe that Government manages things efficiently? If she does, I suggest that the Hon. Member lives in a dream world of some size. But if the Hon. Member wishes us to believe that she cares about the numbers and the profit and loss statements related to Teleglobe, I wish to put this little test to her. If the Hon. Member is sincere and has done her homework, would she tell us in exact terms what the profit of Teleglobe was last year, if the Hon. Member thinks it was so great?


Lynn McDonald: Mr. Speaker, I already referred to the profits and listed them for a number of years. The Government itself admits, and it is proud of the fact, that Teleglobe is a profitable company, efficient, and well run. The idea that somehow because it is in the public sector it is badly run is ideology and not reality. The reality is that the company functions very well and makes a profit.
I do repeat the accusation that it is hypocritical. The Government does not have credibility; it is reeking of problems, crises, and scandals and it wishes to look as though it were getting on with something. What does it do? It has an ideology, it is performing, it is doing political things, it is privatizing. What is it privatizing? A perfectly efficient, reasonable company in any event and one that will have to be regulated and protected. What utter hypocrisy.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: It being 4 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.


PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS-MOTIONS   THE CONSTITUTION ACT, 1982 RIGHT TO LIFE OF UNBORN HUMAN PERSONS
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Monday, January 26, consideration of the motion of Mr. Mitges:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should consider the advisability of amending the Constitution Act, 1982, to include unborn human persons, and that the Governor General issue a Proclamation under the Great Seal of Canada to amend section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights so that it reads as follows:
"7. Everyone including a human foetus or unborn being has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice."
And the amendment of Mr. Domm:
That the motion be amended in paragraph numbered 7 in the English version, by adding immediately after the word "unborn" the word "human".
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The last time this motion was debated in the House on January 26, 1987, the following amendment was moved:
That the motion be amended in the paragraph numbered 7 in the English version, by adding immediately after the word "unborn' the word "human".
The Hon. Member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Parry) raised a point of order, noting that the English and French versions of the motions were different. The Chair recognized the discrepancy in the two versions, expressed the opinion that it was not merely a matter of printing error, and agreed to examine further the proposed amendment.
Since the last hour of debate, then, the Chair has had the opportunity for a thorough review. The French version of the main motion refers to "I'etre humainthe English version refers to an " unborn being".
The word "human" is missing in the English version, although it is present in the previous phrase which refers to "a human foetus". It seems clear to the Chair that the amendment proposed is designed to rid the motion of the discrepancy between the two versions and is, therefore, in order.
The Chair thanks Hon. Members for their interventions in this matter and appreciates the opportunity to clarify the matter. The question on the amendment has been proposed by the Chair, and debate will continue on the amendment.


Rob Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Hon. Member for Grey-Simcoe (Mr. Mitges) for introducing his motion which, as Your Honour pointed out, will require a constitutional amendment. The proposal is that Section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights be amended as follows:
Everyone including a human foetus or unborn human being has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.
That is the form of the resolution. I know that some Hon. Members in the House have mentioned that a constitutional amendment is always very difficult, and I would agree with that. However, at the same time I would have to say that that misses the point; that is not the reason the Hon. Member for Grey-Simcoe brought forward the resolution.
If the Hon. Member could get what he wants, that is the protection in our laws of the rights of unborn children, I know he would accept an amendment to the Criminal Code. I think that is beside the point. I think we are here to talk about the principle of the rights of unborn children, to which I would like to address myself.
I hope my own position on the subject has been made very clear. I tried to make it very clear to my constituents in Niagara Falls during the 1984 election campaign. Everything I have done and have said I have tried to make consistent with that. Early in January I was an open line show and someone asked for my opinion on the subject of abortion. I indicated to him, just as I had in the summer of 1984, that I was very clearly opposed to abortion and that I would support resolutions in the House of Commons which helped protect the rights of unborn children.
He asked me on the radio: "Didn't you see that poll which came out recently indicating that most people are in favour of abortions?" I made two points to him which I should like to
February 13, 1987

repeat in the House. I think polls in this area can be very misleading. It depends upon how the question is formulated. The result depends upon the way in which the question is asked. If the wording of the question is changed, the result is different. I do not believe and have never believed that important moral questions affecting the country should be decided on the basis of public opinion polls. As well I indicated to him that it was a deep moral conviction of mine and that it was not something I would likely change very easily.
I read with interest the debate which preceded my speaking on the motion. I noted the very eloquent speech on this particular subject by the Hon. Member for Spadina (Mr. Heap). At one point he indicated to the mover of the motion that probably there would not be a foundation for his view in the Bible, that he would not find it in the teachings there. I am very reluctant to challenge an ordained clergyman on what the Bible says or does not say, but I remember a passage which I heard read out loud in church which I have always thought was very significant.
In preparing to speak to the motion, I decided to try to find it. It is from The Book of Jeremiah. Chapter 1, verse 4, begins as follows:
Now the word of the Lord came to me saying,
"Before I formed you in the womb I knew you,
And before you were born I consecrated you-"
I always thought those words were very significant. I was a teenager the first time I heard them spoken. I thought it very significant that the Bible did not say: "I knew you after you came out of the womb and I consecrated you just at the moment you were born". It seemed to me to be very clear. 1 believe it is a passage which should be of interest to Hon. Members.
The question of abortion is settled in my own mind for a number of reasons. I suppose all of us bring our upbringing and our experiences of life to our consideration of every moral question. I do that, and one of the reasons I am against abortion is that so often I find the arguments in favour of abortion to be so unsatisfactory.
One argument put forward by those who oppose stricter laws in the area of abortion is that the child should only acquire rights after it is viable outside the womb. With that line of reasoning then it is incumbent upon legislators to determine at what point a child can survive outside the womb. In different jurisdictions we see different determinations of just when that is, whether it is 27 weeks, 24 weeks, or 18 weeks. However, the point I should like to make is that advances in technology make that sort of consideration irrelevant.
We have seen cases again and again where children can survive outside the womb, which point us in the direction that surely human life begins at the moment of conception. That is where medical technology is leading us.
I am struck as well by stories which happen occasionally. 1 remember one, perhaps six years or seven years ago, about a
Right to Life
young woman who was in the hospital for an abortion. All the papers had been signed and sealed, and there was to be an abortion. They took out the child and the child was alive; the child cried. Talk about a moral dilemma! Is that child which just screamed immediately imbued with all the rights and privileges Canadian citizens have taken centuries to acquire, or is it something that can be put in the ashcan? There was a moral dilemma in that hospital operating room. It was resolved in favour of giving life support systems to the child, and the child subsequently died. However, it points out again that surely human life must begin at the moment of conception.
One argument used by individuals in favour of abortion is that they characterize people like myself as not compassionate or not caring. I remember being on the Student Council of Queen's University around 1973. There was a debate about whether the Council should be giving money to an agency which included in its services an abortion referral service. I became involved in an argument with one of the other members. He pointed out the classic case. He said: "What about the woman who has 11 children and finds that she is pregnant again, and her husband is going to beat her if she has any more children? What about her?" I say that my heart goes out to that individual. I am compassionate and caring when I am told that a single, 17 year old girl in Grade 11 finds herself pregnant. That is a tragedy. Both cases are tragedies. However, I say: "Don't compound the tragedy".
One of the arguments I do not buy is the one used by those in favour of abortions, namely, "we want to make sure every child in Canada is a wanted child". That is the biggest joke in the whole issue. Every child born in Canada is a wanted child, if not by its natural parents then by the tens of thousands of Canadians who want to adopt children. I cannot tell you how many times I have been in my law office with young couples who have told me of their difficulties in adopting children. People in tears have told me there is nothing they wanted more than to adopt a child but they could not do so because of the abortion laws. To those who do not want children in Canada I say that there are tens of thousands who do. Why not turn an unfortunate situation into someone else's joy?
Let me say that I am pleased to be associated with the cause of the unborn. It has always been my belief that the more helpless the individual is in society the more likely that his or her rights will be trampled upon and ignored. It is all the more incumbent upon those who are elected to public office to make sure that those rights are not trampled upon and not forgotten.
Some day when our grandchildren or our great-grandchildren read these debates maybe this whole problem will be resolved. It may be that those who flaunt the abortion laws, or those who open up abortion clinics, the Henry Morgentalers of this world, will be the modern day saints of this era. Maybe. But, Mr. Speaker, I do not think so. I do not buy the arguments of those who ask us to relax the laws. I do not believe the laws are tough enough. That is why I support the motion of
3438

February 13, 1987
Right to Life
the Hon. Member for Grey-Simcoe, and regardless of how society will some day conclude this issue, I want to say that I am pleased to stand up for the rights of unborn children. It is what I believe and why I am so proud to support this motion.


Mr. Robert Wenman (Fraser Valley West):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate the Hon. Member for Grey- Simcoe (Mr. Mitges) for placing this important issue of the rights of the unborn before the House of Commons of Canada. I want the Member and the House to know that hundreds of my constituents in Langley, Surrey and Aldergrove have expressed their support for his motion through letters, petitions and telephone calls. I know the debate has raged for many years and has been the source of bitter controversy and division among Canadians, but there is no doubt in my mind that people on all sides of the debate speak from sincere and heart-felt convictions.
Normally when people in debate reach an impasse, we are prepared to agree to disagree and to see if some kind of a workable compromise can be attained with which both sides could live. It is unfortunate but inevitable that in the debate on abortion, compromise is all but impossible. For this debate involves quite literally a matter of life and death. A young life is either snuffed out or allowed to develop. There is no in between or compromise position.
I use the term "young human life" deliberately because that is in the amendment and it is most appropriate. It is unfortunate that so much of the abortion debate has come to focus on terminology. There are those who refer to unborn humans as foetus just to avoid using the term human being, which they feel is inappropriate when applied to a six or 10 week-old child in his or her mother's womb. But whether we use the term foetus or unborn baby, there is no doubt that what we are speaking of is human life, of this there can be no doubt.
I am not interested in getting involved in a numbers game. How many words have been spoken and written regarding the point at which a developing life can be called a human being? Is it six hours or six days? Some say six weeks, others say 16. Others claim that not until the baby is outside the womb can it be called a human being. All have their graphs, charts and doctors' statements to justify their view as though doctors could not disagree as strongly as anyone else on the issue. This is not a medical issue, it is an issue of moral, ethic and cultural values.
The creation of life remains one of the most profound mysteries of this world. Scientists have become better at describing that process and in rudimentary forms science can reproduce it. I have great respect for science, and I am not inclined to belittle the kind of knowledge that it yields, but for all its ability to address the "how" questions, it cannot give us the answers to the "why" questions. Science is no more qualified to pronounce judgment on the value of human life and whether or not it should be compromised than is any field of endeavour.
As my colleague from Grey-Simcoe pointed out in earlier debate, those of us who oppose abortion run the risk of perhaps being labelled as insensitive, as uncaring in regard to the heartbreaking circumstances from which all too often abortions follow. Nothing could be further from the truth, and it is not easy for me to advocate a position which I am aware could make heavier the burden being carried by people who are already heavily burdened.
The prospect of an impoverished unemployed single young woman having to cope with an unwanted pregnancy is terrible and difficult to contemplate. Suffering and misery are things much more easily considered in the abstract than faced as part of daily life and it is likely true that only those who have known it first hand can really understand it. Despite this, it seems to me to be absolutely essential to distinguish between an unwanted pregnancy on the one hand and an unwanted child on the other. At a time when childless couples yearn to share their homes and their love through adoption, I do not believe there is such a thing as an unwanted child. What is unwanted is the fear, the social stigma, the guilt, the economic burden, or just the plain inconvenience that can motivate a mother to terminate the life she is carrying. To this extent the abortion epidemic has its roots in the attitudes and values of society and the often overwhelming pressures they can place on the individual, for which we must all share responsibility.
While the values of our times will determine the course of a new human life, for better or for worse, the changing values of society have no bearing on the intrinsic value of life itself. Once that life is there, it is a fact as real as anything else in the world, and from that moment on at least two human lives are vitally affected by the course which it runs, that of the mother and that of the human infant now developing.
How often we have heard that abortion is a matter between a woman and her doctor, or that it is a medical matter only? These assertions, which are often put forward as though they were arguments merely beg the question. They pre-suppose that the infant human human life is of no intrinsic value and unworthy of consideration. This is precisely the point, however, on which the entire debate turns.
From the moment of conception to the moment of death, life is a seamless development guided by numerous factors ranging from genetic information to the vast multitude of experiences that comprise a lifetime. Whether human life is two weeks, two months or two years old, the spark of life that burns within that infant-that life-giving impulse-is as real, as precious, as miraculous and as sacred as the life within any of us here today.
After witnessing the horrors of this century which has seen so much life destroyed through war, famine and numerous atrocities that Governments and individuals have inflicted upon their fellow human beings, have we not learned that the deliberate termination of innocent life is not just a criminal offence, a contravention of laws? Have we not learned that it is
February 13, 1987

an affront to something even greater, that sacred dimension of life in which human dignity in its most profound sense originates? When all is said and done, we still find ourselves speaking of human life. Whether we approach the question from a religious or a secular perspective, have we not yet learned that it is the most precious of all things?
Our modern-day social consciousness is preoccupied with human rights. We set up commissions and investigative committees, we pass laws and regulations, we create watch-dog agencies to ensure that that these rights are respected. We are rightly concerned with safeguarding the quality and dignity of human life, but our consciousness of the sacred dimension of human life seems to have somehow dissipated. For me, this represents an impoverishment of the human spirit. Although I fully support the motion of my colleague to have the rights of the unborn enshrined in our Constitution-Mr. Speaker, I see you signalling that my time is just about up.
In conclusion, let me say that sitting in the gallery today is my 10 year old son Kraig. On the way here, I said to him: "I'm going to speak about abortion today. What do you think?"
He said: "Well, I think all kids should have the right to live".
I agree with my son's statement. When my son was in his mother's womb, the doctor told us that we may have to consider an abortion. He asked how we felt about that. We said that we must give this child a chance to live. We gave this child a chance to live and we love him. Abortion is not right.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, I am also glad to have an opportunity to speak to this resolution.
I think it is important that we hear all sides of this extremely important and very emotional subject. I respect very much the views of my colleagues, even though my own may be different.
We are speaking, of course, on Motion No. 37 to amend the Constitution Act, Section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights, so that it reads as follows:
Everyone ncluding a human foetus or unborn being has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.
This is a very emotional subject and a very personal one. We have very personal and in some cases very religious views on it and I think it is extremely important that we respect the views of others. That is why I believe very much in choice. I think it is important that people make their own decisions on this matter and that we not impose our views on others.
It is clear that the real intent of this proposed amendment is to restrict access to abortions. I am sure the mover of the motion would agree with that. The Hon. Member wants to reverse Canadian Government policy which allows abortion under the Criminal Code when approved by a recognized therapeutic abortion committee of a hospital. The Hon. Member's views on this matter and the views of other Hon. Members go against the views of the majority of Canadians, but that is his right and the right of my colleagues who support
Right to Life
his stand. Indeed, during testimony before the Private Members' Business Committee, the Hon. Member who sponsored this motion said that the only circumstances in which a woman should have access to abortion is if it could be proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the death of the mother would result if the procedure were not performed.
Before talking about restricting access to abortions, I believe we should talk about guaranteeing equal access to abortion services to which women are legally entitled under the current law. There are serious discrepancies in access to abortion services across Canada. Not all eligible hospitals have established therapeutic abortion committees and in those that have, the policy varies very much from one to the next. In 1984, of the 244 hospitals with therapeutic abortion committees, 18 did not perform any abortions while another 24 performed very few. As of June 1986, women in Prince Edward Island had no access to services in their province because the only remaining therapeutic abortion committee was dismantled. During the summer of 1986, abortion services in Newfoundland were temporarily unavailable because the only doctor on the Island willing to perform the procedure was on extended sick leave. In Alberta, women must travel long distances to obtain services.
The burden of unequal access to services to which women are legally entitled falls most heavily on rural, low-income women and on poor women who cannot afford to travel and simply do not have equal access. Unequal access means that women must resort to back room abortionists. That is what would happen if this resolution were to go through. I must say that it would not stop abortions, and stopping abortions is obviously the desire and intent of the people who support it. Abortions will continue to occur. That is the reality. However, these abortions would be illegal, back room, dangerous ones which would put the health of women at risk.
Unequal access makes a mockery of equality guarantees enshrined in our Charter of Rights. To further restrict access to abortions by amending the Constitution is, I believe, not the way to achieve what we all want, and I do think we all want to eliminate the need for abortions. Surely this should be our goal.
The prevention of unwanted pregnancies is certainly preferable to abortion. I believe we all agree with that. I would like to state right here that being pro-choice does not mean that one is in favour of abortion. This seems to be interpreted as a pro or anti-abortion issue, and that is not the case at all. I do not know of anyone who is really in favour of abortions. However, being pro-choice does mean that one respects another person's right to make her own decision based on her own circumstances.
I want to stress the point that we must get to work on prevention. Those who feel that there must be a restriction of access to abortion should be the first to work on prevention. If this resolution went through, it would not stop abortions. That is a fact of life. The only thing that will stop abortions is prevention.

February 13, 1987
Right to Life
Prevention requires birth-control education in schools. The whole scare over AIDS is finally beginning to make many people aware that we need a very positive family-life education program including birth-control information in the schools. We must teach young people to make responsible choices about sexual relationships. We must talk with them openly so that they are aware of the full implications of their decisions and behaviour.
Prevention means increasing funding for groups like Planned Parenthood that promote awareness about birth control and family planning. More effective prevention requires more research into reliable, safe birth-control methods. I was told the other day by an authority that the increase in abortions directly correlates with the failure in birth-control methods. The Government has cut back on research in that area, and that is one area in which funding should be increased. Those who support this resolution should agree with that. Prevention, education and research can reduce the need for abortion. Recent studies, such as those done by Planned Parenthood in Ontario, have demonstrated that public education reduces the unwanted pregnancy rate, particularly in teenagers. We have a very high incidence of adolescent pregnancies, which is a very deplorable trend. Education reduces the number of abortions and does not increase sexual irresponsibility. That is what the study shows.
We talk about prevention but we seem to talk about this question only as it relates to women. Surely men have an equal if not greater obligation to prevent unwanted pregnancies. I wish that were stressed much more.
In cases where unwanted pregnancy does occur we must make sure women have access to safe abortions, if that is the decision. We do not want to impose our decision on anyone. I do not anyway. Surely no Member wants to force desperate women to seek back room abortions with non-medical butchers. It is the basic right of any woman to make the decision about maternity. A decision to have an abortion should be a matter between a woman and her physician. This is not only the position of the NDP; it is the position espoused by the Canadian Medical Association way back in 1971. The CMA also agrees there may be justification for abortions on non-medical, socio-economic grounds. Many feel that the UN definition of health should be used in present laws.
We want to ensure that all children enter this world under the best possible circumstances, wanted and loved and cared for with adequate resources. We want to ensure adequate support services to families before and after they make a choice to have children. These support services must include affordable, accessible and quality child care. Support services must help to relieve the stresses on families which lead to their breakup. Lack of adequate income is a major cause of family stress today and certainly is a major factor in the reason that some women consider abortions. Support services must be geared to the new realities of Canadian families. In many cases
both parents work, many families are headed by single parents, and more egalitarian reglationships exist between parents with respect to their parental duties. Let us work on sensible solutions to strengthen families and enable people to make responsible choices about having and caring for children.
It is true that this motion recommends that the Government consider the advisability of amending the Constitution Act. We are therefore not debating an amendment to the Constitution per se. Nevertheless, I think even those who would restrict access to abortion may wonder whether a constitutional amendment of this kind is an appropriate way to proceed. As a Private Members' Motion this proposal will receive a maximum of only five hours of debate. This is a precedent for other constitutional amendments, let us remember. Is this the amount of time we want to devote to such a motion? As it is currently worded, it would not be referred to a parliamentary committee for further study. There would be no opportunity for interested Canadians to be heard on this issue. We know many Canadians feel passionately about the issues we are discussing. Surely they should be heard on this issue.
The Hon. Member who sponsored the motion must also be aware that amending the Constitution is no easy task. Amending Section 7 would require resolution of the legislative assemblies of two-thirds of the provinces representing in the aggregate 50 per cent of the population of Canada. It is clear that regardless of what subject is being considered, if this House is going to recommend that the Government consider an amendment to the Constitution, the supreme laws of our country, five hours of debate during Private Members' Hour is not the way to proceed. Even those who support the intent of the motion must surely have problems with that and also with the wording of the proposal. I hope for that reason alone that they will vote against the motion.
Changing the wording of Section 7 of the Charter has serious implications for legislation already in place and the case law built up around that legislation. For example, the Criminal Code clearly differentiates between a human being and an unborn child. The Code states that a child becomes a human being when it has completely proceeded from the body of its mother. The law has therefore until now selected birth as the point at which the foetus becomes a person with full and independent rights. Changing the wording of the section also has serious implications for other sections of the Charter, other human rights legislation, indeed all legislation which uses the word "everyone". It is clear that amending Section 7 has serious implications for the whole legal framework already in place. For that reason alone, regardless of the position on the substantive issue here, I would hope that my friends will join my colleagues and me in the NDP in voting against this motion.


Mr. John Reimer (Kitchener):: Mr. Speaker, I thank you for the opportunity of adding a few words in the debate on the motion before us today. I want to commend the Hon. Member for Grey-Simcoe (Mr. Mitges) for the motion he has put
February 13, 1987

forward. It is a very important motion and I agree with its thrust.
The motion would amend Section 7 of the Charter of Rights by defining the word "everyone" in that section. It would include a human foetus or unborn human in the word "everyone" or "person", and therefore having the right to life, liberty and security of person, and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice. It is important that we know exactly who is included when we refer to "everyone" or to a "person". At present there is quite a bit of debate about this subject and our practice now with regard to abortion suggests that an unborn human being or foetus is not a person because we deprive that foetus of the right to life through the procedure of an abortion.
In concluding her remarks the Hon. Member for Vancouver East (Ms. Mitchell) said that this is a very important issue and therefore should not receive just five hours of debate. The Hon. Member should perhaps contact the Standing Committee on Private Members' Business, of which I am a member. She would find that this motion has been designated as a votable motion. It will receive up to five hours of debate and then there will be a mandatory vote. That is a new feature in Private Members' Business. Motions or Bills can be designated as votable, as this one today is. If the motion is adopted by the House, it would go to the appropriate committee. It would be studied and then referred back to the House for a further two hours of debate and another vote. To suggest that all we are doing on a very important topic like this is debating it for five hours is incomplete. There is more to come should the House approve the motion.
When the Special Joint Committee of the House of Commons and the Senate was studying the Charter of Rights and amendments to the Constitution in 1981, Mr. Robert Keller-man, legal counsel to CARAL, appeared before the committee and said that in his opinion the majority of Canadians do not believe the foetus to be a human person or included in the word "everyone" as suggested in this motion. Further, he drew attention to the fact that according to his view of the Criminal Code, the foetus only becomes a person once it is independent of its mother; in other words, either prematurely or at the term of the pregnancy when the foetus emerges from the mother's womb and is independent of the mother.
Mr. Kellerman's comments bring us to the fundamental question at hand in this matter. Is the unborn a potential human being, or a human being with potential? Contrary to Mr. Kellerman's view, it is my contention that the foetus is, from conception, a human being with potential.
My comments and consideration of this motion will involve three aspects: medical, legal and social.
I am not a doctor, but I think all of us are capable of learning from what the medical profession can teach us. One
Right to Life
fact is that all of the information necessary for the development of each of us as a unique human being is contained in the genetic code that is present in us from the moment of conception. Nothing more ever need be added because the uniqueness of each of us-the colour of our eyes, our size and our various abilities-has already been established at that moment. This is a consideration we must take into account from the beginning.
Let us consider the foetus as a medical patient. As a result of medical treatment of the foetus itself, it is now considered as a patient for treatment. You do not look upon a foetus as a piece of the tonsil that is removed and discarded. It is now possible through operations, such as blood transfusions or corrective surgery while the foetus is still in the womb, to treat the foetus as a unique individual. In fact, medical technology has come to the point where the foetus can be removed from the womb, operated upon, and replaced so it may come to its full term.
It is remarkable that developments of neo-natal technology now allow for the viability of a foetus as early as five months after conception. This is forcing the reconsideration of Canadian legislation as well as American legislation.
American legislation on abortion is based upon a trimester system. In the First trimester, the state has really no interest in the foetus as a human being, but simply treats it as tissue. In the second trimester, the mother's health is a major consideration. In the third trimester the state takes on an interest in the well-being of the foetus due to the argument of viability, that it could now exist on its own outside the womb as a premature child with care in a hospital.
According to Canadian abortion law, it is possible, although not likely, to have an abortion from the time the mother knows she is pregnant and wishes to have the abortion until just before birth itself. Surely we must re-evaluate that, because it is totally unacceptable.
Let us consider what other countries have done. In West Germany in 1975, the Lower Court asked the Upper House and the Supreme Court to look into the question of when a foetus begins the civil right to life. The German Supreme Court was well aware of what Germany had done between 1933 and 1945, when it denied civil rights to certain groups within its society. The court wanted to take special care in responding to this question, to make sure it looked at it carefully. It called together a group of 133 scientists, geneticists, gynaecologists and others from around the world and asked them when a foetus begins the civil right to life. The answer it received is remarkable; first because it was a unanimous response by these 133 people. Second, the answer itself was remarkable: "life in the sense of historical existence of a human individual exists according to definite biological-physiological knowledge, in any case, from the fourteenth day after conception". That is even before a woman knows she is pregnant.

February 13, 1987
Right to Life
The reason they chose 14 days is because from the first day of conception through to the fourteenth day it is possible for the cells to divide into twins, triplets and so on.
I suggest that when we look at medical considerations we must remember some of these basic facts. All of them militate in one direction, which is that we recognize a foetus as a person having all the rights to life, liberty and security of person, as suggested in this motion.
Let us look at the legal considerations. According to current practice and precedent in Canadian law, a foetus is recognized for the purposes and right to sue for prenatal injury. In other words, a foetus has the right to inheritance and the right to sue for prenatal injury. Since the existing state of the law is that no legal rights attach to any person until that person has been born alive, then surely the right to life is the logical prior right on which all other rights such as the right to sue for prenatal injury depend. We do not give tonsils those rights when they are removed, but the person developing within the mother's womb is given those rights because they are considered a person. That is the purpose of this motion.
Since my time is almost up, let me conclude by quoting Major John Connors, health services consultant to the Alliance For Life. He says:
Consider, if you will, the stages of life as links in a chain. Canada's pensioners, our infirm and incapacitated, our labour force, our students, our children and, even younger, our babies, are linked together, because all are human whatever might otherwise be their status. So, too, are unborn children a link in the same chain, similarly human and even more deserving of protection because of their vulnerability. Their very weakness dictates their need of the special protection of being named under Section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms, which we respectfully request include a provision that everyone, from conception to natural death, has the right to life.
That is the specific point that the motion is putting before us. We are dealing with human beings. All the evidence leads to that conclusion. Let us make sure that our actions and our laws do the same thing.


Mr. Blaine A. Thacker (Lethbridge-Foothills):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak with respect to Motion No. 37, which is a genuine attempt by my colleague, the Member for Grey- Simcoe (Mr. Mitges), to extend legal rights, indeed constitutional rights, to unborn people. I must say that I rise with some trepidation because the question of abortion is one of both law and morals.
However, with the election to this Parliament comes the responsibility on each of us to consider these questions, debate them, and indeed change the law at such time as it seems appropriate to the Parliament as a whole.
The alternative is conflict in the streets, as exists in so many countries right now where people are fighting and killing each other because their political process has not worked.
I thank my colleague for bringing this question before us. It is a question that affects our nation greatly.
As you know, Mr. Speaker, under our Criminal Code, a baby is legally a person and, therefore, protected under the law only once it is out of the mother upon birth even though the umbilical cord is not cut. Out-of-womb surgery changed that idea quite dramatically in the minds of many people, in that a child can be taken out of the womb and operated on. During that period it would have all the legal rights the rest of us have. The minute it goes back into its mother, it then loses all of those rights and can be killed by a decision of a therapeutic abortion committee upon application of the mother.
It is very clear that our laws in this area have not kept pace with the advance in medical science. That is why we have an enormous group of people who want to have changes made. The real question is, when does life begin or when does one become human and, therefore, get legal protection of the law?
As with any moral question, the debate is highly emotionally charged. The reason for that is that both the pro-life and the pro-choice groups represent a very important tradition in our country. We have a long tradition on the side of the sanctity of life. We have another long tradition of freedom of choice and the right to liberty and choice. Both of these traditions are part of our western culture, going back many, many years. We cherish both of these values, and that is what makes the issue so difficult and so much of a dilemma.
For myself, I usually start with the United Nations declaration because, I believe, increasingly more and more of our young people especially are seeing the world as an integral whole and the United Nations as a legitimate attempt by society to strike common ground. Therefore, I usually start with the United Nations declaration on the rights of the child, which is a recent document published in 1959. That document states that the child, by reason of his or her physical and mental immaturity, needs special safeguards and care, including appropriate legal protection before as well as after birth.
When does a foetus become a person? Medically we know for certain that from the moment of conception the child bears an undeniable stamp of a separate, distinct person, structurally and totally different from his or her mother, with its own blood system, nervous system and genetic code. We know that four days after conception sex can be determined. Eighteen days after conception the heart tissue begins to beat. In 43 days brain waves can be detected. By the seventh week shape is umistakably human. By 10 weeks the thyroid and adrenal glands begin to function. By 12 weeks a child kicks his or her legs, turns his or her feet, curls and fans toes and so on.
I have canvassed people in my riding very carefully for seven years since becoming a Member of Parliament. I find that the women in my riding separate roughly into three groups. There are a few women, and I must say a very, very few women, who want abortion on demand right up to the moment of natural childbirth. They believe that the day before the natural childbirth, if they do not want to have the child, they do not
February 13, 1987

have to have it. I guess it would be a saline solution which would be injected which would burn the child, bringing on a miscarriage. They strongly feel they should be able to have that. However, that is just a very few women. I find that some women, a considerably larger group, believe that there should only be abortion when the mother is about to die, so it would have to be the absolute life of the mother in juxtaposition with the life of the child, and if there was a choice, the life of the mother should be chosen.
The third group, which is by far the largest group, wants birth control and not abortion. They want more research and development. They want help for young mothers. They want programs so that a pregnant woman could go in and get assistance and aid to carry that child to full term, at which time she can either put it up for adoption or decide to keep it. This group does not agree with abortion on demand. However, they do believe abortion should be available for very young women, for example, in certain instances of incest and rape and certainly in cases where the genuine health of the mother is at stake.
I find that the vast bulk of the people in my riding really fall into that category. They are not solidly pro-choice because they know there is a life there, and they are not solidly pro-life because they do see that in society, whatever its laws and principles might be, there are some situations where they themselves, despite the fact that they are good and honest Christians, Moslems, Budhists, Hindus or whatever religion, would feel that the right of the child sometimes has to give way to the right of the mother.
My own position, when I first addressed the issue superficially and quickly, was clearly pro choice. I believe now that was the easiest decision because, as a man, I have very real and deep reservations on these moral issues which primarily affect women. I think it is impossible for a man to have the sense of the terror a pregnancy can cause in women under certain circumstances. However, I must say, as I studied the issue more, as I read and thought and talked about it, my position changed. Perhaps as I get older and as I read more about the medical wonders performed, and realize just how wonderful the idea of life is, I have tended to become more pro-life than pro-choice. I have no doubt medically that life begins at conception; one cell, which I believe to be "life", divides and human form takes place very quickly. Clearly by 12 weeks it is in advanced human form and, therefore, I believe fundamentally that the current law is, after all, a human idea of the seventeenth century. Our present legal definition is really the
Right to Life
seventeenth century legal embodiment of what life is or when life achieves legal protection. With the advance in science that we have achieved we have to bring that legal definition of when a person becomes human up to modern times. It clearly goes back some considerable distance.
I, therefore, believe the solution lies in my colleagues bringing these motions, whether it is to entrench this issue in the Constitution or place it in a Private Member's Bill to amend the Criminal Code. These are all legitimate instances. I think the best way is for a parliamentary committee to study the matter. The alternative is smashing heads on the street, and I do not think that is proper. The committee should review the evidence and hear all sides of the argument and it will have to come down with a compromise, just as the seventeenth century decision was a compromise. We need to strike a compromise for the twentieth century, and certainly into the twenty-first century. I think the rights of the child have to prevail earlier in the pregnancy than they do at the moment.
In terms of principle, I am very much pro-life. I would think a committee, given a practical, hard-nosed approach, would probably come up with a line somewhere of 10 weeks to 12 weeks. Prior to that, the rights of the mother would clearly predominate in choosing between the interests of the mother and the life of the child. After that, I would think the rights would have to extend to the child. We then need the support mechanisms to help that mother carry the child through to term. I know that will not make the pro-life people happy in terms of the extremists or the pro-choice. However, we are not in this totally for principle. I know that if that became the law we would not have 65,000 abortions. There might be 2,000 or 3,000 a year. That, to me, would save tens and tens of thousands of lives, and I could live with that.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I would like each and every Hon. Member to remember their loved ones this weekend and remember that tomorrow is St. Valentine's Day.
The hour provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired.
Pursuant to Standing Order 36(2), this order shall be dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the Order Paper.
It being five o'clock, this House stands adjourned until next Monday at 11 a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 3(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 5 p.m.
[Stage Direction]

Monday, February 16, 1987