1987-04-27

Mr. Doug Lewis (Parliamentary Secretary to Deputy Prime Minister and President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 106(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the Government's response to Petitions Nos. 332-1613, 332-1614, 332-1622, 332-1623, 3321628 to 332-1646 inclusive, 332-1650, 332-1651, 332-1656 to 332-1659 inclusive, 332-1661, 332-1664 to 332-1669 inclusive, 332-1671 to 332-1673 inclusive and 332-1676 to 332-1680 inclusive.



INTERPARLIAMENTARY DELEGATION


Hon. Steven E. Paproski (Deputy Chairman of Committees of the Whole House):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 101, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the report of the Canadian parliamentary delegation which paid an official visit to the Polish People's Republic from March 14 to March 19, 1987.



TRANSPORT


Mr. Darryl L. Gray (Bonaventure-iles-de-la-Madeleine):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the first report of the Standing Committee on Transport concerning Bill C-18,
an Act respecting national transportation, with amendments, in both official languages.


Darryl L. Gray: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour of tabling, in both official languages, the Second Report on Bill C-19, an Act respecting motor vehicle transport by extra-provincial undertakings.
[Editor's Note: For above reports, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]


PETITIONS
Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops-Shuswap):: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to present a petition, pursuant to Standing Order 106, concerning the Government's intention to move to complete the debate on amendments to the Patent Act concerning prescription drugs.
The petitioners from Port Alberni, Gibsons Landing, Sechelt, Prince Rupert, Pritchard, Kamloops and Barriere, British Columbia, are concerned that the changes to the Patent Act will result in a significant increase in drug prices for the Canadian consumer who requires prescription drugs.
Therefore they are asking the Government at this late moment to reconsider what it is doing and to cease proceeding with this legislation. They register the fact that they believe that this is part of a whole set of Canadian government concessions to the United States at the expense of average Canadians in the free trade negotiations. They are deeply concerned regarding this critical matter.


Mr. Barry Turner (Ottawa-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, I too have a petition to present signed by 373 residents of the national capital region from the cities of Ottawa, Nepean, Kanata and Gloucester. This petition is on behalf of the Coalition for Life which is located in Ottawa.
The petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to support Private Members' Motion M-37 which is now before the House which would allow unborn babies protection under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

April 27, 1987
Petitions


Mr. Alan Redway (York East):: Mr. Speaker, at long last I have the honour to present to the House a petition that has been signed by approximately 150 residents of the Harbour-front residential community in Toronto which acknowledges that there is presently a review of the Harbourfront plans for development.
The petitioners indicate their concern with the height, the density, the recreation space and the parking requirements. They also indicate that, notwithstanding the review that is ongoing, buildings are still being constructed without building permits. They call upon Parliament to freeze all of the construction in the Harbourfront area including, in particular, the buildings at 633 Lakeshore Boulevard West, 650 Queen's Quay West and 11 Stadium Road pending the outcome of the review. They also ask that they be allowed input into the review process.


Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina West):: Mr. Speaker, I have the duty and honour to present petitions on three different subjects. The first is from Canadians living in a number of locations in British Columbia.
They humbly pray and call upon Parliament to ensure that the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Bouchard) reject any recommendations that would deprive fishermen of the right to collect unemployment insurance benefits and to enter into consultations with all representatives of fishermen in order that improvements to the program offered to the fishermen are made.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, I have another petition from citizens in a number of locations in Saskatchewan, Ontario and British Columbia in which they humbly pray and call upon Parliament to ensure that Government and Parliament enact legislation that would embody the principles of fair and quick oral hearings of refugee claimants before a refugee board independent of the Immigration Commission, universal access to such hearings for every claimant in Canada, and adequate opportunity to arrive in Canada to make this claim.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, I have a number of petitions, six to be exact, from many locations in Canada in which citizens petition Parliament and the House of Commons to have the Government withdraw Bill C-18 and to retain public convenience and necessity as a fundamental factor in the development of public transportation policy and to retain licensing in order to restrict market-place activity to a
present level functioning in the best interest of the public as a whole.
[DOT] (DIO)


Mr. Roland de Corneille (Eglinton-Lawrence):: Mr. Speaker, I have petitions from many parts of this country, including Prince Edward Island; British Columbia; Mississauga, Toronto and Willowdale in the Province of Ontario; and from Calgary, Alberta.
I present a large number of petitions with a large number of signatories thereto. I also have one from the Province of Quebec in relation to the amendments to the Patent Act.

-that the changes in the Patent Act will directly affect all Canadians who are not protected by private or government medicare programs and that the Government's proposals will raise the already high cost of provincial health care programs.

The proposed changes to the Patent Act relating to drugs is a matter of grave concern to these petitioners.
It is my pleasure, on behalf of hundreds upon hundreds of Canadians across this country, to submit these petitions to the House of Commons.


Mr. Stan J. Hovdebo (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of a number of constituents from the constituency of Prince Albert, I have the honour and the duty to present a petition to the House calling upon the Government to be cognizant of the proposed changes to the Patent Act in relation to drugs, and to in fact reject these proposals, or any proposals which would increase prescription drug prices for Canadians.


Ms. Margaret Mitchell (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, I have four petitions to present, the first one being from a number of fishermen from Carbonear, Newfoundland, as well as from British Columbia. It is the concern of these fishermen that the unemployment insurance program might no longer apply to their situation.
These petitioners call upon the Parliament of Canada to ensure that the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Bouchard) reject any recommendation that would deprive fishermen of their right to collect unemployment insurance, and to enter into consultations with all representatives of fishermen in Canada in order that improvements to the program can be brought about.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: 1 next table a petition in respect of the proposed amendments to the Patent
April 27, 1987

Act. In this instance the petitioners are from Burnaby and Vancouver, as well as other parts of British Columbia.
The petition calls upon the federal Government to reject the proposals contained in Bill C-22, proposals which would unfairly hurt Canadians, and particularly senior citizens, inasmuch as they would result in an increase in the cost of prescription drugs.
These petitioners call upon the Parliament of Canada to reject the proposals contained in Bill C-22.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Next I have a petition in respect of the handling of hazardous commodities. This is a petition from the constituency of Vancouver East.
The citizens of Vancouver East request that the Canadian Transport Commission immediately relocate the transfer of all hazardous commodities to a location outside the inner harbour of Vancouver, and that a permanent solution to the movement of hazardous goods be finalized, a solution which is acceptable to the citizens of greater Vancouver and other parts of the Lower Mainland.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: The fourth petition has to do with the Secretary of State funding of women's programs. In this instance, the petitioners are from the City of Whitehorse, Yukon Territory. These petitioners request that the Secretary of State women's program be continued and that there be strong support for it, and that REAL women not be considered eligible for the program, a program whose aim is the equality of women.


Mr. Dave Dingwall (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I have a number of petitions to table today, the signatories to which are from the provinces of Saskatchewan, Ontario, Nova Scotia and British Columbia. These petitioners are opposed to the proposed amendments to the Patent Act.
Because the monopoly granted to innovative pharmaceutical companies will prevent competition from generic companies and thus result in an increase in the cost of drugs, severely restricting the ability of average Canadians to buy necessary prescription drugs, the petitioners call upon the Government of Canada to withdraw the proposed amendments to the Patent Act-amendments which the petitioners believe will negatively affect Canadians, particularly the poor and the elderly.


Mr. Ian Waddell (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, I, too, have a petition in relation to the proposed amendments to the Patent Act.
There is one particular clause in the petition which I should like to draw to the attention of the House, that being the clause that speaks of the proposed changes as yet "another example of Canadian Government concessions to the United
Motions
States in the free trade negotiations, at the expense of average Canadians".
So, whether we are speaking of lumber, oil, patent drugs, or whatever, these petitioners are concerned about this Government selling out Canada to the United States.


Mr. Brian Tobin (Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to table a number of petitions from Canadians from Richmond and North Vancouver in the Province of British Columbia, as well as a number of petitions from residents of the Province of Quebec, and particularly the Laval area.
These individuals take advantage of their right to petition the Government of Canada to reject the proposed changes to the Patent Act, changes which these petitioners believe will result in increased prescription drug prices for the people of Canada.



CITIZENSHIP ACT


Mr. Bob Pennock (Etobicoke North) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-254, an Act to amend the Citizenship Act.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall the Hon. Member have leave to introduce the said Bill?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Robert Pennock: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure this morning to introduce my Private Member's Bill, a Bill to amend the Citizenship Act so that non-Canadian spouses of Canadian Armed Forces personnel and non-Canadian spouses of Public Service personnel of Canada or of a province of Canada be allowed to use the time of the posting abroad toward the residency requirement under the Citizenship Act.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.


[Stage Direction]
On the Order: Government Notices of Motions:
April 8, 1987-The Minister of Justice:
WHEREAS section 43 of the Constitution Act, 1982 provides that an amendment to the Constitution of Canada may be made by proclamation issued by the Governor General under the Great Seal of Canada where so authorized by resolutions of the Senate and House of Commons and of the legislative assembly of each province to which the amendment applies:
NOW THEREFORE the House of Commons resolves that an amendment to the Constitution of Canada be authorized to be made by proclamation issued
[Stage Direction]
April 27, 1987
Order Paper Questions
by Her Excellency the Governor General under the Great Seal of Canada in accordance with the schedule hereto.

[Stage Direction]
1.	(1) Section 3 of the Newfoundland Act is renumbered as subsection 3(1).
(2) Section 3 of the said Act is further amended by adding thereto the
following subsection:
"(2) A reference to this Act, or a reference to the Terms of Union of Newfoundland with Canada set out in the Schedule to this Act, shall be deemed to include a reference to any amendments thereto."
2.	(1) Term 17 of the Terms of Union of Newfoundland with Canada set out in the Schedule to the said Act is renumbered as Term 17(1).
(2) Term 17 of the Terms of Union of Newfoundland with Canada set out in the Schedule to the said Act is further amended by adding thereto the following:
"(2) For the purpose of paragraph one of this Term, the Pentecostal Assemblies of Newfoundland have in Newfoundland all the same rights and privileges with respect to denominational schools and denominational colleges as any other class or classes of persons had by law in Newfoundland at the date of Union, and the words "all such schools" in paragraph (a) of paragraph one of this Term and the words "all such colleges" in paragraph (b) of the paragraph one of this Term include, respectively, the schools and the colleges of the Pentecostal Assemblies of Newfoundland."
3.	This Amendment may be cited as the Constitution Amendment, year of proclamation (Newfoundland Act).
Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 24(2), this Government Notice of Motion stands transferred to and ordered for consideration under Government Orders later this day or at the next sitting of the House.



COMMUNICATIONS AND CULTURE


Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions among the Parties and I think you would find unanimous consent to pass the following two motions, which I will place individually. The first motion is as follows:
That the Standing Committee on Communications and Culture be authorized to extend from April 15, 1987, to May 6, 1987, its deadline for submitting the report to the House on all matters relevant to the development of broadcasting legislation pursuant to the House Order of Reference dated January 29, 1987.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary have the unanimous consent of the House to move his motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: 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.

["The debate will commence at eight o'clock p.m. this day.", 'April 27, 1987\nCapital Punishment']
Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, the second motion is as follows:
That the Standing Committee on Research, Science and Technology be
authorized to adjourn from place to place within Canada for a total of six days
as follows:
Toronto on the evening of Monday, May 11, 1987, after the usual adjournment hour of the House, for public hearings on Tuesday, May 12, 1987, and Wednesday, May 13, 1987;
Saskatoon on the evening of Tuesday, May 26, 1987, after the usual adjournment hour of the House, for public hearings on Wednesday, May 27, 1987, and Thursday, May 28, 1987;
Quebec City on the evening of Tuesday, June 9, 1987, after the usual adjournment hour of the House, for public hearings on Wednesday, June 10, 1987, and Thursday, June 1 1, 1987;
In relation to its mandate under Standing Order 96(2) to Study Canada's
space program, and that the necessary staff do accompany the committee.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary have the unanimous consent of the House to move his motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: 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.
['Agreed.']
Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Would it be the appropriate time under Motions for a Member to rise to request a special debate?


Mr. Speaker:: I should advise the House that I have received from the Hon. Member for Oshawa (Mr. Broadbent) an application under the appropriate Standing Order for an emergency debate.
I will hear that application as soon as we have disposed of the questions on the Order Paper.



[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 86, 92, 93, and 100.


Mr. Penner: 1.	Was a discussion paper on Treaty 8 Renovation, prepared by the Hon. Frank Oberle, presented to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
April 27, 1987

Development in January 1986 and, if so, what follow-up action was taken by the Department?
2.	Has the discussion paper been referred to the Department of Justice and, if so (a) on what date (b) for what reasons?
3.	Is the Department of Justice preparing a report for the Government on this discussion paper and, if so (a) has a report been completed and which cabinet Ministers have received copies (b) if the report has not been completed (i) when will it be completed (ii) which cabinet Ministers will receive copies?
4.	Has the discussion paper been considered by the Cabinet and (a) if so, what was the outcome (Z>) if not, will it be considered by the Cabinet?
5.	What are the Government's intentions with respect to the Treaty 8 Renovation discussion paper?


Hon. Bill McKnight (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: 1. Yes, the discussion paper was submitted to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development on January 31, 1986. It was considered by departmental officials concerned. Since the document dealt with a number of constitutional issues, a copy was provided to officials of the Department of Justice for their consideration. Departmental officials subsequently discussed certain nonconstitutional matters related to the discussion paper with Treaty 8 representatives.
2.	As noted above, the discussion paper was referred to the Department of Justice (in February, 1986) for consideration.
3.	No, (a) N/A, (6) N/A.
4.	The Government intends to use the discussion paper as a working document in considering various approaches to dealing with both treaty-specific and national treaty issues.


Mr. Caccia: For each of the fiscal years 1984-85, 1985-86, 1986-87 and projected 1987-88, did the Canadian Embassy in Washington, D.C. have staff assigned to work on environmental issues and, if so, for each year (a) how many (b) what were or are the tiles/job descriptions for each position?


Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Yes. For each of the fiscal years mentioned above, the Canadian Embassy in Washington, D.C. assigned or will assign: (a) four persons, (b) one Counsellor (Environment), one First Secretary (Environment), one Environmental Affairs Officer, one Secretary.
In addition, the Ambassador and the Minister (Political) devote considerable time to environment issues. Equally, the Minister (Public Affairs), Counsellor (Congressional Affairs) and Counsellor (Public Affairs) devote some of their time to coverage of environment issues.


Mr. Parry: 1. In (a) 1983 (b) 1984 (c) 1985 (d) 1986 (e) 1987 to date, were Employment and Immigration Outreach projects approved and, if so, how many?
2.	(a) What are the (i) benefits (ii) salary levels for Outreach co-ordinators (b) do all co-ordinators receive the same (i) benefits (ii) amount in terms of salary and, if not, for what reason?
3.	Do employees of the Department of Employment and Immigration and Outreach co-ordinators do comparable or identical work and, if so, are there major disparities in salary levels between them and, if so, for what reason?
4.	Do all Outreach projects receive an adequate support service budget to hire necessary full-time staff and, if not, for what reason?
Order Paper Questions
5.	Are local board members of unincorporated Outreach projects personally liable for the due performance of Outreach contracts and, if so, for what reason?


Hon. Benoit Bouchard (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: 1. Yes. Statistics and other information on Outreach are compiled on a fiscal year basis. New Outreach projects were approved as follows:
Fiscal Year
(a)	1982-83
(b)	1983-84
(c)	1984-85
(d)	1985-86
(e)	1986-87
Number of Projects
13
21
2.	(a)(i) There is no national policy regarding the provision of benefits for Outreach workers as Employment and Immigration Canada (EIC), while funding the projects, is not the employer. Outreach projects operate under contracts for service and therefore it is up to the sponsors of the project to establish their own benefit package within the approved negotiated funding level.
2. (a)(ii) There is no national policy on salary levels for Outreach workers for the same reason cited in 2.(a)(i). However, regions have generally established maximum reimbursable salary costs that may be paid to Outreach workers. Co-ordinators of projects would earn higher salaries than Outreach counsellors (who in turn would earn more than support staff) depending upon numbers of points of service, staff supervised and responsibilities.
2. (b)(i) No. Benefits can vary from project to project since the project sponsor is the employer.
2.	(f>)(ii) No. Salaries are generally paid in accordance with those paid for similar positions in comparable community agencies and as a result can vary.
3.	No. While there are some similarities, there are significant differences as well. For example, Canada Employment Centre (CEC) counsellors have responsibilities over and above those of Outreach workers, such as approval of the expenditure of EIC program funds, which is a major responsibility when one considers the dollar amounts involved. The average annual rate of pay for an Employment Counsellor in a CEC currently is in the range of $29,569 to $33,310.
4.	Yes. While it is not always necessary to employ a fulltime support staff member, particularly in the case of a small project, CEIC tries to accommodate the needs of the projects based on their forecasts and within the approved allocated level of funding.
5.	Local board members of unincorporated Outreach projects who are not part of the sponsoring board are not personally liable for the due performance of Outreach contracts. Only those persons whose signatures appear on the

April 27, 1987
Starred Question
signature page of the contract are considered to be liable to Her Majesty for the due performance of all matters stated in the contract.
The reason that these persons are personally liable is based on the premise that an unincorporated organization is not a legal entity and as such the Crown does not have any legal recourse against a non-incorporated organization for the due performance of any obligation set out in the contract. The persons signing the contract, therefore, are held personally liable for the due performance of Outreach services to be rendered.


Ms. McDonald: In June of 1986, did the Government impose a 10 per cent customs tariff on
English language books and, if so, what were the total revenues collected as a
result of its imposition?


Hon. Elmer M. MacKay (Minister of National Revenue):: Effective June 6, 1986, the Customs Duty on Books Remission Order (1982), which allowed duty free entry of certain books, was revoked. Consequently, novels, works of fiction, some periodicals, publications to encourage enrolment in educational institutions outside of Canada and books of printed music reverted to being subject to the legislated duty at the rate of 10 per cent ad valorem under the most favoured nation tariff and the U.K. and Ireland tariff.
Other books, including textbooks or works of reference included in the curriculum of any university, college or school in Canada; books for bona fide libraries; books and periodicals in any other than in the English language; books which have been actually printed and manufactured more than 12 years; books for the promotion of medicine, the fine arts, law, science, technical training and the study of languages, were not affected by the change and remained duty free.
The amount of duty collected from June 6, 1986 to December 31, 1986 (date of the latest available statistics) was $12,711,000 (Source, International Trade Division, Statistics Canada 990-9647).
On March 12, 1987, the Customs Duty on Books Remission Order (P.C. 1987-442) was introduced to remit the 10 per cent duty as of February 19, 1987.


Mr. Speaker:: The questions as enumerated by the Parliamentary Secretary have been answered.


Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, would you be so kind as to call Starred Question No. 91.


[Stage Direction]
Question No. *91-Mr. Manly:
In 1986, did vessels attached to the United States Navy visit British Columbia
and, if so, by month, which ones visited (a) Esquimalt Harbour (b) CFMETR
at Nanoose (c) Vancouver Harbour?
Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, this answer is really in two sections. There is a preamble paragraph which I will read and then ask for the indulgence of the House to have the balance of the answer printed in Hansard.
During 1986 a large number of United States naval vessels and Coast Guard vessels visited the ports of Esquimalt, Nanoose and Vancouver, many of them in connection with Expo 86. A number of vessels visited the same port more than once in the year or more than once in a month. In addition, many of the visits took place at the end of a month and therefore are listed in both months in which they were in port. Most visits included one or two ships while some involved up to six vessels at the same time. The breakdown of the visits by harbour and by month (including carry-overs (CO) from previous months) are as follows.
At this point I would ask for the permission of the House to have the second section of the answer printed in Hansard as read.


Mr. Speaker:: Is that agreed?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Philip Derek Lewis: It is as follows:
Esquimalt	CFMETR Nanoose	VancouverJanuary	USS Conquest USS Ingersoll	USS IngersollFebruary	USS Enhance USS Ingersoll USS Lajolla USS Rentz	USS Ingersoll	USS Ingersoll (CO) USS OkinawaMarch	USS Rentz (CO) USS Germantown USS Implicit USS Pledge USS Rentz (twice)	USS Olympia USS Hewitt USS Rentz	USS Curts USS Albert David USS Downes USS HewittApril	USS Barbey	USS Barbey	USS Hewitt USS Kinkaid USS Downes USS Curts USS Barbey USS Albert DavidMay	USS California USS Esteem	USS Kiska USS McKeeJune	USS Lynde McCormick USS Guitarro	USS McKee (CO) USS Downes USS Fanning USS Henry B. Wilson USS Denver USS Hepburn USS Haleakala USS Fort Fisher
April 27, 1987

July	USS Guitarro (CO) USS Buchanan	USS Fife
	USS Reuben James	USS Leftwich
	USS Pledge	USS Worden
	USS Horne	USS Sample
	USS Roark	USS Williamette
	USS Waddell	USS Goldsbourgh
	USS Racine	USS Davidson
	USS Lang	USS Halsey
	USS Gray	USS Crommelin
	USS Wadsworth	USS Buchanan
	USS George Philip	USS Fletcher
	USS John A. Moore	USS Horne
	USS Buchanan (twice)	USS Roark
	USS Fletcher	USS Waddell USS Racine USS Lang USS Gray USS Wadsworth USS George Philip USS Pigeon USS Badger USS John A. Moore
August	USS Vandegrift (twice) USS Ford USS Esteem USS Hewitt USS Kinkaid USS Curts	USS Vandegrift (twice)	USS Blueback USS Gallant USS Excel USS Gridley USS John Young USS Vandegrift USS Ford USS EsteemSeptember	USS Curts	USS Bremerton	USS Esteem (CO)USS Hewitt	USS Hewitt	USS ConstellationUSS Kinkaid	USS Kinkaid	USS FoxUSS Curts	USS Curtis	USS OuelletUSS Cook USS O'Callahan USS Hawkbill	USS Hawkbill	USS Reid USS Crommelin USS Fanning USS Downes USS Joseph Strauss USS Implicit USS Esteem USS Dixon USS CookOctober	USS Barb	USS Hawkbill	USS CayugaUSS Longbeach USS Pyro	(CO)	USS Ranger USS William H.StandlerUSS Esteem	USS John YoungUSS Enhance	USS Rentz USS Meyer Kord USS Metrill USS ThachNovember	USS Esteem (CO) USS Enhance (CO)December	USS Esteem
I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall the remaining questions be allowed to stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Hon. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 29, a matter about which I wrote to you during the Easter break, to ask that the House adjourn to discuss a matter of urgent and pressing necessity, specifically the announcement by Dome Petroleum that it intends to accept a corporate takeover by the Amoco Corporation.
Briefly stated, there are four reasons which I believe should lead to the acceptance of the motion.
First, this will be the largest takeover bid for any sector in Canadian history.
Second, this takeover by an American multinational company would radically increase foreign dominance in the energy sector from 50 per cent to 60 per cent.
Third, during the past decade, the taxpayers of Canada have contributed literally hundreds of millions of dollars in direct and indirect benefits to the Dome Petroleum Corporation.
Finally, there has been a generally established consensus in Canada that more, not less, Canadian ownership in the crucial energy sector is desirable. The principal reason for this has been that multinational corporations, virtually by definition, have profit maximization on a global basis as their operating principle. This in turn means that at times such a global policy can be in direct conflict with Canada's energy requirements.


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair has had time to consider the matter of this application, and it would seem that the application is in order. The Chair is prepared to put the question to the House.
Does the Hon. Member have leave to move the adjournment of the House under Standing Order 29 for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: The debate will commence at eight o'clock p.m. this day.

April 27, 1987
Capital Punishment



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
Prime Minister to lead off the debate on this issue of national importance. I would point out that this is not a government initiative per se; the Government neither supports nor opposes the reinstatement of capital punishment. A vote will not be considered a matter of confidence and each Member of the Progressive Conservative Party will be free to vote as he or she chooses on the motion.
Hon. George Hees (for the Deputy Prime Minister and President of the Privy Council) moved:: That this House supports, in principle, the reinstatement of capital punishment and directs that a special committee on reinstatement, composed of 15 members, be established, hold hearings and make its final report to the House no later than three (3) months following the adoption of this motion, such report to provide recommendations on:
(a)	which offence or offences should carry the death penalty, and in what circumstances;
(b)	which method or methods should be used to carry out the penalty of death, and in what circumstances;
That, pursuant to Standing Order 107(1), this special committee be hereby appointed as the committee to prepare and bring in a bill no later than three months following the adoption of this motion, founded on the committee's recommendations on (a) and (b) above; such a bill shall be the object of a separate and distinct report of the special committee, and such a report shall be its final report;
That such bill, when reported from such special committee to the House, be deemed pursuant to Standing Order 107(1) to have been introduced and stand on the Order Paper, in the name of the special committee chairman, for first reading at the next sitting of the House; and that subsequent House stages of the bill be considered under "Government Orders", with the bill standing under the heading "Government Business"; and that, when the said bill has been read a second time, it shall stand referred to a Legislative Committee;
That the Striking Committee be empowered to name the Members of the special committee, provided that once the Striking Committee report is laid upon the Table, it shall be deemed concurred in;
That the special committee have the power to sit while the House is sitting and during periods when the House stands adjourned;
That the special committee be empowered to report from time to time and send for persons and papers, and to print such papers and evidence from time to time as may be ordered by the committee and to retain the services of expert, technical, professional and clerical staff;
That the special committee be empowered to adjourn from place to place inside Canada and that, when deemed necessary, the appropriate staff accompany the committee;
That a quorum of the special committee be eight (8) members for any vote, resolution or other decision; and that the chairman be authorized to hold meetings to receive evidence and authorize the printing thereof whenever six (6) members are present;
That any substitution of membership on the special committee be made pursuant to Standing Order 94(4); and
That, notwithstanding the usual practices of this House, if the House is not sitting when the special committee is ready to issue its final report and the said bill, the special committee shall present its report and the bill to the House by filing them with the Clerk of the House provided that the report shall then be deemed to have been laid upon the Table, and the bill shall then be deemed, pursuant to Standing Order 107(1), to have been introduced at the first sitting of the House thereafter and to stand on the Order Paper in the name of the special committee chairman, for first reading at the next sitting of the House; and that subsequent House stages of the bill be considered under "Government Orders", with the bill standing under the heading "Government Business".


Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege as the Parliamentary Secretary to the Deputy
In opening the debate it is important that I take some time to explain the background of the debate, the timing of it, the motion, and the process, as well as to present briefly my own point of view as a Member of Parliament. Those members from all sides who follow me will spend far more time than I on the pros and cons of the issue.
The death penalty was abolished in 1976 after a long and, by all accounts, bitter debate in Parliament. Capital punishment was replaced with a mandatory life sentence with no parole for 25 years in the case of first degree murder. However, debate has continued in the country as to whether or not capital punishment should be reinstated. The proponents are concerned that deterrence and protection are not being adequately served under the present law. The opponents continue to argue that capital punishment is not a deterrent. There is a considerable body of public opinion on both sides of the issue.
During the 1984 election campaign, our Government made the commitment to a debate in the House of Commons. Further, the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) made the commitment that there would be no Party line on this issue, that it would be a free vote. The commitment made by our Government was to bring the issue forward for debate during our mandate as a Government.
The House will know that when we took office in September, 1984, Canada was faced with a multitude of social and economic problems, with a complete breakdown of federal-provincial relations and with a deterioration in relations with our neighbour and largest trading partner, the United States. It would have been irresponsible to have proceeded with this debate prior to a resolution or at least a commencement to the solutions of these important problems. We have, fortunately, made considerable progress.
On the economic side we have created jobs in record numbers. Our emphasis as a Government on training and retraining has given hundreds of thousands of Canadians more job opportunities. Government spending has been reduced. Our attack on the deficit is continuing. Naturally, Mr. Speaker, we do not claim complete victory; there are still regional disparities and there is much to be done but we have made a start.
On the social front, we have passed tougher laws for impaired driving and prostitution. We have made divorce easier when marriages have broken down. Equality legislation, plus an aggressive appointment criteria have profoundly increased the opportunities and the influence of Canadian women. Parliamentary reform has increased the influence of the individual Member of Parliament. We have worked hard
April 27, 1987

to improve federal-provincial relations. While differences of opinion are inherent to our system and continue, the nature of the difference of opinion is, for the most part, philosophical rather than the result of a complete failure to communicate.
Relations have improved with the United States. Prospects are good for a free trade agreement which will ensure access to the markets of our biggest customer. Environment issues are now receiving the attention they deserve. On all of these issues we do not claim victory, but we do claim progress.
Therefore, it is appropriate to commence this debate on the question of reinstatement of capital punishment at this time in our mandate. There are those in the Opposition who say that we are doing it now to curry public favour. That is nonsense for the reasons which I have stated, Mr. Speaker. We are bringing this debate forward now because we said we would bring it forward during our mandate. We are bringing this debate forward now because of the considerable progress we have made on several fronts.
However, although it is appropriate to commence the debate now, it is also appropriate to make certain other points. The Government has other important legislation which should proceed. Among those legislative initiatives are the revisions to the Patent Act, changes to the Criminal Code affecting pornography and sexual abuse of children, transportation legislation which will free up competition and deregulate transportation in Canada, as well as income tax legislation flowing from the recent Budget. There are other policy initiatives, such as income tax reform, child care initiatives and defence policy which may or may not initiate parliamentary debate prior to the end of June.
While we are committed as a Government to the debate on capital punishment, we are not committed to managing the debate with a heavy hand or forcing a vote by a certain date. That would be contradictory on a matter of conscience. One of my colleagues is reported to have said that we will look very weak if the vote does not take place before June 30 this year. With respect, Mr. Speaker, I do not agree. Our Government will, in the final analysis, be measured on our record on all issues, not one issue, and especially not a non-confidence measure which has been designated as a free vote.
Therefore, while there is a disposition and a will to proceed with the debate, the Government is also committed to the continued orderly process of the Government's business. In an effort to have a full debate involving every member who wishes to speak, the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Mazankow-ski) wrote to the opposition House Leaders suggesting that the House sit from seven until 10 each Monday, Tuesday and Thursday and that speeches in debate on the said motion and amendments be limited to 15 minutes with questions and comments in reply limited to five minutes. That suggestion would have allowed for a full and orderly debate, but unfortunately the opposition House Leaders flatly rejected that proposal and had no alternatives.
Capital Punishment
I have a personal suggestion with respect to this debate which I would put forward. I would suggest that we call the debate every Friday. That way, those who wish to debate the matter, either for or against, would be on notice that they must be here on Fridays. Twenty-five of the obstructionists in the opposition Parties who fear debate would be forced to remain so that the hours of debate would not be extended. Should the debate be extended, everyone present who wished to speak could speak and the vote could be deferred to the following Monday.
Although there has been considerable public debate, parliamentary debate and media discussion concerning the issue of the reinstatement of capital punishment, there has been very little consideration or consensus on the appropriate measure and mechanics for the parliamentary debate. I would like to pay tribute to the Deputy Prime Minister for the time and effort he put into the drafting of this motion. It is the result of considerable thought, review and revision as well as full consultation with members of the Government caucus which, I would point out, includes both proponents and opponents of the motion.
The motion provides an orderly process for the debate of the issue and the decision-making process if the motion is passed by the House. The motion first seeks the opinion of the House on the reinstatement of capital punishment. If the motion is defeated, the matter will end there. If the motion is supported, the motion establishes a parliamentary committee to prepare and introduce appropriate legislation within a certain time frame. As the Deputy Prime Minister stated in the House, 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 motion of non-confidence.
I think it is fair to ask why we did not pursue other legislative methods such as a private Members' Bill. A private Members' Bill to reinstate capital punishment would not have allowed for orderly debate on the principle followed by an orderly process of drafting a Bill. Furthermore, the present rules for Private Members' Bills allow for only five hours of debate. That would not be sufficient time for all Members of the House who wished to participate in this debate to do so.
One might also ask why the Government did not bring in a government Bill. We feel that that would not have been appropriate because the Government's commitment was to a full and open debate followed by a free vote. If the motion passes, the members of the committee of the House and not the Government will decide upon the crimes for which the punishment applies and the method of enacting the punishment. We feel this motion is the best possible and most reasonable approach for all Members of the House regardless of their position on the issue.
The motion has been in the public domain since February 12, 1987. This has allowed for constituents to contact their Members of Parliament, as many have. It has allowed for public debate, both organized and unorganized. It has allowed for media consideration and it has allowed for Members of

April 27, 1987
Capital Punishment
Parliament to seek out public opinion and formulate their position on either the issue or the process.
When the Deputy Prime Minister introduced the motion, he stated very clearly the following:
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 MPs.
That time has now elapsed. Thus, when we commence the debate now, two and a half months later, we are neither rushing the debate before due public consideration nor delaying the debate unnecessarily.
I touched on this next matter once before and it was the subject of some comment, but I intend to return to it because I think it is important. I would like to address the tone of the debate. Every Member of the House, no matter what his or her position on this issue, owes it to society to debate it on as high a level as possible. This debate will be the ultimate test of every Member of the House. There will be some Hon. Members who are in a fortunate position. Their personal views and the views of a majority of their constituents will coincide. There will be others in a position of conflict. Their views will be at odds with those of their constituents. That is a difficult position for a Member of Parliament. We as elected representatives all know that. We owe it to each other, I believe, to be both passionate and dispassionate in this debate, passionate as we present our personal points of view and dispassionate as we consider the viewpoints of others.
1 will be voting for the motion, Mr. Speaker, because I believe in the reinstatement of capital punishment for premeditated murder and the murder of policemen and prison guards. Discussions with my constituents over the past eight years lead me to believe that the majority of my constituents also hold that point of view. People who commit premeditated murder make a conscious decision to take a life. That is the most serious of all crimes for which there can be no excuse. Policemen and prison guards are our nominees. They agree to protect our lives and property from those in society who choose not to obey the law. We owe it to them to provide a deterrent. Murderers decide to opt out of society. I am of the opinion that capital punishment is both an appropriate punishment for those who commit murder and a deterrent.
Public opinion polls conducted from time to time suggest that the weight of public opinion would be in favour of the reinstatement of capital punishment. That puts me in the fortunate position of holding a point of view which coincides with that of my constituents. However, there will be other Members from all Parties who are not as fortunate and I wish to address their position today.
Members of Parliament are elected to exercise their judgment on behalf of their constituents during their term of office. The true measure of an elected representative can be made when his or her opinions conflict sharply with the widely held opinions of his or her constituents. That is one of our most difficult tests as Members of Parliament. We then fly not only in the face of public opinion but in the face of the wishes of our
constituents. However, it is necessary to preserve the principle of the independence of an elected representative. To my colleagues from all sides of the House, and to the House, I commend the comments of the famous British parliamentarian, Edmund Burke, made during his acceptance speech in 1774. I think these comments are important in this debate and I wish to read them into the record:
It ought to be the happiness and glory of a representative to live in the strictest union, the closest correspondence, and the most unreserved communication with his constituents. Their wishes ought to have great weight with him, their opinion high respect, their business unremitted attention. It is his duty to sacrifice his repose, his pleasures, his satisfactions to theirs; and, above all, ever, and in all cases, to prefer their interest to his own. But his unbiased opinion, his mature judgment, his enlightened conscience, he ought not to sacrifice to you, to any man, or to any set of men living. These he does not derive from your pleasure, no, nor from the law and the constitution.
They are a trust from providence, for the abuse of which he is deeply answerable. Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgment; and he betrays, instead of serving you, if he sacrifices it to your opinion.
Burke's comments upon the duties of a member, his trust to his constituents, and his right to put forward his own judgment are still valid today over 200 years later.
This debate will be a great test. It will touch every Canadian; the innocent and the guilty, the judge and the jury, the Crown and the defence. Yet, Mr. Speaker, we will be judged as much by the way we reach the decision as on the decision itself. Therefore, let us all push ourselves to the limit to be worthy of the right to make that decision and to do it in as calm and thoughtful a manner as possible.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Right Hon. John N. Turner (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I do not support capital punishment and, therefore, I oppose this resolution.

I shall explain to the House why I do not believe in capital punishment, but first of all, I would like to express my Party's dismay at the way this Government has tabled the matter in the House and the way it intends to conduct the debate.

I do not believe in capital punishment. I will use the opportunity afforded me this morning to explain to the House, to my constituents and to Canadians why I take this position. However, I would first like to express my Party's dismay at the way in which this resolution has been brought forward, the method which the Government is using to treat and essay Canadian public opinion, and the way in which I believe it will bitterly divide Canadians.
During the election the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) made a promise to the country that he would bring forward a free vote on capital punishment. We anticipated that that meant he would bring it forward in a clear, unequivocal
April 27, 1987

manner, that he would allow the House to divide, and that the consequences would flow from whatever vote we took.
Instead we have an attempt by the Prime Minister and the Government to disguise their real intentions. Instead of a straightforward motion on the death penalty they are trying to pass responsibility off to a committee of this House. The Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Mazankowski) told the House of Commons on February 13, when he brought in this motion, that the motion does not indicate that the Government supports or opposes the reinstatement of capital punishment. That position was echoed by the Parliamentary Secretary this morning. Yet the motion which he introduced, and on which we are asked to vote, begins with the words that you have recited, your Honour, "That this House supports, in principle, the reinstatement of capital punishment".
Who does the Government expect to fool-no position is being taken? Ministers are divided on the issue and are not taking responsibility for this motion-yet, the motion is quite clear that this House supports, in principle, the reinstatement of capital punishment.
The issue is to be turned over to a committee of the House of Commons. That committee will have the authority under the resolution to decide what crimes will be subject to capital punishment and what the style of that punishment will be. The committee will have the responsibility of preparing the actual Bill. All three of those items are vital; what crimes should be covered, in what way the ultimate punishment should be meted out, and the drafting of the Bill. That surely should have been the responsibility of the Government, or the Prime Minister, or the Minister of Justice (Mr. Hnatyshyn).

Mr. Speaker, no government can resolve the issue of the death penalty by fence sitting, any more than we can execute someone partially. Either the death penalty exists in this country or it does not. The Government must put its cards on the table. The Government must clearly explain its position and take the consequences. But it doesn't want to do this. It wants to keep both sides happy.

To supporters of capital punishment they will say, "We have kept our word, we have brought it before the House". To those opposed to capital punishment they will say, "What could we do? The committee decided. It decided what crimes would be included, the style of the punishment, and it drafted the Bill."
This motion is sheer hypocrisy. It is a crass political move.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

The motion is silent on the royal prerogative of pardon, by which Cabinet can commute the death penalty to life imprisonment. Will the present Government or future Governments who are opposed to the death penalty be able to commute such a sentence, and if so, is not the present debate absolutely
Capital Punishment
meaningless? Is it not ambiguous? Aren't we giving the impression to Canadians who support the death penalty that the House is speaking out on this issue because an execution as understood in this motion or in future legislation may well never take place, because of the powers and prerogatives of Cabinet, even if the death penalty is restored as a result of this motion and subsequent legislation?

By voting for this motion the House of Commons will agree in principle to the return of capital punishment. It will then send a committee criss-crossing Canada debating the merits of garrotte against the firing squad, electrocution against hanging, legal injection against even decapitation. What a ghoulish commission to send our colleagues on across the country.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: The committee will also be obliged to decide what crimes will qualify-will it be only premeditated murder or first degree murder or treason or terrorism or espionage? The effect of this roving committee will be to divide Canadians even more bitterly on the subject and will not add one whit to what we already know about the subject. I anticipate many emotion-filled meetings across the country and very, very little dispassionate discussion.
We will not know until the Committee has finished its macabre task and comes back to the House to say what kind of criminals will receive the death sentence and how they will be executed. We must not forget that the Committee will not have to decide whether people will be executed, only how this will be done and for what crimes they are to suffer this punishment. By taking this approach, the Government is showing a shocking lack of responsibility, and Canadians will realize this, whatever their views on the fundamental issue of capital punishment may be.

When the committee returns to the House after 90 days or before, we start the debate all over again. We prolong the issue; we continue to exacerbate the division of the country, and the country remains divided.
What happens to the rest of the country's agenda and the Government's agenda before the House of Commons? It is behaving like some latter day Lady MacBeth, attempting to wash its hands of the issue. However, I say to the Government and the Prime Minister that it cannot absolve itself of this issue, nor can the Prime Minister. That is not leadership; that is playing games with an issue that goes to the heart of the conscience of every Member of Parliament and every Canadian.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

April 27, 1987
Capital Punishment


John Napier Turner: We are told that a majority of Canadians favour the return of capital punishment. We are told that that is justification in itself for bringing back the death penalty. I understand that some Members are polling their constituents to find out how they want them to vote.
I am glad that the Parliamentary Secretary recited those words of Edmund Burke, perhaps too oft-cited but never more clearly put. He is saying that to poll one's constituents and to rely merely on public opinion polls or on commentators is an abandonment of our responsibility as parliamentarians. It is a derogation of what we were elected to do, by exercising our own judgment here and on behalf of the people of Canada.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: If there is one line that I would recite from the words of Edmund Burke put before the House in his famous address to his electors of Bristol: "Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgment; and he betrays instead of serving you if he sacrifices it to your opinion".
The duty to make that judgment is ours. It is our judgment, and ours alone. It cannot be decided on the basis of public opinion polls or in searching out the collective opinion of our constituents. It is a matter for us to listen to reason carefully together, to weigh the arguments pro and con and then, in a matter of conscience and the fundamental values of the country, to tell the country and Parliament in the House of Commons where we stand. That is what we will do.
Let us be perfectly clear. This morning we are not talking about a percentage shift in interest rates. We are not talking in terms of whether the Gross National Product has increased or decreased, or about our trade figures. We are not talking in terms of greys; we are talking about an issue that is clearly black and white. There is no grey area possible when it comes to arguing whether the state should kill or not kill those the state finds guilty of the ultimate crime. The decision, once taken, first by us, then by the courts, judge and jury in the individual cases that will undoubtedly be brought before the country, then carried out by prison officials, is a final and irrevocable decision.

Every group of people has the duty to protect the innocent against violence. That is undeniable. Since murder is the height of violence, the state has the duty and responsibility to prevent this most condemnable crime.
Nobody here in the House would question this point. But we certainly do have diverging views on the method we should use to prevent this crime. Death penalty advocates believe that execution by the state constitutes the only real deterrent.
That is not my opinion. I do not think that the evidence we have confirms this.
{English]
I repeat that one of the earliest duties of a country was to protect citizens against attacks on their person, their lives, their freedom of movement and their liberty. When these attacks take the form of violence, then it is the duty of the state by way of the criminal sanction to punish. If the sanction against a criminal act is not sufficient or is seen by ordinary people not to be sufficient, then the effectiveness of the criminal law suffers loss of credibility. If a crime is not punished, people lose confidence in our law. If the punishment does not fit the crime, then in the minds of reasonable people the law is sapped of its credibility. Crimes of violence are not to be treated lightly. Sentences must be meaningful, and for murder, we believe that there ought to be a mandatory life sentence and limitation on the parole.

Some people claim that executing the murderer protects society because never again will this individual commit murder. True indeed. But since Confederation the number of people who were guilty of murder and went on to commit a second similar offence is infinitely small, and only two of the 473 murderers convicted since 1976 did commit a second murder.

What if a mistake is made? What if the wrong person is convicted? Do we think it never happens? It happened in the case of Donald Marshall who spent 11 years unjustly committed to a Nova Scotia prison for a murder he did not commit. What if we had executed Donald Marshall?


Mr. Shields:: Not first degree murder.


John Napier Turner: What if you execute the wrong person? It has happened before and it can happen again. Who then is guilty of taking that innocent life? Is it the judge, the jury, the prison official, or does the whole responsibility begin with us here in the House of Commons? I ask every Member to weigh that particular decision.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: In this debate we are assessing an individual responsibility for applying to our law and imposing within the criminal sanction an irrevocable, final, irredeemable penalty. When we talk about equality before the law, we are generally proud as Canadians of having moved a great deal toward applying justice equally between rich and poor, between all members of our society.
But there is always the human condition. There is always the human variable, and the accused does not have the choice of those variables. What is the attitude of the particular judge before whom the accused is summoned? What is the particular attitude of that judge toward capital punishment? That attitude unconsciously determines in subtle ways the way that judge presides the trial.
April 27, 1987

What about the Crown prosecutor? What is his or her attitude toward the prosecution of a criminal offence? Does the Crown prosecutor believe that it is his or her duty to bring the whole facts before the judge and jury or does he or she believe that it is a primary duty to achieve a conviction? Does that sense of justice become diluted somewhat by the personal ambition and career plans of the prosecutor?
What about counsel for the defence? There is a wide variety and talent, persuasion and persistence among counsel. Yet, in most cases, particularly those involving legal aid, the accused does not have the right to choose the particular counsel defending him or her. That range of talents inevitably enters into the facts that are presented before a jury and the jury's assessment of those facts.
The accused has very little control over those human factors. Many accused of the ultimate crime are friendless, alone and without resources. Although we speak of equalizing the opportunity and equality of justice in Canada, there is still little doubt that a person with resources has a better chance.

Some capital punishment supporters, including the Hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr. Domm), state that it is worth the risk. They say that even if the state mistakenly kills certain people, it will be worth it since we will thus be getting rid of the guilty. This is a carefree and irresponsible approach which I cannot accept.

Of course we are given the ancient argument's recital of an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth-and, a life for a life. Murder is a barbaric act, so should we respond in a barbaric way? What would happen if we carried that to its logical conclusion: burgle the house of a burglar, cheat the embezzler, make obscene phone calls to someone who makes them, kidnap the child of the kidnapper? Of course that is an absurd argument but that is what we are really saying if we are to reply in the same way to an act of barbarism.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: Civilized societies over the centuries have developed codes of law and systems of justice to provide for the punishment of the guilty. It is not a system based on vengeance, retribution or revenge. Surely Canada has risen as a state beyond state-enforced vengeance or state-enforced retribution. Surely we have a system based on a calm, dispassionate review of the allegations so that beyond any shred of doubt within the burden of proof of the criminal law they are converted into facts. If guilt is assessed after due process then a punishment is imposed which will deter the commission of similar crimes. That is our system.

The aim of this system is to protect society and rehabilitate criminals. And in a civilized society the penal system must
Capital Punishment
focus on protection, prevention and rehabilitation. We must come to grips with the causes of violent crimes, not only with their consequences.

What we are discussing here this morning is not whether the state has the right to execute but whether it is right for the state to execute.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: The Hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr. Domm) is quoted in The Toronto Star as having said:
A country that puts murderers to death is telling the world that life is not
cheap in that country.
I would ask the Hon. Member to reflect on that statement. If we look around the world and see where capital punishment is used we see that it is mostly in countries such as Iran, Saudi Arabia, the Soviet Union, China and South Africa. We must then ask ourselves, are these our models? Are these the societies that we want to emulate? The answer is clearly no. The answer is that the societies with which we feel comfortable are those of western Europe, New Zealand, Australia, and those states in the union of the United States where capital punishment has been abolished.
I do not arrive at my own views on capital punishment from any philosophical belief that there is no inherent right in the state to take a life. Under our moral history, under our law and under our traditions there has always been a right individually to self-defence, even at the cost of taking another's life in legitimate self-defence.
The state has always had collectively the right to defend itself, even by going to war and taking life, even when it involves the killing of others. Execution in the course of individual self-defence or in the course of collective selfdefence has always been morally and legally justifiable within our moral and legal principles.
The question then is this. Is state execution justifiable as a response to murder? Is the state exercising a legitimate role of self-defence in that response to murder? It can only justify that as an act of self-defence if it can establish beyond a doubt that it is the only effective deterrent to the recommission of that crime, and in influencing other people as they behave in our society.
Is capital punishment the only such deterrent? That is the issue. It is not only a moral issue; it is a factual and pragmatic issue. There are facts before us.
I think that one of the great speeches made in the House of Commons on this issue was made by the late Arthur Maloney. I commend his speech to Hon. Members. He made it on February 18, 1960 and he pointed out:
-there are many things which we are morally entitled to do but which we are
not morally obliged to do.

April 27, 1987
Capital Punishment
As our former Prime Minister, the Right Hon. Pierre Elliott Trudeau, told the House on June 15, 1976, only:
A preponderance of available evidence showing that executions are likely to
deter other murders would serve as an adequate justification for the act, an
adequate guarantee that a human life was not being taken capriciously.
It is instructive to note that even the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police so long in favour of capital punishment no longer argues that capital punishment is the only effective deterrent.
Your Honour the evidence is not there. Statistics have been advanced on both sides of the argument. Numbers will obviously be called into play before the House. But I have never found them to be conclusive, and I do not find them to be conclusive now. They do not remove my doubt. Indeed, in the civilized world there is nowhere any evidence to show that capital punishment has had any significant impact at all on the murder rate.

At 2.1 per 100,000 people, last year's homicide rate in Canada was the lowest in 15 years. When capital punishment was abolished in 1976 the rate was 2.9 per 100,000 people. And if we look at the United States, statistics show that those states which still impose the death penalty report a higher number of homicides than do the other states where it has been abolished. That, Mr. Speaker, shows the lack of evidence in support of capital punishment.
If capital punishment does not have a deterrent effect, what other use does it have? Death penalty supporters say that the punishment should be equal to the crime. But if a punishment goes beyond deterrence, it becomes an act of vengeance, retaliation, or personal satisfaction.
As a civilized society, have we not gone beyond the stage of vengeance sanctioned by the state? Has there been no lessening of thirst for revenge which at one time prompted mankind to take the law in its own hands and demand an eye for an eye?
Surely we have moved from retaliation, to a code of impartial justice, with a system of fair hearing and judgment by our peers. Surely by accepting to live under a system of communal justice, we have abandoned the right to individual vengeance; we have abandoned our own right to take personal vengeance. If that be so, how does it advance our cause by handing it over to the state?
I believe that we have entered this debate on fallacious grounds. I believe that there is, in the minds of too many people in Canada, the idea that in the past 10 years, or in the past 20 years, we have somehow changed fundamentally as a society; that we have become more violent, more brutal than was the case when we had the death penalty, 10 or more years ago.
I have tried to assess where that feeling comes from, and I am sure that the prime source for it is what we receive by way of a daily diet of news and television programming. Every night on prime time television we see murder, kidnapping, robbery, assault, and rape. We forget that it is an exaggeration. We forget that these are actors and that the actors do not really die, that the actors are not really the crazed killers they are portrayed to be.

But we have a tendency to forget that in recent years there have been more murders in Miami, Florida, than in Canada as a whole, yet capital punishment is still on the statute books in Florida. Not for a moment would I deny the existence of violent and brutal crimes in Canada. I do not deny that people are being assassinated. I do not deny that people commit violent crimes, but I vehemently deny that our society has become more violent and more brutal, and that one of the solutions would be to increase violence by reinstating capital punishment.

What is the message we are trying to send out from this place, Mr. Speaker? What is the message we are going to send out from this place if we once again allow the state to put a fellow member of our society to death?
To me, the message would be clear. We have failed, we have given up. It is a sign that we are willing to indulge our own personal vengeance, our own personal anger again to make violence, violence once again endorsed, and endorsable, by our state. It would be a sign that we have lost faith in ourselves as a society to deal creatively and effectively with those who break society's rules.
I believe that the state must aspire to a higher ideal than simply killing people who cannot be fitted into our scope of conduct. Our society is a dynamic and living thing. It changes, our rules change. One hundred years ago, the number of crimes for which the death penalty could be imposed numbered 200. What was a major crime warranting the death penalty a century ago hardly enjoys a footnote in the Criminal Code today. That is the case in respect of several of those offences.
As is pointed out in the recent report of the Canadian Sentencing Commission, capital punishment was at the center of the penalty structure in England at the end of the 18th century. Since we incorporated the British system, the same attitude applied then in our country. But, the report also points out that even then European penal reformers had already stated the cardinal principle of deterrence, that principle being that it is not the severity but rather the certainty of the punishment which deters potential offenders. A penalty structure which relied on punishment so severe that it could not be applied systematically was in clear conflict with this principle.
I have the profound conviction, Mr. Speaker, that the evolution in our thinking did not come about by accident. It
April 27, 1987

came about because we continued to push forward our frontiers in terms of understanding and knowledge. As a people, we have made considerable progress. We have taken considerable strides as a civilization. We are more compassionate, more understanding, and more humane. I believe that bringing back the death penalty would once again close the door on that road of progress.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: It would also be an indication that we have given up hope of finding a humane yet effective response to the ultimate crime.
It is for these reasons, Mr. Speaker, that I intend to vote against this motion. It is for these reasons that I intend to urge my colleagues from all quarters of the House to vote against the motion, to vote against the restoration of the death penalty. It is for these reasons that I commend to each and every one of us a thorough review of our conscience and of our dignity as elected representatives of a great people.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis), on a point of order.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, in the light of the importance of this debate, and in the light of the custom and tradition of this House, I rise to seek the unanimous consent of the House to allow the Hon. Member for Oshawa (Mr. Broadbent) to speak for a period of time equal to that of the Right Hon. Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Turner); and, if necessary, that the hour of one o'clock not be seen by the Speaker, to enable his speech to be completed.


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The Hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Lewis).


Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, as the House will be aware, we have been trying to work out arrangements for an orderly debate on this subject, arrangements which would ensure that everyone will be heard fully. We have considered this matter, and in the spirit of co-operation-which we hope will endure throughout this debate-we are prepared to give our consent.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The Hon. Member for Windsor West (Mr. Gray).


Mr. Gray (Windsor West):: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Official Opposition, we are happy to agree to the request of the House Leader of the New Democratic Party.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: It is so agreed.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, there is not a subject matter more important for Members of Parliament to debate and deliberate upon than the one that is now
Capital Punishment
before us. As all members on both sides of this issue know, what is at stake here is whether this country will reintroduce into law the right of the state, calmly and deliberately, to take a human life.
It is the importance of this issue that leads me immediately to say to Members of all Parties that I intend to address my comments on this profoundly important matter, not to those who agree with me that capital punishment is wrong, but to those who are either undecided or, up to this moment, believe that it is appropriate for capital punishment to be reintroduced into our laws.
I have concerns about the origin of the resolution, the way it has been brought forward, and I have some concerns about the details of it. But I put those concerns aside to deal with the fundamental question that is at the root of the motion. As the right to experience life, Mr. Speaker, is the most basic of values, so too is the destruction of life, its denial to another, the most horrible of crimes. Whether that destruction is of a child or an elderly person, an invalid or an athlete, a scholar or a cab driver, a man or woman in the home, or whomever, whether that destruction is one of a random mass murder or an act that is premeditated and specific, the result, Mr. Speaker, is the same. The victim's life is snuffed out; it is finished, there is no more. The ultimate impingement on another human being has been carried out.
I am sure everyone in the House agrees that murder is horrible, that we must do all we can to prevent it, and that those who murder must in some sense be punished. However, these are not the central matters before us.
What is central is the obligation of those who want capital punishment to justify that course of action. What is central is their obligation, those who believe that killing our neighbour is morally wrong, to show that the same act of terminal violence when carried out by the state in the name of law is morally right.
Those who want us to approve of the motion, which in its essence, if established, would bring about the restoration of the death penalty, have the obligation to prove their case. If they want to take life, they must provide us with arguments which lead us to conclude that when sanctioned by the state the taking of a life is right.

People who are in favour of capital punishment have a moral duty to prove that killing by the State is justified and to argue their case. That is in fact the major moral concern of this debate, since a debate on the death penalty is about the right of the State to kill.
People who are in favour of capital punishment will have to provide moral arguments to justify the right of the State to kill a human being. In my opinion, killing is justifiable only in two situations. One is self-defence. If a man, woman or child is attacked by another person, he or she has a right to kill the

April 27, 1987
Capital Punishment
attacker, if necessary, to protect his or her life. The second is when a country or a state declares war or invades another country to forcibly impose its laws on it, thereby making use of violence and death. I think it is right and morally acceptable for the people of that country to defend themselves against the attacker.
The principle involved in these two examples is identical, Mr. Speaker. An individual has the right to protect his life when it is seriously threatened. A State or a community also has that right.

When the only defence against a violent attack on life is the use of violence, then that violence is morally justifiable. Individuals or states have the moral right to survive and to defend that survival when it is being assailed.
However, the question before us is of a different order entirely. It is whether the state is justified in killing a human being, not in active defence, but cruelly, deliberately, in a premeditated way, long after some crime has been committed. Those Members of Parliament who favour this premeditated destruction of human life by the state must make the case for it. It is their responsibility and theirs alone. They cannot shift the moral burden of justifying this kind of violence to those who elected them. They cannot claim they are merely following the wishes of the population.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: In this context 1 say to the government spokesperson who initiated the debate that surely much more is required than simply stating a commitment to one side or the other. Surely the Conservative Member who spoke today had an obligation not simply to restate his position but to give to the people of Canada and to the Members of the House of Commons his moral reason for reaching the conclusion he did. He did not, and to that extent he let down the seriousness of this occasion.

Mr. Speaker, some Members of the House are saying that most Canadian men and women, or rather that most of their constituents want capital punishment to be reinstated. You have heard that argument. Several Hon. Members have adopted a position based on the results of public polls which indicate that most Canadians or most of their constituents are in favour of capital punishment. For such an argument to be valid, one would have to recognize that a democratic government should be satisfied simply with counting votes. It is a bad conception of democracy generally and especially representative democracy.
Mr. Speaker, history's major democrats, from Pericles in ancient Greece to John Stuart Mill, the first democrat of the modern era, have always claimed that discussion based on reason and facts is an essential element of democracy. Within a small community, it is possible for all men and women who are affected by a specific situation to legislate. It was possible
at the time of the ancient Greek cities, except for women and slaves, who did not have the right to participate.
Within small communities, people could take part in public debates and listen to conflicting opinions. However, it is impossible to hold such a rational discussion in view of the huge population of modern states. The state is not simply a city or a small community. A modern state is a country. That is why we have representative democracy, not direct democracy. In the case of representative democracy, elected representatives must take into account certain basic principles, listen to the opinions of men and women taking part in the debate and look for evidence at home and abroad.
The great majority of our constituents simply do not have time to weigh the pros and cons and analyze the arguments made. They are busy earning their daily bread. That is their preoccupation.
Unlike us in the House of Commons, they do not have an opportunity to analyze the arguments and listen to each of us give his opinion before making a final decision.
As elected Members of Parliament we must accept the consequences of our decisions, not only with respect to capital punishment but also with respect to any other issue.
The principle I uphold does not apply only to the death penalty debate but, as I said before, to all our activities as members.
It is such a basic principle in our system that I was very surprised to hear members say that all we need to do is consult our constituents and add up the numbers, or to conduct a public opinion poll throughout the country.
Democracy is not a poll-taking process. Otherwise we could install a computer in every household and there would be no need for Members of Parliament.
In my opinion such an approach is both erroneous and antidemocratic. Mr. Speaker, such a process amounts to denying that decisions must be made after rational discussions, after hours of persuasion and in-depth examination of the question.
This is why I come to the conclusion that every member, whether for or against capital punishment, has one essential democratic duty, and that is to make his or her own decision. And for the reasons I have indicated, it is the responsibility of those members who want to give the state the right to kill to explain their logic, that is their responsibility.
I submit that none of the reasons given to support capital punishment is sustainable. I want now to deal with those arguments.
First, there is the contention that punishment must suit the crime, and, say some, this means that only by killing a murderer can the punishment fit the offence. The Leader of
April 27, 1987

the Official Opposition (Mr. Turner) has already dealt with this argument and I can agree totally with what he has said. The logic of the position of those who take this stand can be persuasive only after the most superficial consideration. If someone destroys my car or deliberately breaks my leg, no one would argue that the state should then destroy his car or break his leg. We immediately see, Mr. Speaker, that such a response would not constitute justice. In fact, most advocates of capital punishment would agree with us in these matters in discussing those subjects. They do not advocate breaking the leg of a man who has deliberately done that to another. Many of them would correctly see such punishment for what it would be, namely, vengeance, not justice. It is too bad that these same people do not see that capital punishment is a response to murder of exactly the same logical order.
I want now to turn to the deterrence argument, which most people who have discussed this matter, who have thought about it, consider to be the most serious argument to be dealt with before reaching a decision.
Perhaps at this point I might parenthetically observe and recommend to my colleagues one of the greatest essays, I think, in modern literature, by Albert Camus, a great freedom fighter in the French underground during the World War II, a Nobel prize winner for literature, a man of utter and complete integrity who wrote beautifully and intelligently. I commend his superb essay "Reflections on the Guillotine" to all those who have either not made up their minds or who are, at this point, on the side of capital punishment. He dealt with not only the deterrence question that I now come to, but with many other profoundly related matters to the whole issue of capital punishment in modern society.
The principal argument that could persuade those of us who are on the other side to come over to support capital punishment has to be that of deterrence. If we could be persuaded that lives could be saved by having capital punishment, if it could be seen that individual or mass murders could be avoided by taking the life of an individual with the instruments of state power acting as a deterrent, then many of us could be persuaded to support this motion. But, Mr. Speaker, I appeal to those who have not made up their mind on this issue, or who have made up their mind and are on the other side, to look at the evidence on this question because the evidence is clear in the following sense. If you are going to make any social analysis, any explanation in terms of social change in society and you want to relate that to the notion of deterrence about capital punishment, then the onus of proof is for you to show us that capital punishment acts as a deterrent. It is very clear that no such persuasive argument can be made. I have a few very specific points on this.
In the distant past, as has already been noted in the debate, capital punishment was used for a whole variety of crimes and it was gradually abolished. In some countries, including our own, we abolished it for everything. During the evolution of history in the last 100 years with the abolition of capital punishment for many crimes, we have actually seen the
Capital Punishment
incidence of many of those crimes going down radically and not up. In country after country where there is a variety of experiences with capital punishment and non-capital punishment, again there can be no linear connection between the establishment of capital punishment on the one hand and a decline in the rate of murder on the other.
Just on the weekend we heard the horrible news of a mass murder in the state of Florida. It was a terrible incident. Florida is one of the states that recently brought back capital punishment. Is anyone going to seriously argue that capital punishment would have acted as a deterrent for the kind of man or woman who would indulge in that kind of mass murder? Of course not.
In Canada we last voted on this issue in 1976. According to the most recent figures from Statistics Canada, the homicide rate is now at the lowest level in 13 years. Clearly, renewing capital punishment is not going to improve that situation. The abolition of capital punishment did not lead to an increase in the murder rate.
Another point not widely discussed but which has been understood by classic Greek writers-it was understood by Dostoyevsky, it was certainly understood by Sigmund Freud and modern psychologists-is that for a certain kind of mentality the existence of capital punishment is in fact a lure to crime. There is a kind of sickness in some people, a fascination with the extremes of punishment. So the very existence of capital punishment, I say to those who are supporting it, can be conducive to an increase in a certain kind of criminal violent activity.
Even the more thoughtful of those who defend capital punishment have recently conceded that the evidence cannot be mounted to show that capital punishment is a deterrent. Mr. Don Cassidy, Executive Director of the Canadian Association of Police Chiefs is quoted as saying recently "It cannot be proven statistically". If it is the case that the fundamental argument for the reintroduction of capital punishment, the reintroduction of state violence because that is what it is, cannot be proven statistically, then I would ask what we are doing here. Surely, out of all respect for human life and out of what ought to be our commitment to justice, we ought to reach the appropriate conclusion and say that capital punishment ought not to be restored in Canada.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: Many opponents of capital punishment at home and abroad have pointed out that, in the final analysis, those defending capital punishment ultimately fall back and rest their case on vengeance. I was disturbed to hear not long ago a Member of the House of Commons lending support to the idea of vengeance. Vengeance is simply a basic impulse, and I believe that all of us have this impulse from time to time.

April 27, 1987
However, we must not confuse an aggressive impulse, emotively produced, with justice. Such primordial aggressive, emotional, violent aspects of human nature exist, and I believe will always exist, but as human beings living in society we must guard against these, not indulge them. Surely as lawmakers, we in particular must bear this in mind.
Consider the responses of some people most immediately affected by murder recently. If anyone can be thought to be entitled to act on the impulse of vengeance, it would surely be a member of the family of, or one who is close to a victim of murder. I personally found most moving and touching some of the responses of those victims in our own country to horrible acts of murder inflicted on dear ones and family members.
The daughter of Gerald Ruygrok of Ottawa was brutally murdered at a halfway house, a daughter fondly and deeply regarded by her father. Did he respond with an act of vengeance? Did he say that we must have an eye for an eye? No. He said: "We should use reason rather than instinct". He opposes the reintroduction of capital punishment.
Esther Aucoin is the widow of New Brunswick patrolman Manny Aucoin who was shot on duty not long ago. Did she respond with vengeance? Not at all. She requested that a letter be read at her husband's funeral making it clear that she opposed the reintroduction of capital punishment.
A third example of this is Leslie Parrott of Toronto. Her daughter Alison was murdered in Toronto last year and the killer, the one who committed a brutal, terminal, horrible act, is still at large. Leslie Parrott has written to all Members of Parliament, I believe. I received a letter as did other Hon. Members not long ago. She does not respond with vengeance, seeking an eye for an eye. She knows that she will not be compensated for the loss of her daughter by the loss of the life of the person who killed her daughter and who has not yet even been apprehended. I would like to read a short paragraph from her letter:
Alison's murder has given me a very personal and agonizing experience of the horror of violence and killing. It has more than ever convinced me that we as a society cannot ever and must not ever condone killing, whether by state or individual, in any shape or form.
She too is opposed to capital punishment.
One can make other arguments about this horrible instrument that is open to the state to use. Not only in Canada but in virtually every other country there is the possibility that an innocent person may be executed. It is also very important that, as we know from studies done at home and abroad, it is the person of a minority or the poor in society that is most likely to be convicted when charged with murder. The rich, the affluent and the powerful are frequently able to hire better lawyers. They are least likely to be convicted. In this act of justice which involves a human life above all others, surely we ought not risk the destruction of another human being, particularly if this destruction is much more likely to occur in the poorest elements of society. I say, a number of other arguments could be elaborated upon, and no doubt they will be. I attempted to deal with the central argument and the
question of deterrents. I have argued that the evidence is not there and therefore one should not support capital punishment for that reason.
Before concluding, I would like to make two points. First, all of us in the House on both sides of the issue see murder for the horrible act that it is, and we should all be redoubling our efforts to try to understand those causes that can be removed, as some of them can be, and to accept the probable reality that because human beings are the violent creatures we are from time to time, there will likely and definitely be murders to deal with in the history of society. However, we should do what we can to ensure that those who commit murder are appropriately punished. As I said, that is not the central issue of this debate. The issue is whether or not there is a moral argument that would justify bringing back capital punishment.
I would like to conclude by saying that capital punishment simply adds to the degree of brutalization that is going on in society. In coldly taking the life of a murderer, the state would simply compound the moral unacceptability of the original violent act. We need less, not more violence in Canada. We need justice, not vengeance. We should encourage life, not death. We should oppose the restoration of capital punishment.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: It being 1 p.m., 1 do now leave the chair until 2 p.m. this day.
At 1 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.


Mr. Sergio Marchi (York West):: Mr. Speaker, Canadians have now learned that false refugee claimants from Brazil have entered our country thanks to unscrupulous immigration consultants in Canada and abroad, and especially thanks to the Conservative Government's foot-dragging in effectively stopping these illegal and intolerable activities.
In January, 1987, five months after initially receiving bogus refugee applicants from Turkey, the Government realized it was being duped. Since the Portuguese visa problems last summer Canadian immigration officials were allegedly linked to an extensive immigration scam for peddling visas for $4,000 this March. Following that, shady travel consultants sold visas abroad for $6,500 to Lebanese individuals wanting to come to Canada.
April 27, 1987

The Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Bouchard) has turned a blind eye to these activities and has not corrected a worsening situation. I warned the Minister in this House last March 25, after bringing this matter to his attention one year ago, that Brazil specifically was one of the countries targeted by phoney immigration consultants.
The Minister has failed to address this growing industry and his inaction has allowed this plague of immigration problems, which is seriously undermining our immigration process, to persist and establish roots in a host of countries.
Complementing this, legitimate and honest immigrants and refugees are finding a closed door under this Tory regime. The Government needs to prosecute these offenders urgently and send a strong signal that these activities will no longer be tolerated in this country.



SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY


Mr. David Daubney (Ottawa West):: Mr. Speaker, on Friday a four-year $90 million Federal Micro-electronics Strategy to assist industry in developing new technologies was launched by the Minister of State for Science and Technology (Mr. Oberle) and the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion (Mr. Cote).
This strategy is a major part of InnovAction, the Canadian strategy for science and technology, and is designed to increase the capacity of industry to develop and apply advanced micro-electronics technologies to products and processes; to enhance co-operation between Governments, universities and industries; and to encourage complementary investments by provinces.
Systems based on the applications of micro-electronics technology are the major tools for creating new wealth and employment in the industrialized world. Canada must prepare now to take advantage of these opportunities and respond to the challenge. We cannot afford to treat technological innovation as marginal to industrial renewal. At stake is the fundamental issue of how Canada will "earn a living" in the 1990s and beyond.
I congratulate the Government on this important initiative which will help build the technological foundation we need for competitive success in the coming years.



TAX REFORM


Mr. Ernie Epp (Thunder Bay-Nipigon):: Mr. Speaker, the New Democrats' recently released tax paper on the personal tax system in Canada called on the Government to bring fairness to a system now riddled with loopholes and generous deductions primarily benefiting upper-income Canadians.
Millions of middle and low-income Canadians are reminded this week of how much this unfairness will cost them as they fill out their 1986 tax forms due at the end of this week. While the Conservative Government has promised us tax reform, it is its actions which speak louder than words.
Federal taxes on $2,000 taxable income have increased by a whopping 110 per cent, or $101, in 1986 for those least able to afford to pay. Yet taxes on $40,000 taxable income increased by only 2 per cent, or $172. Is this fair? Canadians have the Government and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) to thank for this.



RIGHT TO LIFE


Mr. John Reimer (Kitchener):: Mr. Speaker, I rise in this House to raise once again an issue which refuses to go away, that is the rights of the unborn. The recent decision of an Ontario judge to make a foetus a ward of the courts gave dramatic legal sanction to a position already held by many thoughtful Canadians, namely, that the foetus is not simply a potential life but rather a life with potential.
As elected decision-makers, it is highly irresponsible for us to continue to ignore the growing medical, legal and sociological evidence which leads to this irrefutable conclusion.
Today Parliament begins a debate which will culminate in a free vote on the question of capital punishment. Given that abortion is likewise a crucial test of conscience, I would urge that Canadians at large, and this House in particular, be afforded the opportunity to debate and vote, in a similar free vote of conscience, upon the fundamental question of the status of Canada's unborn.



ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS OUR COMMON FUTURE-UNITED NATIONS COMMISSION'S REPORT

Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, the World Commission on Environment and Development, created by the United Nations and headed by Norway's Prime Minister, is

April 27, 1987
composed of 22 economic, political and environmental experts from 21 countries, including two Canadians, Maurice Strong and James MacNeill. You will be glad to know, Mr. Speaker, that today the commission presented its report in London.
The report entitled Our Common Future calls on national Governments to co-operate in managing the global environment, in ensuring that natural resources sustain development at home and abroad, and in taking all the necessary steps to integrate economic with environmental decisions since the economy depends on the environment.
[DOT] (M05)
The report says that we can have a new era of economic growth, particularly in poor countries, and sustainable forms of development around the world. These forms must include life-styles "within the planet's ecological means". Therefore, some painful choices will be required.
One important conclusion in the report is that "security must be secured through change". We call on the Minister of the Environment (Mr. McMillan) to provide leadership within the federal Government and at the United Nations, and to set into motion the institutional changes which will ensure security for present and future generations, our common future.



LAW REFORM COMMISSION


Mr. Dave Nickerson (Western Arctic):: Mr. Speaker, the things that are working well seldom receive much attention in the House of Commons.
This is certainly the case with the Law Reform Commission of Canada, established with all-Party consent in 1971, and currently presided over by Mr. Justice Allen Linden.
The goal of the commission is to promote laws which are modern, principled, rational, comprehensive, egalitarian and readily intelligible. Through various reports to Parliament and working papers, the commission provides invaluable advice to both federal and provincial legislators.
One of the commission's principal aims is, through its Substantive Criminal Law Project, to give Canada a new up-to-date Criminal Code.
We understand that, after 15 years of study, the first draft has now been completed and we look forward to the final results of this work.



TAX REFORM


Mr. Neil Young (Beaches):: Mr. Speaker, my office and those of my colleagues in the New Democratic Party have recently been receiving letters and calls from constituents living on very modest incomes, who are finding to their shock that their taxes have increased dramatically. One such retired couple living in Halifax saw their taxes double from $300 to $600 in one year.
These Canadians are very angry. They have heard a lot of talk about tax reform on radio, television, and in newspapers. Yet, now these people are finding out that they have to pay hundreds of dollars more in taxes, and it is hundreds of dollars that they just do not have.
It is time the Government stopped talking about tax fairness and began doing something about bringing fairness to the tax system for these and other Canadians.



EDUCATION WEEK


Mr. Bill Tupper (Nepean-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, this is Education Week in Canada. Its purpose is to focus public attention on the excitement, energy and creativity in our school systems. The theme of the week is "Come Learn With Me".
I had the privilege in the past few days to be present at the sod-turning of a new public school in Nepean-Carleton, at the opening of a new separate school, and this morning to meet with the education leaders in my community. These experiences reminded me of the quality and the importance of our educational system.
Our schools are more than buildings. They are places where young people develop intellectually and spiritually, where a foundation is laid for them to take a place in the economic and social fabric of this nation.
Our educational system is one of the best in the world. I ask each of us in the House this afternoon to take a moment this week to visit a school, or think about our educational system and to think of ways in which we can make it better. Our young people, many of them in our Gallery today, are our greatest national asset.



MUNICIPAL AFFAIRS


Miss Aideen Nicholson (Trinity):: Mr. Speaker, from coast to coast Canadian cities are facing a crisis as road, sewer and
April 27, 1987

water systems continue to deteriorate. The Federation of Canadian Municipalities estimates that about $14 billion will have to be spent over the next five years just to protect the $30 billion already invested.
We should be acting now to ensure the health and safety of Canadians, and to avoid higher repair costs in the future.
Money spent now on renewing municipal infrastructures would be money well spent to maintain the quality of existing services and to boost our economy. These public works projects would employ tens of thousands and use Canadian materials and equipment.
The Conservative Government agrees that there is a problem but refuses to help even though over one million Canadians are still out of work and even though previous federal Governments have participated in projects of this type. Therefore I urge the Government to modify its position and to take a more constructive and co-operative approach in working with other levels of government on this important issue.



SUPPORT FOR SUPERPOWERS' EFFORTS TO REACH AGREEMENT ON DISARMAMENT

John Barry Turner: Mr. Speaker, I am certain you will agree that the pursuit of peace is the responsibility of us all, not only of elected persons in the House of Commons but of all Canadians.
During the recent Easter recess I met with many of my constituents, especially young people in Cubs and Scouts, Brownies and Girl Guides, with various church groups, with neighbours, family, Veterans Against Nuclear Arms, and many others. There seems to be a real feeling that the two superpowers, the U.S.A. and the Soviet Union, are going through a period of sincere efforts in Geneva to deal with verification agreements, troop withdrawals, and reduction and elimination of nuclear weapons. Whether for economic, political or peaceful reasons, President Reagan and Soviet Leader Gorbachev seem intent on resolving these remarkably important issues.
I call upon the Government of Canada to continue to offer the hand of Canadian diplomacy and understanding to these two world leaders.
Someone asked me the other day why I was concerned about the pursuit of peace. My answer was that I shudder to think of the alternative.



TAX REFORM


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, as most Canadians have now filled out their 1986 tax returns and have sent them in we are reminded once again of the incredible injustice in our tax system. For example, in some years a teller in the Royal Bank of Canada or a teller in the Bank of Montreal paid more tax than the entire bank. Sometimes a gas jockey pumping gas for Shell Oil has actually paid more income tax than the entire oil company.
I received a letter the other day from a constituent in British Columbia who states:
Just another discrepancy in our tax laws that discriminate against poor people. I am not eligible for any portion of the child tax credit, despite the fact I had my 13-year-old daughter for eight months last year. My ex-husband got the whole year's tax credit from 1986 as he had her in his care on December 31, 1986. The irony of this was that I had never received a penny from him for child custody in the five or six years I supported my daughter in poverty-
I was on welfare all of last year and am still paying bills that were a direct result of supporting a teenager on too little income.
Is this fair in terms of our present tax system?



SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY


Mrs. Suzanne Duplessis (Louis-Hebert):: Mr. Speaker, the new Canadian science and technology policy is the outcome of a true federal-provincial consensus.
Canada's new national policy, as announced recently by the Minister of State for Science and Technology (Mr. Oberle), is the outcome of a process initiated in 1985 to emphasize increasingly scientific and technological matters among Government concerns.
The final document signed by the Federal Minister and 12 provincial and territorial ministers, members of a committee that was mandated to negotiate the goals and contents of that agreement, symbolizes the Canadian Government's commitment to coordinate scientific and technological development efforts. That desire to coordinate Canadian and provincial scientific policies was a major motivation in the development of a truly all-Canadian policy.
In addition, Mr. Speaker, this coming Friday, the Minister will be inaugurating the Biotechnology Research Institute in Montreal. This is a major event that once more points to this Government's commitment to the development of science and technology in Canada, including Quebec.

April 27, 1987
Oral Questions TRANSPORT



NEED FOR TAKING MEASURES TO AVOID FATAL ACCIDENTS ON JACQUES CARTIER BRIDGE IN MONTREAL

Mr. Jean-Claude Malepart (Montreal-Sainte-Marie):: Mr. Speaker, again this weekend there have been 24 accidents on Jacques-Cartier Bridge, including a serious accident that caused one casualty and a number of injuries.
The most disappointing aspect is that the Minister of Transport (Mr. Crosbie) of this Tory Government has had on his desk since January a report by the Traffic Corporation that made clear, definite and specific recommendations to avoid fatal accidents on Jacques-Cartier Bridge: First, to install an improved road signs system; second, to add more patrol cars; and third, to have anti-skid materials.
Mr. Speaker, tomorrow, representatives of the Jacques-Cartier and Champlain Bridges police officers will be here, and it is my hope that the Minister of Transport will have the fortitude to meet with those people in order to repair those injustices and announce by Friday concrete steps to avoid fatal accidents on Jacques-Cartier Bridge.



DISASTERS


Mr. Fernand Robichaud (Westmorland-Kent):: Mr. Speaker, the crab fishing season in the Gulf of St. Lawrence started last Saturday, but on a very sad note. Three fishermen from the Acadian Peninsula lost their lives when their boat capsized 30 kilometers east of Miscou Island.
Captain Leo Noel and his aids, Cyria Duguay et Dion Mallet, were the unfortunate victims of this shipwreck.
The exact causes of the accident are not yet known. It seems that within two minutes, the boat went under stern first before capsizing.
Every year, Mr. Speaker, fishermen drown, reminding us that even if the sea is sometimes beautiful, danger is always present. Fishermen are at the mercy of the elements.
Mr. Speaker, while extending my condolences to the afflicted families, I wish them much courage to face this troubled time in their lives.
* *
*



NATURAL RESOURCES


Mr. Jim Edwards (Edmonton South):: Mr. Speaker, although one usually thinks in terms of hydrocarbons when discussing Alberta resources, the princess province holds an untold potential in development of metallic and other mineral compounds, notably in its northeast corner, which, geologically, is part of the Canadian Shield.
Unfortunately, Alberta is the only province in Confederation without a minerals development agreement with the federal Government. Other jurisdictions have agreements, ranging in funding size from $100 million in Quebec to $300,000 for gravel pits in Prince Edward Island.
Unlike its predecessor, this national administration is not in the habit of grabbing provincial resources. The MDA process, as practised by our Government, provides for provincial targeting and delivery. However, the initiative for entering into such an agreement must come from the province.
I urge Alberta to move positively, and soon.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I believe, and I believe most Canadians share the view, that there should be a "Canadian" solution to the sale of Dome Petroleum. To date the Prime Minister and his Government have done and said nothing to encourage that solution. It is obvious that the Government hasn't lifted a finger to achieve a "Canadian" result.
What we have before us is, potentially, the largest business takeover in Canadian history.
My question is for the Prime Minister, and it is: Will he confirm that, to date, his Government has done nothing, hasn't raised a finger, to facilitate a "Canadian" solution? And isn't it true that his Government will continue to do absolutely nothing to affect the result of this transaction?


Hon. Marcel Masse (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I think that one of the best "Canadian" solutions to the Dome question is to ensure that the corporation will still be alive.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Marcel Masse: Mr. Speaker, in two and a half years of Government efforts, of defining principles and holding meetings, we have ensured that offers will be forthcoming
April 27, 1987

from the private sector to ensure Dome's survival. For that we have to thank Government efforts in the past two and a half years.


CANADIANIZATION-GOVERNMENT POSITION
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources knows perfectly well that Canadian offers were in the running but were not encouraged, either by the Minister or by his colleague, the Minister of Finance. Once again, I have a question for the Prime Minister. Why did he let his present Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources reverse the Canadian Government's Canadianization policy and why did he not facilitate a Canadian solution?


Marcel Masse: Mr. Speaker, the acquisition policy announced by my predecessor is exactly the same policy I have been following. It provides for the possibility of foreign investment in sectors in obvious financial difficulty, as in the case of Dome, and it will be up to the Government, through Investment Canada and other Government agencies, to ensure that when the deal is submitted to the Government, after acceptance by Dome, there will be benefits for Canada.


John Napier Turner: We are not giving up on a Canadian solution, even though the passage of time in the course of the transaction which the Ministers of the Government allowed to happen is making that more difficult.


REQUEST THAT INVESTMENT CANADA IMPOSE CONDITIONS ON AMOCO CANADA
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the Prime Minister. If, as the Minister of Energy implies, he will allow the Amoco transaction to be consummated, will he insist that Investment Canada impose, at a minimum, certain conditions upon Amoco Canada, including becoming Canadian controlled by January 1, 1990, and insisting in the meantime upon a guarantee for Canadian jobs and a guarantee that Canadian exploration will continue?


Marcel Masse: Mr. Speaker, first of all, I may remind the Leader of the Opposition that the problems facing Dome Petroleum today were largely caused by the policies of the previous Government of which you were a member.
We have inherited a difficult situation. Four thousand people have jobs with Dome Petroleum, whose reserves are of major importance to Canada's security of energy supply. I believe, and we have said so before, that the solution to Dome Petroleum's problems lies in the private sector, and the Leader
Oral Questions
of the Opposition may be sure that when the required information is submitted to Investment Canada, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources will be making some very positive recommendations. However, I do not believe it would be in anyone's interest to negotiate the matter publicly at this time.


EFFECT OF GOVERNMENT POLICY
Mr. Russell MacLellan (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. He is saying that he is not changing the Government's position on energy; that is not the case. In fact, the Government has broken its promise to increase Canadianization of the energy sector.
Why is the Minister doing that, only to make it easier for foreign interests to purchase our oil and gas reserves? Will the Minister explain why last November he changed the Government's policy on the purchase of oil and gas companies in Canada, only to make it easier for foreign interests to purchase Dome Petroleum?


Marcel Masse: Mr. Speaker, first I want to repeat that the policy has not changed. It has been publicly expressed in the same spirit and in the same terms as the policy advocated by my predecessor. To begin with, when a gas or petroleum sector is facing economic difficulties it is in our interest to make sure that these companies survive. And the Government has all the necessary mechanisms to see to it that Canadian interests are protected.
Second, with respect to Canadianization, without spending billions of taxpayers' dollars as the previous Government did we managed to raise the percentage of Canadianization of the energy sector.


Russell Gregoire MacLellan: Canadians want Canadian oil and gas reserves to be controlled by Canadians. Even the Minister for International Trade, the former Minister of Energy, knew that.


MINISTER'S POSITION-REQUEST FOR TABLING OF GOVERNMENT DOCUMENTS
Russell Gregoire MacLellan: Mr. Speaker, will the Minister of Energy table all documents which show what the Government has done to force and to try to develop a Canadian solution to the Dome problem, or does he not care at all that our oil and gas reserves will be controlled by foreigners?


Marcel Masse: Quite logically, Mr. Speaker, the best way to secure Canadian supply is to make sure that those companies

April 27, 1987
Oral Questions
whose responsibility is to develop our resources are in a sound financial situation and are busy developing them.


INSTRUCTIONS ALLEGEDLY GIVEN TO DOME PETROLEUM CHAIRMAN
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the same Minister. Mr. Macdonald, the Chairman of Dome Petroleum, told me before the weekend-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Edward Broadbent: That is very funny to Conservative Members.
The Chairman of Dome Petroleum told me before the weekend that the Government of Canada instructed him not to make contact with Petro-Canada.
Will the Minister confirm that that was the case? Could he tell us why a position which could inevitably put more pressure on to losing this important asset to a foreign-owned corporation should be one encouraged by the Government of Canada, of all people?
[ Translation]


Marcel Masse: First, Mr. Speaker, I welcome the question of the New Democratic Party leader and I will be glad to answer him. But I should also like him to give consideration to Lafontaine's fable La mouche et le coche.
That being said, Mr. Speaker, with respect to the Dome question we stated clearly to Mr. Macdonald, and in public because there has never been anything confidential in this field, that the Government was seeking a solution through the private sector. This position was expressed to Mr. Macdonald at the appropriate time a few months ago already, and it was publicly expressed by the Minister of Finance and by the Minister of Energy.
We have been seeking a solution through the private sector and, after two and a half years of work, three offers have now been made to Dome Petroleum. As I see it, in that sense the Government has helped Dome Petroleum pull through the difficult situation in which it had been put by the Liberal Party.


ROLE OF PETRO-CANADA
John Edward Broadbent: That is an extraordinary situation, Mr. Speaker. Considering that the Government as well as himself, I believe, and certainly his predecessor, have said that they wanted Petro-Canada to operate at an arm's length relationship, not to be interfered with on a day-to-day or on a regular basis by the Government of Canada, why was it that the Government not only told Dome it could not talk to Petro-Canada but stopped Petro-Canada from making a
decision that might have been in its commercial interest and in the interests of Canada by getting directly involved in the Dome purchase?


Marcel Masse: Mr. Speaker, there again the situation is quite clear and quite public. The Government has asked Petro-Canada to act on a commercial basis. It is obvious that in a situation such as this Petro-Canada, a Crown corporation, would not have acted within the scope of the private sector had we been forced, through the Department of Finance-

-we assure a bail-out of the Dome situation. That is what we do not want to have.


PROPOSED PURCHASE BY MULTINATIONAL CORPORATION
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, it is by no
means at all obvious that Petro-Canada would not have acted in its interests and in the interests of Canada if the Conservative Government had not stopped it. That is the issue.
Does the Minister think that it is an appropriate position for the Government of Canada to take to stop our publicly-owned Canadian corporation from getting involved if it means almost certainly that the oil company in question is going to end up being owned by a United States multinational? Why is the Government on the side of a multinational and going against the interests of Canada? That is what I want to know.


Marcel Masse: Mr. Speaker, when the Leader of the Opposition makes propositions like these he ought to have the intellectual integrity to present both aspects of the proposition. It is easy for him to say that Petro-Canada should intervene. As far as commercial operations go, we agree, that is the mandate it was given and I never interfered with its commercial operations. But in a situation like this where Petro-Canada would have needed billions of dollars, the Leader of the Opposition must first tell us where these billions of dollars would be coming from.


THE CONSTITUTION
Mr. Raymond Garneau (Laval-des-Rapides):: Since we are going to have a debate tonight on the Dome Petroleum issue, Mr. Speaker, we will have an opportunity to develop this further. I should like now to direct a question to the Prime Minister of Canada concerning the constitutional discussions which are scheduled to be held this week at Meech Lake.
April 27, 1987

During the Easter holiday, the April 22nd issue of the newspaper Le Devoir published an article which stated in part, and I quote:
In a letter dated April 10 addressed to his provincial counterparts, letter of which Le Devoir has obtained a copy, the Prime Minister stated strongly that "there is now agreement in principle on the need to recognize in the Constitution the distinct character of the Quebec society".
Over the weekend, Mr. Speaker, the Secretary of State for External Affairs, who was certainly speaking for the Government, dealt with this issue. This morning, he was reported in the newspapers as saying:

We would prefer an approach to Quebec's concerns that did not specifically single out the province for special mention.
May I ask the Prime Minister which of the two positions is the Government's?


Right Hon. Brian Mulroney (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, there is no contradiction between the statement made by the Secretary of State for External Affairs and the actual communications between the Premiers and myself. I believe the Quebec Premier indicated as soon as he received the letters themselves that he felt they represented real progress and would result in ending the Constitutional impasse. If one considers the documents themselves and not their interpretation by the press, one finds that some progress has been made in this area.


REQUEST THAT CORRESPONDENCE WITH PREMIERS BE TABLED
Raymond Garneau: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister's letter dated April 10 contradicts what was said by the Secretary of State for External Affairs, that much is obvious to anyone who can read. Now to avoid all these interpretations, could the Prime Minister-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh! Oh!


Raymond Garneau: Quiet back there!
I would like to ask the Prime Minister-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh! Oh!


Raymond Garneau: They certainly are keyed up this morning. They weren't in the House to talk about the death penalty, but now they are raring to go.
Mr. Speaker, could the Prime Minister-


Mr. Speaker:: I am sure all Hon. Members would like to hear the question asked by the Hon. Member.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
Oral Questions


Raymond Garneau: Mr. Speaker, could the Prime Minister table in the House his correspondence with the provincial premiers so that we will not have to depend on what we are told by the media-I don't know whether the admissions are voluntary or involuntary-who are giving us the contents of these letters piecemeal?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member is pretty sharp today. His new glasses must have changed his perception!
I would like to say, and the Hon. Member knows this as well as I do, that the Secretary of State for External Affairs is very sympathetic towards Quebec and the francophone dimension of this country. This has been amply proven in the past. On the weekend, I was in touch with all the premiers who were in Canada, in an attempt to make some progress on this matter. I can say that the premiers' reaction is positive. We are aware of the problems and the challenges that remain, and we are not taking anything for granted. Nevertheless, I think that the attitude of the premiers who have had a chance to look at the documentation provided by Senator Murray and myself is, as Premier Bourassa said on the weekend, modestly encouraging. We will have a major challenge to meet this Thursday evening. We are going to work hard and work together in a spirit of national unity, in an attempt to find-


Raymond Garneau: Are you going to table those documents?


Martin Brian Mulroney: The Hon. Member asks whether we are going to table them. At the appropriate time, certainly. We will inform our colleagues of all documents that were submitted and all measures that were approved or rejected by the parties concerned. My hon. friend is of course aware that these are delicate negotiations. I hope I can count on his support and encouragement.


Raymond Garneau: I wouldn't know what to support since you don't have a position.


PROPOSED SALE OF DOME PETROLEUM-ACCEPTABILITY OF AMOCO
Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, 1 do not want to let the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources off the hook. 1 am sorry 1 cannot quote him fables from La Fontaine but I remind him that Yogi Berra once said: "It ain't over 'til it's over".
Is the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources aware of Amoco's past record? Its president is American and it does not have a Canadian on the board of directors. There are no

April 27, 1987
Oral Questions
Canadian shareholders. It paid $686 million in dividends to its American parent last year but reinvested just $38.1 million in exploration in Canada. We have a typical big, fat American multinational oil company here. Is this the kind of past performance that is acceptable to the Canadian Government?


Marcel Masse: Mr. Speaker, first I must say that the Hon. Member used my quote, and second, that the answer is no.


POSSIBLE IMPOSITION OF GOVERNMENT CONDITIONS
Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, the answer being no, would the Minister then tell the House what his plans are? Given that the Canadian people have invested so much money in Dome Petroleum and given that this is one of the largest takeovers in Canadian history-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I would remind Hon. Members that the time taken up while a member is trying to put a question is often taken into account by the Speaker toward the end of Question Period. I know that Hon. Members at times do not wish to stay here any longer than they absolutely have to, but if time is taken away from legitimate questions, that is something the Speaker does have in mind.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: What kind of terms does the Government intend to impose on Amoco? Will the conditions be a few token Canadians on the board, or a few shareholders, or will the Government propose some substantial terms for reinvestment in Canada?


Marcel Masse: Mr. Speaker, I wish to advise the House that what I said last week still holds, that the Government has not received any proposal from a corporation within the framework of Investment Canada.


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF MICHIGAN STATE SENATOR JOHN F. KELLY
Mr. Speaker:: I wish to draw to the attention of Hon. Members the presence in the Gallery of Michigan State Senator John F. Kelly, Co-chairman of the Michigan Select Committee on Ontario-Michigan Relations.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Agriculture. Last week the Government cut grain prices for the new crop year by 18 per cent. Today the Government started foreclosures on thousands of Farm Credit Corporation loans. So far farmers do not know if there will be a deficiency payment. Our trading adversaries in the United States and the EEC do not know if a deficiency payment will be provided to our farmers.
In view of these two Draconian measures that have taken place in the last two weeks, is the Minister prepared to give a commitment today that there will be a deficiency payment made to provide for at least the same returns farmers received in the past crop year?


Hon. John Wise (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member should realize that because of the financial impact of the supportive measures the Government has taken and the measures we have already announced, Canadian grain farmers will recognize that the amount of income they receive as of today will not only be equal to that which they received last year but rather will be slightly increased.


REQUEST FOR GOVERNMENT COMMITMENT TO DEFICIENCY PAYMENT
Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, I am talking about the new crop year. Grain prices have been cut by 18 per cent and foreclosures on thousands of farmers are starting today. There is no commitment to a deficiency payment in the new crop year. Will the Government make a commitment now to make a deficiency payment in the new crop year beginning August 1?


John Wise: Mr. Speaker, I again remind the Hon. Member that the $700 million final payment under the Special Canadian Grains Program will be mailed to Canadian grain farmers by the end of May. As well, the Minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board announced a week ago a record interim payment of $705 million. That is $1.4 billion that will be in the hands of Canadian grain farmers by the end of May or the beginning of June.
The Hon. Member should also realize that in keeping our commitment we made at the farm leaders' meeting of March 5, it is inappropriate and will remain inappropriate for the Government to make any announcements about future actions that will be taken by the Government. The Hon. Member should also realize that we will be meeting again with farm leaders the first week in June and will continue our consultations with them to map out some type of program for the future.
April 27, 1987


DEFICIENCY PAYMENTS-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Stanley J. Hovdebo: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister responsible for the Wheat Board. I will try to ask him a question on the same matter rather than the Minister of Agriculture.
The Minister of Agriculture is obviously saying that the $1 billion which was promised last October and the Western Grain Stabilization payment that is in the mail are payments for this year. All the farmers know that those payments were for last year. Can the Minister responsible for the Wheat Board tell us a bit more clearly what the Government intends to do about the 1987 and 1988 deficiency payments?


Hon. Charles Mayer (Minister of State (Canadian Wheat Board)):: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member talks about last year rather than this year. What western farmers know specifically is that by the end of May they will receive approximately $1.3 billion in cash directly from the federal Government. That is a substantial amount of money. That, above all else, underlines the firm commitment of this Government to the support of agriculture in a very difficult time.


PROVISION OF GOVERNMENT ASSISTANCE
Stanley J. Hovdebo: Mr. Speaker, the Minister is still talking about deficiency payments last year. A tremendous amount of stress is put on farmers when they do not know what is going to happen this year. Can the Minister tell us what will happen at the end of this year when the farmers bring in their crops? Are they going to get a deficiency payment for crops presently being put in the ground?


Charles James Mayer: Mr. Speaker, the record of this Government in supporting agriculture in a very difficult time is very, very impressive. All of us on this side can be proud of it. I repeat, western farmers will receive approximately $1.3 billion in the next five weeks. That is a substantial amount of money and it will assist them at a very critical time of the year, seeding time, which is well under way right now.


CANADA-UNITED STATES NEGOTIATIONS-PURCHASE OF DOME PETROLEUM BY AMOCO CORPORATION
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Winnipeg-Fort Garry):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. In a recently published memorandum from the office of the chief U.S. trade negotiator, Mr. Murphy, to Members of Congress, he stated that the American price for an agreement will be full and secure access to Canadian energy resources and total removal of the barriers to foreign investment. The implication
Oral Questions
is that the price of free trade to Canada is that it will give up its policy control over its energy sector.
Is the Government's decision to allow the Amoco buy-out of Dome really the first step in a continental energy policy? Can the Government assure us that the price of free trade will not be the sell-out of our energy sector?


Mr. John McDermid (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for International Trade):: Yes, I can give that assurance.


LETTER ALLEGEDLY SENT TO MEMBERS OF CONGRESS BY UNITED STATES NEGOTIATOR
Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, while the Parliamentary Secretary is rethinking what his answer really might be in light of what Mr. Murphy said, I will ask him another question.
Mr. Murphy also said to Members of Congress that Canada agreed it will no longer bail out specific industrial sectors, as well as agreeing to define cultural industries as narrowly as possible. As well, the Americans are demanding further changes to the Patent Act and in cable transmission policies. I ask the Parliamentary Secretary if we have given these kinds of agreements? Has Mr. Reisman, our negotiator, already agreed to these conditions even though it directly contradicts the assurances given in this House by members of the Government?


John Horton McDermid: As usual, Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member is basing his observations on an alleged document, unsigned, but attributed to the chief negotiator for the U.S. We are not commenting on those stories.


FARM CREDIT CORPORATION
Mr. Vic Althouse (Humboldt-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Agriculture. The Government's impressive record of supporting farmers, which the Minister responsible for the Wheat Board just boasted about, includes the dropping of the moratorium on Farm Credit Corporation loans. As a result, the Government will, right in the midst of seeding, be seizing the land of farmers who have been operating under the moratorium.
Since current land values are generally much below the amount owing against the land, and since the FCC will inevitably have to take a loss on the loans through resale of the land, why has the Minister chosen to pass on this lower cost land to another borrower rather than leave it with the current tenants?


John Wise: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the Hon. Member is assuming something we are not

April 27, 1987
Oral Questions
even considering doing. He will realize that a moratorium could not last forever. We have consulted with the Farm Debt Review people in all provinces, as well as farm leaders, and a good number of other people in the industry. If the Hon. Member will take the time to read the press release we issued with respect to lifting the moratorium he will recognize it is a very controlled phase-out.
The FCC will be in constant contact with the farm debt review boards. They will be instructed to sit down and negotiate on a one-to-one basis with all their clients. If an agreement cannot be reached then it will go through the process.
It should be recognized that the FCC can only process between 40 and 50 cases on a national basis. If the farm debt review people in each province determine it will cause an overload in their own jurisdiction, they will signal to the FCC in that province to hold the moratorium.


REQUEST THAT GOVERNMENT ESTABLISH LAND BANK RENTAL SYSTEM
Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Mr. Speaker, since the FCC already owns thousands of acres of farmland and lifting the moratorium will substantially add to that, has the Government decided to implement the FCC proposal to set up a Saskatchewan land bank type of rental system with longterm leases being offered to current tenants?


John Wise: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member is again letting his imagination run away with him.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: That is an FCC proposal.


John Wise: No, we have not taken action to establish a land banking scheme, nor probably will we. We have requested the FCC to put a greater priority on the development of equity financing. We have also asked it to enter into longer term leases with as many potential clients as possible.


FORESTRY
Mr. Keith Penner (Cochrane-Superior):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. As my hon. friend knows, the Canadian forest products industry is suffering hardship and a considerable amount of confusion because of the foolish and incompetent deal made with the U.S. by the Minister for International Trade. That deal led to the imposition of a 15 per cent export tax not only on softwood lumber but on many manufactured wood products as well.
The Minister for International Trade recognizes now that she struck a bad deal for Canada. Therefore, what definite and
specific plans does the Government have now to get Canada out of this trade mess we have got ourselves into?


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Deputy Prime Minister and President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, I find the Hon. Member's observations rather strange. The fact of the matter is that all premiers, with the exception of the Premier of the Province of Ontario, accept the arrangement made and they want us to get on with it.


B. Keith Penner: That does not make it a good deal.


REQUEST FOR ANNOUNCEMENT OF FOREST STABILIZATION PROGRAM
B. Keith Penner: Mr. Speaker, is the Deputy Prime Minister aware that yet another sawmill, this one in Kapuskasing, Ontario, announced it will close down with the loss of 219 jobs? When is this carnage in the industry going to come to an end? When is the Minister going to announce some sort of fair deal for the forest products industry, such as a forest stabilization program? I would not even mention it except the Deputy Prime Minister promised one in his northern Ontario recovery program.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I hope the Hon. Member remembers the fact that the ownership of these resources lies with the province. That has to be considered. Whether he thinks it is a good or bad deal, the provinces have some say in this matter.
I should also point out to the Hon. Member that it is my understanding that the forest industry across Canada intends to increase its investment by some 24 per cent. I think that is a pretty good record and it speaks, well. I regret that some adjustments and closures are taking place, but the fact that there is a strong indication of a 24 per cent increase in investment activity by the forestry sector indicates that the climate is pretty positive.


CANADA ELECTIONS ACT
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby):: personal slush funds for the Prime Minister and his wife indirectly subsidized by the taxpayers of Canada? When will the Prime Minister change this Act to provide some public accountability?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, the derogatory comments of the Hon. Member are quite becoming of himself.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald Frank Mazankowski: If he wants to put forth some recommendations for changes to the Canada Elections Act, there is certainly a procedure for that. We have a Standing Committee on Elections, Privileges and Procedure. If he wants to visit that committee and make some recommendations, I am sure they might be considered.


Mr. Nystrom:: Joe wouldn't do that.


Mr. Rodriguez:: Joe didn't do it in nine months.


REQUEST THAT PRIME MINISTER INTRODUCE AMENDMENTS
Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question as well is directed to the Prime Minister who surely must recognize that he must provide leadership in this area.
Why should Canadian taxpayers be indirectly subsidizing the extravagant tastes of the Prime Minister for closets for Gucci shoes and an assortment of other extravagant tastes?


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Svend Johannes Robinson: Why will the Prime Minister not provide leadership and recognize that a law which allows this kind of thing to happen should not be on the books? When will he bring forward changes?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, only the NDP would be astonished at the fact that the Prime Minister has undertaken to pay for those things which are personal in nature.
Only the NDP would be astonished at the fact that the Prime Minister is one of the first Prime Ministers to pay for his own groceries.
Only the NDP would be astonished by the fact that he took a voluntary pay cut, as did cabinet Ministers.
Only the NDP would be astonished that the Prime Minister established the Official Residences Council to administer all official residences in the country.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
Oral Questions NATIONAL DEFENCE


POSSIBLE ACQUISITION OF NUCLEAR POWERED SUBMARINES
Hon. Douglas C. Frith (Sudbury):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs in the absence of the Minister of National Defence. Will the Minister confirm to the House that the Priorities and Planning Committee of Cabinet has given the green light to the Navy to purchase nuclear powered submarines? Why are we bothering to have a White Paper on national defence policy if all of the major decisions have been made?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, the answer is no.


FRIGATE CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM
Douglas Cockburn Frith: Mr. Speaker, will the Secretary of State for External Affairs assure the House that in the event that the Government of Canada decides to acquire nuclear powered submarines that decision will not affect the frigate program which was announced by the previous Liberal administration?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, the defence policy of the Government of Canada is now being guided by a review which is some 16 years out of date. It is called "Defence Policy in the 1970s". I know that the Liberal Party is moving nostalgically back toward that period, but the rest of the country is moving forward toward the next century.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: We intend to put in place a defence policy which will serve the requirements of Canada during the remainder of this century and into the next century.
There will be public debate. There has been public debate on foreign policy and defence questions under this Government to a degree unprecedented under former Governments. Under the Government of which he was a part there were no White Papers on defence policy. There was no public discussion of foreign policy. There is now a clear priority for foreign policy.


DISASTERS
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg-Birds Hill):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday was the first anniversary of the nuclear accident at Chernobyl in Ukraine. 1 would like to ask the Minister of National Health and Welfare whether he is now prepared, one year after the accident at Chernobyl, to provide the Canadian public and the Canadian Parliament with the kind of information which I have been trying to get out of him for a whole

April 27, 1987
Oral Questions
year, that is information with respect to what radio-nuclides were found in Canada, where they were found, at what levels they were found, and what sources they were determined to be from.
That is the kind of information which, if we want to have an intelligent debate on nuclear power, we should have at our fingertips. I have written to the Minister of National Health and Welfare a number of times and I have questioned him in the House. When I last heard from him on March 13 he said that there was a report coming.
When is that report coming? When will the Canadian people finally find out what happened to Canada as a result of Chernobyl?


Hon. Jake Epp (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, as I have said to the Hon. Member, I have made all the information available. If more information comes to my attention I will make that available as well. I am not withholding any information which has come to me or that I know is within the Department.


REQUEST FOR INFORMATION
William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, the Minister has not made all the information available by his own admission to me in a letter of March 13 in which he says that the information I am seeking will be forthcoming in a report yet to be released. The report by Mr. Prince, commissioned by the Minister himself, says that there was a great deal of confusion with respect to information about fallout in Canada.
How does the Minister have the nerve to get up once more and give the Canadian people and this Parliament bland assurances that all the information is available? If all that is available is what was contained in the Mickey Mouse paper which he tabled in December, we are in real trouble.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: The Hon. Member is not going to impress anyone simply by raising his voice. If he is getting his lessons at Disneyland he can go back.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Now you're goofey.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: I commissioned the Prince report because we wanted to learn whether or not we had handled it well. There are some recommendations in the Prince report on which we are now following up. However, if there is more information, I will make it available.
It is generally believed that the amount of radiation to which Canada was exposed from the Chernobyl accident increased our radioactivity by approximately 15 per cent. He knows that, I know that, and-


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Tell us what was found and where it was found!


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Just relax or your health bill will go up.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Tell us what was found and where it was found, and how much.


Mr. de Jong:: One year later and they still don't know.


THE CONSTITUTION
John Henry Reimer: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. All Canadians wish the Prime Minister and the premiers well as they convene later this week in a constitutional conference. I am sure all Members of the House would agree that it is imperative that the Province of Quebec, with its unique heritage and contribution to Canada, be a full participating member in all constitutional matters with all provinces and the federal Government.
Does the Prime Minister believe that he and the other premiers together can reach an agreement that will satisfy the natural expectations of the people of Quebec and, at the same time, respect the legitimate concerns of all other regions and Premiers of Canada?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I think all premiers recognize the importance of this vital exercise on Thursday. I had the opportunity of speaking with nine of the First Ministers over the weekend to explore various possibilities with them. There is no doubt in my mind with regard to their resolve to attempt to bring a solution to this matter.
We are all aware of the obstacles which exist. It will not be easy, but 1 am somewhat encouraged by the clear-stated resolve of all premiers of all political stripes across the country to attempt to finally reach a solution to a very intractable constitutional situation.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Two weeks after the Ottawa summit, at which President Reagan made a commitment to consider an accord on acid rain, his cabinet Minister in Washington, Mr. Lee Thomas, who is responsible for the environment, told a Senate committee that he sees no need for Congress to pass legislation to reduce acid rain. Has he taken diplomatic initiatives to counteract such a statement which tells us that President Reagan's statement in Ottawa three weeks ago is not taken seriously even in Washington?
April 27, 1987


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I heard what Mr. Thomas was reported to have said. I heard directly what President Reagan said. I know, and the Hon. Member knows, that this is not a file on which it is easy to make progress. He backed away from the challenge when he was the Minister. We have taken up the challenge again. We are making some progress, and we shall continue to make progress.
The House may well be interested to know that a group of some 39 Republican legislators, headed by Congressman Boehlert of New York, has written to the President in a gesture of solidarity with Canada to urge quick action on his commitment to consider an accord.


POLICY ANNOUNCED BY PRESIDENT REAGAN
Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, if the policy of the American Government is really that announced by Mr. Lee Thomas, does the Government of Canada realize that the policy announced by President Reagan in this House three weeks ago is not even worth the paper on which it is written?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I know that some Hon. Members feel that it is acceptable to attack the President of the United States, some by their acts when he was in this House, others perhaps with less courage in his absence. However, for us it was a commitment made by the President of the United States to the Parliament of Canada. It is a progress. We did not achieve the same success under the Liberal Government. We still have much to do. We are optimistic and we think that it will be possible.


FISHERIES
John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. There has been no significant progress in the Canada-France talks after two days and it is obvious that France is clearly unwilling to bend on its claims to Canadian resources. In fact, it has told Canadian negotiators literally to go jump in 3PS.
Will the Minister tell the House and the thousands of Newfoundlanders whose livelihood depends on the resolution of this dispute where the negotiations are headed now? Have we made any modifications to our position? What contingency plans does the Minister have if the negotiations fail?
Oral Questions


Hon. Thomas Siddon (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans):: Mr. Speaker, once again the Hon. Member reveals his tendency to react only to what he reads in the newspapers. There are a series of negotiations under way on the drafting of terms of reference under which the boundary question would be referred to international third party arbitration.
The meeting of last week, which he categorizes as one that did not make progress, was yet another meeting in that series of discussions which will take place between now and the end of the year. I think the Hon. Member is jumping a little too
soon.


MINISTER'S POSITION
John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that the Minister's answer does not engender any confidence either in the House or the people of Newfoundland, let me remind him that on January 28 the Minister told the House that: "We will not sell out the interests of Atlantic fishermen for an agreement at any cost". Given the importance of the Grand Banks to the fisheries of the Province of Newfoundland and the fact that almost 25 per cent of Newfoundlanders are unemployed, will the Minister tell the House that, when the chips are down, he will not sell out the fish resources of Canada to the lowest bidder in France?


Thomas Edward Siddon: Mr. Speaker, when one reads between the lines of the Hon. Member's question I think it is pretty obvious that he is thinking more in terms of an upcoming by-election in Newfoundland than in searching for the truth. When there is something to report, information will be brought before the House.


Mr. Speaker:: I want to advise the House that there will be one question by the Hon. Member for York West, followed by one question by the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Carleton.


IMMIGRATION
Sergio Marchi: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Immigration. Canadians have learned that so-called phoney immigration consultants are now producing fraudulent refugee claims from Brazil, which follow similar activities in Portugal, Lebanon and Turkey. Throughout, the Government has refused to step in and take concrete action to stop this illegal and intolerable activity.
This activity is a plague that is setting roots throughout a host of countries in the world and is undermining our immigration process. Does the Minister not think it is time for the Government to take serious action against these sleazy operators, to prosecute the culprits and send a strong signal to

April 27, 1987
Privilege-Mr. Boudria
the world and these operators that Canada is closed to these types of activities but open for honest and legitimate refugees?


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, this is the first time the Hon. Member for York West had admitted that the measures taken by the Government on February 20 are effective. Indeed, with respect to the communities from which we had high rates of immigration three months ago, the matter has now been settled.
As to the Brazilians, my colleague will admit that we are monitoring the situation, and there again I appreciate his acknowledgement that the measures we took are effective. If necessary, we will continue to apply them in the coming days.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
John Barry Turner: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. The United States Fish and Wildlife Service, and the Department of the Interior have recommended allowing oil and gas leasing in the Alaska Arctic Wildlife Refuge, the international home of the porcupine caribou herd of Yukon and the Northwest Territories. If adopted, that would violate an international understanding between our countries to protect this fragile habitat and very important herd. What recourse does the Government have if the United States Department of the Interior proceeds with these leases?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, last week the United States Secretary of Energy made a statement with regard to the so-called 1002 lands. Canada made a recommendation which had some slight influence, to the extent that the Interior Secretary's recommendation made reference for the first time to the importance of the caribou herds.
We are disappointed in the general tenor of the response. I was in touch by telephone last week with the head of the Government of Yukon and the Minister of Renewable Resources of Northwest Territories. We are considering the next steps with them and the Canadian native people involved.
The Hon. Member would be interested to know that, on a related question, we are finalizing plans for the signing of a Canada-U.S. agreement on the conservation of the porcupine caribou herd.


PRIVILEGE
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. I have given the Chair a copy of the grievance that I bring to the attention of the House. I have also contacted the office of the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Mclnnes) to indicate to him that I wanted to rise today on a question of privilege.
Needless to say, if you determine that I have a prima facie case of privilege I am willing to move the necessary motion to bring this matter to the appropriate parliamentary committee.
It is a long custom in the House that Members of Parliament are to provide other members factual information and only the truth. As a matter of fact, I am sure you will remind Hon. Members that to assume that any Member of the House ever states anything but the truth would be, in itself, a breach of the Standing Orders of the House. Of course, all Members of Parliament are deemed to be honourable members and therefore one expects to hear the truth in the House and nothing else.
I want to bring to your attention the fact that I placed Question No. 2 on the Order Paper in June last year. Question No. 2 was replied to on October 1 by the Minister of Public Works. I will read the question and answer and make them available to the House. The question I posed to the Government was:
1. Did the Government employ the services of Colvin Designs Ltd. and/or Giovanni Mowinkle, interior designer during the period September 4, 1984 to June 30, 1986, to supply furnishings, improvements, interior decorating or advice on same for the Prime Minister's residence at 24 Sussex Drive in Ottawa or the Harrington Lake residence and, if so, by residence, what was the cost of each contract?
The second question was also on the Order Paper. It was the following:
Was all of the work paid for from Government funds and, if not, who paid such costs and what was the amount involved in each case?
The reply was: "No" to the first part of the question and: "Not applicable" to the second part.
It has come to my attention, as reported by a Toronto newspaper, The Globe and Mail, that in fact the Government of Canada through the National Capital Commission paid an invoice or invoices amounting to $38,414.60 for furnishings and services to 24 Sussex Drive and that these funds had been paid to either Giovanni Mowinkle, Colvin Designs or both. This appears to be in contradiction to the first part of the question that I asked. With respect to the second part of my question the Minister indicated that it was not applicable.
I submit to you, Mr. Speaker, that even if all the funds had been paid by someone else the fact remains that Mr. Mowinkle appears to have performed work and to have been compensated for that work.
April 27, 1987

I submit that because we are talking about a property that belongs to the Crown, government property, the response of the Minister should have at least described the fact that, indeed, Mr. Mowinkle and/or his firm did in fact perform work at 24 Sussex Drive as well as at the Elarrington Lake residence.
For Your Efonour's consideration I wish to offer a decision made by the Speaker in 1978. At that time the Hon. Member for Northumberland-Durham raised a question of privilege in the House of Commons concerning the fact that the then Solicitor General had written to him and provided to him information which later proved to be erroneous. On December 6, 1978, the Speaker indicated, as reported at page 1857 of Hansard: "I, therefore, find a prima facie case of contempt against the House of Commons".
The point I am making is that if it was a contempt against the House of Commons to provide a Member of Parliament with erroneous information, then surely to provide the House itself with erroneous information through a written reply to a question on the Order Paper would, as far as I am concerned, also be a prima facie case of privilege.
I must say that if this is a legitimate mistake, and if the Minister is willing to indicate that it is, then I am prepared to discontinue pursuit of the matter. However, in the absence of such a reply from the Minister I will let my request stand before you, Mr. Speaker, to have it considered a prima facie case of privilege and to be referred to the appropriate parliamentary committee.


Hon. Stewart Mclnnes (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, I am grateful to my hon. friend for giving me appropriate notice and for allowing me to postpone my response to this time rather than having to respond this morning.
I want to affirm that Colvin Designs was hired to perform services at 24 Sussex Drive. An invoice was subsequently submitted for services rendered. The National Capital Commission reviewed the work and determined that it was appropriate for the NCC in its role as custodian of official residences to pay for the expenditures invoiced. Accordingly, payment in the amount of $38,414.60 was made on July 10, 1986, a date outside of the September, 1984 to June 30, 1986 timeframe specified in the Hon. Member's question.
In preparing the original reply only accounts paid as of June 30, 1986, the date specified by the Hon. Member, were examined. There was no attempt whatsoever to mislead the House. I am pleased to have this first opportunity to clarify this matter for the House and to set the record straight.


Mr. Speaker:: That may or may not be a partial clarification. However, I will hear the Hon. Member for Glengarry- Prescott-Russell (Mr. Boudria) further.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to take up unduly the time of the House. Suffice to say that the Minister's answer is clearly inadequate, and the Minister should know
Privilege-Mr. Boudria
that. Even though an invoice was paid after a certain date it is clear that the work performed should have been referred to in the reply given to me, not only for the reason that the Minister has stated but for the other which I have raised as well. That is to say, the fact that that invoice was paid after the date in no way makes the answer any more credible. I can argue that all the Government had to do in order to evade answering my question was to hang on to an invoice for a few days and then pay it. Presumably that would have placed the Government in a position whereby it could have answered in the negative rather than in the affirmative. That is inappropriate.
I invite you, Mr. Speaker, to review the grievance that I have brought before the House today and to determine whether or not there is a prima facie case of privilege, as I believe there is, and as your predecessors have indicated there were in similar circumstances in the past. At that time I will, of course, move the appropriate motion.


Stewart Donald McInnes: Mr. Speaker, I quite agree with my learned friend that the reply that we gave was inadvertently misleading. That is only because the books that were examined were done up to the date of June 30. Indeed, we should have reviewed all the accounts to the present date, or to the date mentioned in the Hon. Member's inquiry, to ensure that this particular invoice was not on our records. That was inadvertently not done. I agree that our response in the first instance was inappropriate. I have apologized for that.


Don Boudria: No, you have not.


Stewart Donald McInnes: This is the first opportunity I have had to put the record straight and to indicate to the House that there was no intention to mislead.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I wish to make one brief comment in support of the question of privilege raised by the Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell (Mr. Boudria). I want to draw to your attention, sir, the wording of the Hon. Member's question. It is:
Did the Government employ the services of Colvin Designs Ltd. and/or Giovanni Mowinkle, interior designer during the period September 4, 1984 to June 30, 1986, to supply furnishings, improvements, interior decorating or advice on same for the Prime Minister's residence at 24 Sussex Drive in Ottawa or the Harrington Lake residence and, if so, by residence, what was the cost of each contract?
The question was not, when was the invoice paid? The question was not, when was the invoice submitted? The question was, when was the work done and was it done within the period September 4, 1984 to June 30, 1986?
I think Your Honour should take into account that, in spite of the very clear wording of the question of the Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, those responsible for the answer to the question, those individuals signing the answer to the question, chose to deal with it on the basis that it said something it did not; that is when was the invoice submitted?
With all due respect, I suggest that Your Honour has not had a clear, convincing explanation. Therefore, I think that

April 27, 1987
Capital Punishment
very serious positive consideration has to be given to the question of privilege of the Hon. Member for Glengarry- Prescott-Russell.


Stewart Donald McInnes: Mr. Speaker, the answer I gave was one based upon information supplied to me by a Crown corporation. Having had the opportunity to delve into the inquiry to quite a degree, 1 now realize that the response first given was inappropriate. It did not respond properly to the inquiry. I have indicated this to be so. While it is unfortunate, there was no intention to mislead. I obviously had to base my answer on the information supplied to me. On a review of the records, that proved to be not as efficient as it should have been.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, we have now, through repeated tries, managed to get from the Minister an admission that, yes, what was given to us was inappropriate. As well, we now have from the Minister an apology to the House. With that admission and the Minister's apology, I am prepared to accept matters as they now stand. It is unfortunate that the Minister did not deal with the matter in this way from the outset. Had he done so, the debate would have been somewhat shorter.
I am prepared to accept his admission that it was a mistake, that it was inappropriate, and I accept his apology for giving the House erroneous information. With those matters now on the record, I shall not pursue the matter further.


Mr. Speaker:: I want to thank the Hon. Minister for being frank. As well, the House is indebted to the Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell (Mr. Boudria) for accepting the explanation, and accepting it in good grace.
I am sure the Hon. Minister will carry the message back to those who are charged with the responsibility to answer written questions, with the request that, as the Hon. Member for Windsor West (Mr. Gray) has indicated, they read the questions carefully before providing an answer.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
ESTABLISHMENT OF SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON REINSTATEMENT The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Mazankowski:
That this House supports, in principle, the reinstatement of capital punishment and directs that a special committee on reinstatement, composed of 15 members, be established, hold hearings and make its final report to the House no later than three (3) months following the adoption of this motion, such report to provide recommendations on:
(a)	which offence or offences should carry the death penalty, and in what circumstances;
(b)	which method or methods should be used to carry out the penalty of death, and in what circumstances;
That, pursuant to Standing Order 107(1), this special committee be hereby appointed as the committee to prepare and bring in a bill no later than three months following the adoption of this motion, founded on the committee's recommendations on (a) and (b) above; such a bill shall be the object of a
separate and distinct report of the special committee, and such a report shall be its final report;
That such bill, when reported from such special committee to the House, be deemed pursuant to Standing Order 107(1) to have been introduced and stand on the Order Paper, in the name of the special committee chairman, for first reading at the next sitting of the House; and that subsequent House stages of the bill be considered under "Government Business"; and that, when the said bill has been read a second time, it shall stand referred to a Legislative Committee;
That the Striking Committee be empowered to name the Members of the special committee, provided that once the Striking Committee report is laid upon the Table, it shall be deemed concurred in;
That the special committee have the power to sit while the House is sitting and during periods when the House stands adjourned;
That the special committee be empowered to report from time to time and send for persons and papers, and to print such papers and evidence from time to time as may be ordered by the committee and to retain the services of expert, technical, professional and clerical staff;
That the special committee be empowered to adjourn from place to place inside Canada and that, when deemed necessary, the appropriate staff accompany the committee;
That a quorum of the special committee be eight (8) members for any vote, resolution or other decision; and that the chairman be authorized to hold meetings to recieve evidence and authorize the printing thereof whenever six (6) members are present;
That any substitution of membership on the special committee be made pursuant to Standing Order 94(4); and
That, notwithstading the usual practices of this House, if the House is not sitting when the special committee is ready to issue its final report and the said bill, the special committee shall present its report and the bill to the House be filing them with the Clerk of the House provided that the report shall then be deemed to have been laid upon the Table, and the bill shall then be deemed, pursuant to Standing Order 107(1), to have been introduced at the first sitting of the House thereafter and to stand on the Order Paper in the name of the special committee chairman, for first reading at the next sitting of the House; and that subsequent House stages of the bill be considered under "Government Orders", with the bill standing under the heading "Government Business".
Suzanne Fortin-Duplessis: Mr. Speaker, it is with considerable emotion that I rise in the House today to speak to this important motion which deals with a proposal to reinstate capital punishment in Canada. Mr. Speaker, depending on the position the House will take following this debate, men and women will live or die. All members present must realize that when the time comes to vote on the motion, if they nod their heads in favour, they will be killing themselves, as it were.
I have made no mystery about my position on this issue. I am firmly opposed to reinstating capital punishment, and I want to explain to Hon. Members and to the people of Canada my reasons for taking this stand. Mr. Speaker, in Canada as in so many other countries, capital punishment has been the subject of countless debates in the past years.
In fact, at the beginning of April in Great Britain British parliamentarians, notwithstanding the polls, had the courage to vote for the eighteenth time against reinstatement of capital punishment. Since the Canadian judiciary system is quite similar to the English system I would suggest that at the very least this result should cause everyone of us to give serious consideration to the position to take here.
April 27, 1987

Mr. Speaker, the debate has a particular character because it contains legal, philosophical, religious, moral and scientific aspects. Personally, as a practicing Catholic, the question I am asking myself is much more directly related to the sense I give to human life than to the sentence which should be imposed for a foul crime.
Morally speaking, I feel that taking a life is harmful to both the state and the citizen. The state must give the example by acknowledging the sacred character of human life in every instance.
A 1977 International Conference on the Abolition of Capital Punishment ended with the adoption of the Stockholm Declaration which stated that the duty of the state is to protect the life of every citizen. It strongly urged all countries to abolish the death penalty. More recently a number of groups were established to speak out against the reinstatement of capital punishment. In a recent message, the Conference of Churches, the Conference of Catholic Bishops wrote this, and I quote:
The death penalty is acceptable only in a society which is not sufficiently well
organized to defend itself by other means. This is not the case of Canada, a
country which has made enough progress to find other ways than the death
penalty to protect itself.
I have also received many letters from constituents and people from across Canada, who oppose the reinstatement of the ultimate penalty. Criminology experts also made their opposition known and I would like to quote among others from Andre Normandeau who wrote in La Presse on Thursday, March 12: I personally oppose the death penalty for both personal and professional reasons. On the personal level, it is my view that if the democratic State proposes its citizens two great values, liberty and due regard for life, it should set an example by refusing to kill legally a human being, even where the latter's murder is despicable. Under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, all citizens are equal and there can be no exception to due regard for life.
In an interview with Maclean's magazine, the famous criminologist Edward Greenspan also flatly opposed it. So did the Canadian Association of Social Workers, the Canada Jewish Congress and many others. The widow of Rev. Martin Luther King, Mrs. Coretta Scott King, during a recent visit to Ottawa, went on record against the reinstatement of the death penalty in Canada. She felt that Canada would take a step backward by reinstating capital punishment.
According to recent surveys on that important matter, it would seem that a majority of the Canadian people favour the reinstatement of that ultimate penalty.
As far as I am concerned, I circulated a questionnaire in my constituency and the majority of respondents favoured the death penalty. But the result was different on the question of deterrence.
Mr. Speaker, should we base on chancy surveys our decision on such a basic question? My sincere answer is: No.
Capital Punishment


Svend Johannes Robinson: Hear, hear.


Suzanne Fortin-Duplessis: Indeed, if we asked Canadians whether they favoured a significant tax reduction, I am convinced that more than 90 per cent of the people would favour such a move. As elected representatives, should we then ignore sound management principles to meet the desires of the electorate? Once again, my answer is no. And on such a vital question, I feel that each and everyone of us must make an enlightened choice on the basis of the information available to him or her, and above all, must follow the call of his or her conscience.
This penalty is absolutely, fundamentally degrading on the human level, because it proclaims the uselessness of the guilty person's life. It also precludes the achievement of one of the three main goals of punishment, rehabilitation. Those who favour non-capital solutions defend the respect of all human life and urge society to rehabilitate and reform the offender. I am one of those.
Philosophers like Plato, Hobbes, Rousseau held that virtue can be taught and punishment must aim at correcting the offender's wrong inclinations. The goal must be to reform criminals and to deter them from relapsing to crime and also to maintain order.
In many cases, people who resort to violence have had an unhappy childhood which did not allow them to become responsible citizens.
Yet, it is the responsibility of any civilized society to impose on delinquents punishments which can contribute to their rehabilitation.
Eleven years ago, the abolitionists, as they are sometimes called, managed to eliminate capital punishment from our national statutes and mores. As Pierre Tremblay wrote in an editorial in the April 2 issue of the newspaper Le Devoir, "In 1976, a small majority of six votes in the Commons extirpated this relict of barbarism from our penal code, just as one has a bad tooth removed, with pain and apprehension."
Some uncertainty remained then. Were we not opening the door to second offenses? We are now forced to admit that we did not. Over the past ten years, the number of crimes which theoretically should carry the death penalty has not increased. We were right in 1976 when we felt that the supreme penalty had no real value as a deterrent. I am convinced that its reinstatement in 1987 would not prove different.
As a matter of fact, the deterring effect which is the major argument of all those who are in favour of capital punishment must be examined most carefully. If all punishment has a deterring effect, capital punishment has value only if it has this effect, no matter how limited. The question then is whether capital punishment has a more deterring effect than life imprisonment.

April 27, 1987
Capital Punishment
The theory of deterrence is based on the notion that the commission of a crime depends on the chances the guilty party feels he has of getting away with it. As legislators, we must consider deterrence as a means of preventing crime and also provide for more severe punishment in order to increase the fear of punishment in the potential criminal and reduce the frequency of crimes.
We must therefore determine whether the state of our knowledge warrants this approach and, therefore, the reinstatement of capital punishment.
Criminology studies have clearly shown that there is no significant correlation between the death penalty and the murder rate. In Canada, since capital punishment was abolished in 1976, the rate has remained stable at 2.5 murders per 100,000 inhabitants. While capital punishment was enforced between 1970 and 1974, the average was 2.3 murders for 100,000 inhabitants.
Mr. Speaker, we have no choice but to admit that there has been no wave of violence since 1976. The classic example of the United States is also interesting. Let us compare two American states somewhat similar socially and economically, on the one hand Michigan, which includes the City of Detroit, which abolished capital punishment in 1847, and on the other hand Illinois, which includes the City of Chicago, which has maintained capital punishment. We find that over a period of nearly 140 years, the difference is no more than 5 per cent between the two states for the murder rates in general and those of police officers and prison guards in particular. Incidentally, the difference sometimes works out to the advantage of Michigan and sometimes to that of Illinois, so the statistics certainly do not argue in favour of a return to the death penalty.
At the University of California, David Phillips got the debate going again in 1980 with a study in which he qualified the death penalty as an immediate and temporary deterrent. He writes: "We get the impression that a potential murderer delays his crime for a few weeks after an execution is publicized in the media." According to Phillips, we must not expect this to have a comprehensive and permanent effect. He cites the example of drivers on a highway who slow down to look at the victims of a serious accident and are slow to pick up speed again, although ultimately, they often exceed the speed at which they were driving before they stopped.
According to Phillips, the same applies to homicide. During the two weeks following a publicized execution, the homicide rate goes down. However, within five or six weeks after the execution, this drop is cancelled by an increase in the number of homicides. After six weeks, the rate goes back to normal. At the end of the year, the total number of victims is the same as if no execution had taken place.
Mr. Speaker, would the answer be to execute someone every two weeks?
Phillips does not dare make such a recommendation and notes with regret that his field of reference, 22 executions
which took place in London between 1858 and 1921, does not include any instance where executions took place in quick succession. I therefore conclude that we have very little evidence of the deterrent effect and that in view of the very serious nature of the act involved, a civilized State should look for other deterrents.
The most valid reason to oppose capital punishment may be the possibility that an innocent might be killed. Last Friday in Montreal, an inmate called Pepin was released from prison. He had been accused of armed robbery, and had been in jail for eight months when the real culprit came forward. This man had been saying from the beginning that he was innocent. However, he was wrongly accused of robbery. No system whatsoever can guarantee infallability in passing judgment.
There have been cases in the past where people were put to death by mistake, and in spite of all the safeguards of our present-day system, there is still a possibility that this might happen. The Leader of the Opposition mentioned this morning that in 1982, Donald Marshall, who had been accused of murder and sentenced to death, was released after spending 11 years in a New Brunswick penitentiary. As for Wilbert Coffin, a prospector who was hanged in 1956, there are still questions after so many years as to whether he was really guilty.
On December 8, 1983, the British Minister of Justice released from prison Mervin John Russel, aged 39, who had been declared guilty of murdering a 20-year old female student. In 1977, when the case was reviewed, it was shown that the tuft of hair found in the hand of the victim did not come from his scalp. On August 23, 1977, the Governor of the State of Massachusetts, Michael Dikakis, declared innocent and rehabilitated Bartolomeo Vanzetti and Nicholas Sacco who had been executed exactly 50 years earlier, on August 23, 1927, after being declared guilty of murder.
Mr. Speaker, can we afford to take such risks? Would it mean that people would be better protected? Quite frankly, I do not believe they would, and I even think it would be the opposite. It has been shown over the years that executions appealed to the minds of morbid individuals, and could cause imbalanced people to take criminal action. The punishment itself may therefore cause more violent crimes, and provide some people with an inspiration to act violently.
Examples abound. Police departments for instance frequently refuse to publicize suicides or attempted suicides as it has been shown that such revelations lead to an appalling concatenation of other suicides. The news of a suicide prompt suicidal attitudes in other people. If that is true in such instances, there is a clear and easily applicable law: violence will lead to more violence.
In a society like ours, we must coordinate our efforts to put in place more effective policies of crime prevention in the legal, medical, social and educational fields. Our role as a just society is to emphasize prevention and to take all the means to that end. As long as this is not done it is useless to propose something as cruel as the death penalty. This is opposing
April 27, 1987

violence to violence without really dealing with the source of the problem. Crime is a social problem and we have to go to the heart of it, rather than choose a superfical solution that does not solve anything.
Mr. Speaker, we do not have the right to decide arbitrarily on the fate of our brothers, sisters, children and grandchildren. Our society has always attached much value to and shown a great respect for life and it must eradicate the causes or factors of crime. It must also, for humanitarian reasons, try to improve the correctional system so that the sentence imposed to criminals contributes to their rehabilitation and their social integration.
For all these reasons, and others 1 did not have time to develop, I will vote against restoration of capital punishment in Canada.
The reinstatement of capital punishment in Canada not only could make us lose any credibility in the area of rights and freedoms, but it could also be a signal for reinstating capital punishment in other countries. How could Canada in the future boast of defending rights and freedoms in international organizations, and more specifically the United Nations Human Rights Commission, if we gave such a clear indication that we do not honour our commitments and signature. Our credibility could easily be questioned.
Can we as a society take such a responsibility? 1 will conclude, Mr. Speaker, by stating that, personally, if the death penalty were to be reinstated in Canada, I would find unacceptable such a violation of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which prohibits any cruel and unusual treatment and punishment. Reverting to the ultimate sentence would negate what we have supposedly become, a more civilized, vanguard nation, a land of freedom, a model around the world.


Mr. Cassidy:: Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate the Hon. Member for Louis-Hebert (Mrs. Duplessis) for her most eloquent, passionate and moral speech which reflects the opinion of a great many Canadian men and women. I would like to ask her how the feelings of Quebec men and women may differ from those of their fellow Canadians, and since most Quebecers continue to maintain contacts with the Catholic Church, what are the views expressed in that province by Catholic bishops and priests and what influence they can have, if any, on this debate. Does she believe, as I do, that here, in the Parliament of Canada, it is our duty to listen to the advice of religious men and women, the pastors of the various Churches, the philosophers and all those who are concerned with moral issues? I fully appreciate the moral position she has just expressed. I share it myself. However, perhaps in order to help some of our colleagues here in the House, I would like to know whether she believes that in a Canadian society which adheres to Judeo-Christian values, even though it increasingly includes the teachings of the other major religions in the world as it becomes more multicultural, we, in Parliament, should listen to the advice of our religious leaders and what advice is being given by Catholic priests in Quebec on this issue.
Capital Punishment


Suzanne Fortin-Duplessis: Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. friend opposite for having appreciated the speech I made during the present debate. I shall be pleased to answer his question.
To begin with, I should like to say to my hon. friend that the views of Quebecers on capital punishment are no other than those of other Canadians. If he has carefully considered opinion polls published for some time in various newspapers, he has probably noticed that Quebecers were exactly of the same opinion as Canadians throughout the country. However I am glad to note a difference among Members of Parliament from Quebec. Most of them are against the reinstatement of capital punishment. They have publicly said so.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Suzanne Fortin-Duplessis: It is true that the Council of Churches, our clergy and parish priests have told us that if we are really practising Christians and believers, we have to be against capital punishment. However, before such statements were made, I had already taken my decision. It only confirmed what I believed in that respect.
Morally speaking, there is something that we should not forget and that is also valid for our colleagues and other individuals throughout the country as well as all other religious denominations in Canada. The reinstatement of capital punishment means that one does not believe in the rehabilitation of the human being who could come to regret his wrongdoings, try to grow better and finally serve the Canadian people. It amounts to losing faith in mankind.
Personally, I do not think that a human being can become rotten. A rotten apple cannot improve. It will only get worse and become uneatable. However, the human being is different. When a human being receives good advice, is being taken good care of and loved, feels it has his or her rightful place in life, there is always a hope that he or she will turn over a new leaf and become better.
So I brought here a small clipping where various solutions are indicated by the Council of Churches. There is also something I would like to bring to your attention, and if I am not mistaken, this morning, during the debate, I think your leader referred to this about the Council of Churches, when he asked how many people know that more than a third of all murders are committed within the family, in the home, after some quarrel? This applies to the majority of crimes in Canada.
This means that there may be something wrong in society. I referred to that earlier. We know that misery and poverty can lead to crime. We are told that maybe we should look more closely at that, this is where we should be providing support. As Members of Parliament we should work twice, a hundred times as hard at improving well-being in society, whether helping children or looking for better regional distribution across Canada. Members from every part of the country and every Party in this House will have to learn how to live with a decision we have taken in order to help and raise the standard

April 27, 1987
Capital Punishment
of living in one part of the country, in order to stamp out misery in areas of this country. Members from everywhere will have to learn to respect that.
We cannot claim to be Christians, and indeed Mrs. Luther King said she cannot imagine Christians who support killing others. This is my answer concerning the ethical side, the recommendations made by the bishops.


Mr. Nunziata:: Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to commend the Hon. Member for Louis-Hebert (Mrs. Duplessis) for her excellent speech on capital punishment.
[DOT]	(1540)


John V. Nunziata: I would like to ask a question of the Hon. Member with regard to the process upon which we are embarking today. The Government has decided to initiate a debate here in the House that no doubt will take several months to conclude. This particular discussion centres around a resolution, not legislation, but a resolution to endorse capital punishment in principle. We know that this particular portion of the so-called debate on capital punishment may take several months, if not longer. Following a determination of this resolution in the House, a committee will be struck which will travel across the country for three months and then report back to the House. The Government has been criticized for the process of prolonging the discussion of this very moral and important issue.
Has the Hon. Member taken the opportunity to voice her concerns to the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and to her colleagues in Cabinet to indicate to them that it is wrong for the Government to stretch out this debate over such a long period of time? The Hon. Member knows I agree wholeheartedly with her position on the issue, but I think it is wrong for the Government to embark on the process it has.
[DOT]	(1550)
1 would ask the Hon. Member if she would undertake to try to use her resources, her good offices and her powers of persuasion to convince members of her own caucus to accept and adopt the position she has taken. The Hon. Member will recognize that the overwhelming majority of her own caucus supports the resolution in principle.
[ Translation]


Suzanne Fortin-Duplessis: In reply to my friend the Hon. Member for York South-Weston (Mr. Nunziata), who was talking about the process, Mr. Speaker, may I say that there might be no process if ever a majority of members decided to vote against the reinstatement of capital punishment. When my Government decided to proceed this way, it was first of all, as you know full well, to fulfill a promise made during the last election campaign. One should fulfill one's promises. As a matter of fact, you are constantly reminding us that we have made promises in other areas.
On the other hand, you should not overlook the way it was done. It was done to respect democracy. It is a process which is quite democratic, which meets the requirements of my colleagues who are in favour of reinstating capital punishment. We made a commitment, and we are living up to it.
Contrary to my hon. friend, I feel that my Government is doing the right thing in holding this debate.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I am sorry, but the period for questions and comments is over. Debate. The Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell (Mr. Boudria) has the floor.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, this afternoon we are called upon to debate a very important issue in the House of Commons. It is one that goes beyond partisanship of any kind and one that is very difficult for all Members of the House.
I would like to take a moment to discuss the manner in which this topic was brought to the attention of the House of Commons. A government Minister tabled in the House a motion and then immediately dissociated himself from the motion he had presented. The motion, of course, calls upon the House of Commons to give its favour in principle to a resolution calling for the reinstatement of capital punishment.
The Government claims that it can dissociate itself from the motion it has itself put because this will be a free vote. I would argue that that is incorrect. There is no historic precedent for proceeding that way in a Parliament. If some Hon. Members wish to indicate that there is a parallel because of a free vote that had taken place in the past, I would argue that there was a substantial difference between the two. In the last free vote, the Government introduced a motion and unanimously supported it within Cabinet yet the Government tolerated dissension within its own caucus. That is far different from having a cabinet Minister present a motion to the House and then immediately saying that he was not necessarily for it or against it or that the Government was not necessarily for it or against it. I would submit that this unprecedented move on the part of the Government is indeed what I would consider to be morally inappropriate when dealing with such a topic.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Cowardly.


Don Boudria: Some would even say, as my colleague, the Hon. Member for Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe (Mr. Tobin) has just said, that it is cowardly.
The debate started today with the Parliamentary Secretary to the government House Leader as the lead-off speaker. Instead of speaking to the issue of capital punishment which his own Government had introduced, he spent most of his time congratulating himself and the Government for perceived past accomplishments and he warned the House not to take too much time because the Government wanted to deal with the pornography Bill, patent legislation and other issues in the
April 27, 1987

future. Therefore, he said, Members could take the time they wished but of course he reminded us of all those other important things which Parliament must do in the future. I wonder, if those issues were so important, why they were not dealt with before bringing this motion to the attention of the House of Commons.
The Government hangs its hat on saying that this was a campaign promise and it had to deliver. Where is the precedent for such action? Relatively no other campaign promises have been delivered to date so what is the special initiative that is necessary in this particular case?

Mr. Speaker, this debate is unfortunate. It is unfortunate because it shows just how desperate a political Party can be: this Conservative Government will introduce just about any legislation to improve its political credibility. I can tell you that when a political Party stoops so low to improve its image, we have a major moral problem. Mr. Speaker, I urge you and all our colleagues in the House to consider the way the Government went about presenting this motion to the House, and specially its timing.

Nevertheless, today we are dealing with an important debate. It is important because it deals with life itself. I have deeply held views on the topic and so do others. Some have views which differ considerably from mine but they believe in them with as much conviction as I believe in my own.
It is unfortunate that in some cases the debate has been trivialized by individuals either stating that those who did not want to reinstate capital punishment were in favour of criminals or that those who are in favour of the reinstatement of capital punishment are of equally devious minds. I do not believe that either is the case. Nevertheless, it is unfortunate that such statements are being made as one which was attributed to a Member of the House by Maclean's magazine, which indicated that an Hon. Member referred to capital punishment by saying: "Hang 'em high and hang 'em often". Remarks like those are very unfortunate and remarks made in the opposite direction would be equally wrong in my view.

Mr. Speaker, since 1867, 710 people were executed in Canada. The last two were put to death in 1962. They were Arthur Lucas, aged 54 and Robert Turpin, aged 29. Since then, Canada has effectively abolished the death penalty. At first, at the turn of the century, capital punishment was imposed for murder, treason, rape and gradually, as our society became more and more civilized, we first eliminated public hanging, then capital punishment for other offences and finally, as I said earlier, in 1962, Mr. Diefenbaker abolished the death penalty de facto since he and his successors chose not to reinstate it.
Capital Punishment
Finally, in 1973, the Government put temporarily an end to the death penalty through legislation and in 1976, it was abolished for good.
There are reasons which some people give for the reinstatement of capital punishment. Let me outline some of them and say why I do not think they are appropriate. First we have the argument of, shall we call it retribution? In other words, someone who has killed does not deserve to live. While at first blush that argument may have a certain attraction to some people, I must say that it certainly has no place, in my view, in a civilized society which claims, as we do, to have a good and sound system of justice. We do not rob the robbers. We do not beat the beaters. We do not burn down the arsonist's house. We do not rape the rapist. It of course is equally true that we do not murder the murderers.
The theory of deterrence has also been used by some as a reason for capital punishment. That is no more effective or reasonable an idea than that of retribution. I say that for this reason. In 1975 there were 701 homicides in Canada according to statistics I have obtained. In 1985 it was 686. In 1986 it was 561. Considering that this country's population is increasing it holds true, in my opinion, that the absence of capital punishment certainly has not resulted in an increase in murders. The murder rate per 100,000 people in Canada was 2.7 in 1976 and is now about 2.5. We know that in the U.S. the murder rate is
8.49	per hundred thousand. That is over three times what it is in Canada. However, even if we look at it in a regional sense, because capital punishment is a state responsibility in the U.S. and not federal as it is here, the state of Minnesota, an abolitionist state, has a murder rate of 1.7. Gun-toting Texas has a murder rate of 14.2. That leads me to believe that violence breeds more violence and we should not for that reason reinstate capital punishment.
Of those countries in the western world Belgium has the lowest murder rate. Before someone says that Belgium still has capital punishment, I want to remind the House that it has not been used since 1945. Belgium's murder rate is 1.03. That should lead us to some conclusions when we compare it to the
8.49	rate in the U.S. Of course, the U.S. has executed some 38 people since 1977.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to say a few words about potential errors. As the House will know, Mr. Wilbert Coffin was executed in 1956 for a murder of which he was convicted at the time; Mr. Raymond Cook, in 1960, was also put to death in Alberta.
To date, Mr. Speaker, a large number of Canadians, including some parliamentarians, have grave doubts about the execution of those two people, wondering whether they were really guilty.

April 27, 1987
Capital Punishment
I would also like to mention three other miscarriages of justice involving murder cases, although they did not lead to a death sentence being carried out. We had Kenneth Roberts in 1977, Derek Cole in 1978, and finally, Donald Marshall who was released in 1982 after his case was reviewed, 11 years after he was sent to prison. He was innocent. And though some people point out that Mr. Marshall was not convicted of premeditated murder and would therefore not have received the death penalty, I want to take this opportunity to inform the House that the same principle applies, namely that if a mistake was made in the case of Donald Marshall, how can we guarantee that mistakes were not made in other cases?
Senator Howard Metzinbaum of the United States tabled in the U.S. Congress a list of 48 people who were found guilty of murder and subsequently declared innocent, while Michael Radelet, an American researcher, puts this figure at over 100 since the turn of the century. If for no other reason, and I have just given a number of examples, I think the reason I have just touched upon here should be sufficient for a civilized country like Canada to want to terminate this debate on the death penalty immediately and not pursue the matter further.
Mr. Speaker, I may add that the United States is the only Western country that still practices capital punishment. Belgium still has it on the books, and Ireland as well, but practically speaking, since 1945 and 1954, respectively, it is no longer applied in those countries. Mr. Speaker, Canada must not be allowed to regress. The Conference of Catholic Bishops issued a communique which was distributed to members on February 24, and it reads as follows:
Today, ten years after the abolition of capital punishment, we still hold the same conviction: A society that respects the sacred and spiritual character of human life and which has human rights as its first priority, is slowly and perhaps not always spectacularly, but at any rate surely, on the road to social progress for itself while contributing to the development of mankind. This conviction, confirmed by the message of John Paul II when he visited this country, is based on the message of the Gospel in which mankind is redeemed of its sins by Jesus Christ and thus reconciled with God.
Innocent, but convicted as a criminal and sentenced to death, Jesus himself showed us the way of total forgiveness: "Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do."

I now want to go back to the topic I raised a few moments ago concerning retribution and its so-called merits. I received a letter in my office on March 5, 1987, and it reads as follows: "I would like you to consider my views on capital punishment in light of the motion currently being debated. Our 11-year old daughter, Alison, was abducted and murdered last July. Prior to Alison's death I had always been opposed to capital punishment, this conviction being based upon the very deep Christian belief that it is wrong to kill another human being no matter what the circumstances. Alison's murderer has given me a very strong personal and agonizing experience of the horror of violence and killing. It has more than ever convinced me that we as a society cannot ever and must not ever condone killing, whether by state or individual, in any shape or form. Throughout this debate much attention has been focused on
the victim's rights. While I agree that often the safety, security and suffering of present and future victims is not always given due consideration, I do not believe that anyone suffering can in any way be alleviated by the deliberate killing of other human beings. I do not want to be part of a society that brings up future generations with the belief that killing can be legitimized under certain circumstances. Let the message be clear and unconditional; human life is sacred, killing is always wrong. Please consider my deep-felt views and vote no to the return of the death penalty".
That letter is signed by Mrs. Lesley C. Parrott, the mother of Alison Parrott who, unfortunately, as we all know, was an 11-year old child who was murdered.
In conclusion, it is my opinion that the time of the House should be spent on many other issues. We should be spending a lot of time on the issue of illiteracy as well as a lot of time trying to find employment for our constituents who are out of work.
We are talking about the murder rate, which is 2.5 per 100,000, but are not even mentioning the fact that the suicide rate is 13.8 per 100,000 and that a large percentage of that relates to young people. We are not taking time to discuss the many other problems which our society is facing right now.
Although I know that 70 per cent of Canadians in general, and probably a similar number of my constituents, are in favour of reinstating capital punishment, it is important to note that only 5 per cent consider the issue to be important. I indicated my opinion to the voters in the last election. They knew where I stood before they elected me to the House of Commons. I indicated clearly to them that I had no intention of participating in a process which would reinstate capital punishment.
In conclusion I want to remind you of the words of Edmund Burke spoken 213 years ago. He said:
Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgment; and he
betrays, instead of serving you, if he sacrifices it to your opinion.
Those are my views, Mr. Speaker, and I hope that the House will defeat the motion.


Mr. Domm:: Mr. Speaker, I notice that the Hon. Member who has just spoken referred, as did his Leader, to the statements of Edmund Burke. I have also noticed that a lot of editorial writers, with surprising selectivity, constantly urged Members of Parliament to ignore or defy the clear opinion of the public by citing this portion of Burke's speech to the electors of Bristol in 1774. He said at that time:
Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgment; and he
betrays, instead of serving you, if he sacrifices it to your opinion.
Those who do not confine their reading exclusively to editorials will be aware of the fact that after the dissolution of Parliament in 1780 Mr. Burke found that the electors of Bristol were so violently opposed to his attitude that he wisely decided not to stand for renomination.
April 27, 1987

Was the Member of Parliament who just spoke aware that Burke decided not to seek renomination because of the effect it had on his constituents when he refused even to take into consideration the vast majority of constituents whom he represented?


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased that the Hon. Member chose to rise in his place and raise this very important point. I did not know Edmund Burke personally. Perhaps the member across knew him better than I and is aware of the reasons he chose not to run for public office in the subsequent election. I remind him that Mr. Burke was not defeated but decided not to run again. I am sure the member knows the reason for that very well, that he has probably discussed it with Mr. Burke personally.


Mrs. Bourgault:: Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to the intervention of my colleague from Glengarry-Prescott-Russell on capital punishment. Of course the question is very sensitive, I admit, except that the Hon. Member is always ready to rise and criticize the initiatives of our Government. They are never good enough for him. In short, he questions everything.
Mr. Speaker, I have a question for him. Has the Hon. Member any alternatives? What are we going to do about the 75 per cent of Canadians who are tired, who have had it up to here to see that the victims are never . . . What do we do to family victims? What do we do with them? Does the Hon. Member have an alternative? Did he think about that, or does he get up only to criticize the Government which has the courage, I repeat, the courage to bring this issue before the House of Commons, because it does take political courage to do so? So my question to him is this: Does he have solutions? Does he have anything to say to elderly people who are afraid to walk on the streets-and I know some of my constituents who feel that way because they are afraid of being attacked. There are a lot of trigger-happy individuals around these days. Think about the many corner grocery store owners who have been shot dead by thieves, by second offenders who do not hesitate because they know they will be paroled after seven years even after having been sentenced to life imprisonment. Mr. Speaker, what solutions does the Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell (Mr. Boudria) have to offer Canadians who want capital punishment applied in this country, something which the previous Liberal Government has never done?


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, let me tell you in plain language that it takes nerve, it takes a lot of nerve for an Hon. Member on the Government side to stand on his feet in this House and ask the Opposition if it has an alternative for better government. That takes a lot of nerve coming from the Government side, Mr. Speaker, I must say. All the more so when a government Member rises to ask us for an alternative to the death penalty. Is there an alternative between life and death? Can one be so ridiculous as to put such a question to the House? I must recall that if there is a problem with parole,
Capital Punishment
then an appropriate solution must be found. In any other area as well, if there is a problem, then a solution must be found. You do not execute prisoners because no alternative has been found, even if one's Government has come to office with the largest majority in Canadian history. What a sorry excuse to give this House, Mr. Speaker. The Hon. Member as well as her Government should be ashamed to raise such issues.


Mr. Keeper:: Mr. Speaker, I would like to know if my colleague is aware of studies which indicate that juries do not impose the death penalty, that they are reluctant to do so? Is he aware that such studies exist? Is he willing to make any comment?


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Winnipeg for a very relevant question. He is quite right in raising this matter, because a poll has indeed been taken among people who had served as jurors previously. Very clear results were obtained from that survey in which former jurors were asked: Madam or Sir, had you had to reach a decision knowing the penalty would be death, would you have found the accused guilty in the very case you decided in the past? To a large extent, Mr. Speaker, those Canadians who sat on juries said no, because there was still some doubt in their minds that kept them from sentencing-not sentencing because it is the judge not them who sentences-but they would not have made any move which might have resulted in sentencing somebody to death. So that is very interesting, and we could conclude that indeed the restoration of the death penalty could have a totally reverse effect in the sense that a greater number of those guilty of murder could be released because the jury would be somewhat reluctant to find them guilty. The Hon. Member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Keeper) has drawn our attention to a very interesting fact.


John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr. Domm) and others in favour of capital punishment argue that they must respond to the wishes of their constituents. They believe that due to the fact that 70 to 75 per cent of Canadians favour the return of capital punishment they must, as a result of some duty, respond by voting for capital punishment notwithstanding what their own personal beliefs may be. I want to say to the Hon. Member for Peterborough and others-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I hope the Hon. Member will comment on the member's speech and not on anything that has taken place prior to the speech of the Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell (Mr. Boudria).


John V. Nunziata: Does the Hon. Member for Glengarry- Prescott-Russell (Mr. Boudria) agree with my suggestion to the Member for Peterborough that there comes a time when one must vote according to one's own belief and conscience because if one becomes a puppet of his or her constituents, there is really no reason to be here to act as a parliamentarian

April 27, 1987
Capital Punishment
and represent the interests of not only his or her constituents but the country?
My question concerns the argument put forward by those who support capital punishment. The status quo is that capital punishment is not a penalty in Canada under the Criminal Code. It still exists in the National Defence Act. Therefore, it seems to me that the onus is on those who support capital punishment to prove to the House that there is a reason for a return of the death penalty.
When we cut away all the peripheral arguments, the bottom line is that those who support capital punishment are arguing that vengeance should be the basis of our criminal justice system because, in their heart of hearts, those who argue for capital punishment know that there is no other legitimate argument upon which to base a return to the death penalty.
Will the Hon. Member agree that it is wrong for a moral, civilized nation to have retribution or revenge as the basis for its criminal justice system? Would he agree that it is basically the law of the jungle that dictates that type of basis for a justice system?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell on a very short answer, please.


Don Boudria: Very briefly, Mr. Speaker, perhaps Gandhi put it best when he said something to the effect that if justice was still administered on the basis of an eye for an eye, we would have a society that would be totally blinded by now.


William Henry (Bill) Domm: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I will begin my remarks today by commenting on what has been discussed by the member who just spoke and others in his Party. 1 want to respond to the comment that more murderers would be loose on the streets because juries would be more reluctant to convict them. My source in arguing that point is a letter that I received from Norman S. Douglas, Q.C., Crown Attorney, District of Algoma. He said:
In the two dozen murder cases that I have prosecuted, I have not encountered any sympathetic juries for first degree murderers.
However, even if it is conceded that juries would be more cautious in convicting if the result was capital punishment, second degree murder is always an included offence.
In short, if a jury felt too squeamish about convicting on first degree they would convict of second degree instead. Thus, the killer would receive a sentence of life imprisonment. It is simply misleading to say that if a person is not convicted of first degree murder then he walks out of the courtroom.
That is the kind of misleading information that turns what could be a sensible, logical debate into the resurrection of arguments that cannot be substantiated and are only the whims and fancies of abolitionists who care little at all about a true justice system that provides the kinds of penalties that convicted murderers deserve for that act of planned, deliberate, premeditated murder.
Let me add that we are not looking to murder everyone who commits, or execute everyone-


Michael Morris Cassidy: You said murder. You are going to murder them.


William Henry (Bill) Domm: I will deal with murder in a minute.


Michael Morris Cassidy: The state will murder. That is what you said.


William Henry (Bill) Domm: We are not looking to execute the some 700 innocent people who are murdered by people who are guilty of planned, deliberate, premeditated murder.


Michael Morris Cassidy: Murder. That is what he said.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The Hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr. Domm) has the floor.


William Henry (Bill) Domm: Let me take some of my 20 minutes to give what I believe is the best explanation of why we are at this point today in the House of Commons concerning the subject of capital punishment.
For the second time in the last few years, the United Kingdom turned down a motion for a return to capital punishment. I am not prepared to say that I could have supported that motion either because those who have done more research than what is printed in the abolitionist newspapers will know that that motion would not have been supported in this House of Commons either because it called for a return to capital punishment for planned, deliberate, premeditated murders, providing the jurors found the murders to be evil. We are not talking about evil murders, but planned and deliberate murders that do not have to be considered evil. I will not get into a debate on whether acts of treason and terrorism are evil or whether we are talking about someone who is against the Government because it is doing something that it should not be doing.
We are talking about four, five or possibly six types of planned, deliberate murder for which there is a clear consensus in the country that there should be capital punishment. It remains to be seen whether the Opposition will vote according to their conscience. I suspect that the New Democratic Party has no conscience and does not have the luxury of voting according to their conscience.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I hesitate to interrupt the Hon. Member in mid-rant, but I want to call to Your Honour's attention that it is quite improper to ascribe motives to any Member of the House with respect to their participation, particularly in a debate as serious as this.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I consider such a reference to a Party to be acceptable, but I would reprimand the Hon. Member if it were to an individual. I feel that he is not out of order. The Hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr. Domm) has the floor.


William Henry (Bill) Domm: Mr. Speaker, it is accepted that the New Democratic Party cannot vote according to conscience because they have taken a party position based on policy that has been adopted by a convention of the New Democratic Party.
April 27, 1987

The Liberals also have a problem with the issue of conscience. There are Liberal Members of Parliament who are former Cabinet Ministers who supported capital punishment at the time of abolition. In a debate with myself on Canada-AM, a frontbencher in the Liberal Official Opposition stated that he supports capital punishment. He said on Canada-AM that he voted against capital punishment in 1976. When asked what he would do with respect to the Conservative motion in support in principle of capital punishment, he said that he would vote against it. I question the ability of some members of the Liberal Party to vote according to their conscience.
Let me deal with four or five points that have been made by other members. I do not believe any religion in Canada has an exclusivity on who is Christian and who is not Christian. I can list for the record ministers, clergy, of church denominations of all types who have written me as the heads of their churches in complete support of a return to capital punishment. They include the Oxford Baptist Church, Woodstock, Ontario; the Fundamental Baptist Mission; a letter from a former padre in the United Church; a letter from Pastor Jake Giesbrecht of the Ferndale Bible Church in Peterborough, Ontario; a letter from Reverend Hutson, T. Hilsden of the Social Concerns and Public Relations, Pentecostal Assemblies of Canada; a letter from the Reverend Earl N.O. Kulbeck of Scarborough, Ontario, Minister of the Pentecostal Assemblies of Canada; and a letter from Reverend G. W. Porter, retired United Church of Canada padre of the Lakefield Legion of which I am an honorary member. I have a letter from Reverend Evangelist Theodore Ruud of Calgary, Alberta. I have pages of letters from clergy who support a return to capital punishment-


Michael Morris Cassidy: How many bishops have you got, and name them? Name the bishops who support your view.


William Henry (Bill) Domm: -on religious grounds. I sit in the House of Commons and I stand here today and I will debate with any member opposite who says to me that someone says that someone else is not a Christian because they support capital punishment. Who are they judging-whoever "they" might be? I do not propose to judge any member of the Opposition as being Christian or anti-Christian. I think members opposite are on pretty thin ice when religious leaders of the country judge other religious groups, organizations, churches and theologians as anti-Christian because they support capital punishment because of the teachings in the Old Testament and because of the teachings in the New Testament. Members opposite say that nowhere in the New Testament does Jesus Christ endorse capital punishment. I challenge Hon. Members opposite that nowhere in the New Testament does Jesus Christ say that the state does not have the right to take another person's life.


Michael Morris Cassidy: Let he who is without sin throw the first stone.


William Henry (Bill) Domm: Having said that, if Hon. Members opposite support capital punishment because of teachings in the Old
Capital Punishment
Testament, then I challenge them to show me why the person who supports capital punishment because of teachings in the Old Testament is any less Christian than someone who supports or is against capital punishment because of teachings in the New Testament.
Let us deal with the idea that was brought forward here today in debate by the Right Hon. Leader of the Official Opposition when he talked about capital punishment being barbaric or being uncivilized. This is the "capital punishment is murder" argument all over again.
What the abolitionists assert here is: "Uncivilized barbarians kill; all killing is uncivilized and barbaric; therefore judicially ordered executions are uncivilized and barbaric."
That quote is from Les Bewley, a retired Vancouver criminal court judge and columnist for the magazine Canadian Lawyer. He also stated:
This contraption may sell, but only to those who have forgotten, or never knew, that civilization depends upon the rule of law-that code which prohibits antisocial, harmful and murderous acts under pain of punishment by a court of justice and denies to the individual the right to enforce his own justice, vengeance or revenge. To assert that execution is merely barbarism or revenge is to deny the very meaning and process of civilization and to murder reason itself.
The other argument is that capital punishment is murder. I have heard that not only on this side of the House but from members opposite as well.


Michael Morris Cassidy: That's what you said a minute ago.


William Henry (Bill) Domm: Let me tell the Hon. Member what Mr. Bewley said on the topic. He said;
"Murder is killing; execution is killing; therefore execution is murder." That's like: "Confining a person is unlawful; judges confine people, therefore judges are breaking the law"-The murderer is prosecutor, judge and jury, all without lawful authority. Only such killing can be called murder.
In absolute contrast, society provides an accused murderer with all the rights and safeguards he has denied to his victim. If then, after proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, society sentences him to death, that is not murder; it is as far from unlawful killing as it is possible to get. To call this murder is to speak a lot of nonsense.
Let me tell Hon. Members that that quote is also from Les Bewley and is contained in Canadian Lawyer. The article appeared in The Globe and Mail on March 19, 1987.
I also want to read Hon. Members one little article which I think can say it best. I worked over the weekend trying to figure out where we got where we are, why we are not satisfied-


Michael Morris Cassidy: Because of people like you is why.


William Henry (Bill) Domm: -that the vote in 1976-when I say "we" I mean the Canadian people. You might not represent the Canadian people.


Michael Morris Cassidy: I certainly do.


Mr. Stewart:: No, you don't, look at the percentages.


William Henry (Bill) Domm: I am telling you that the Canadian people-

April 27, 1987
Capital Punishment


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order, please. I know that this will be a very charged-up debate. The Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Cassidy) will have an opportunity for questions or comments after the Hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr. Domm) finishes speaking, as will the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Keeper). Please allow the Hon. Member to carry on with his remarks.


Cyril Keeper: Then restrain him, too.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The Hon. Member for Peterborough.


Cyril Keeper: Then ask him to stop questioning our integrity if you want quiet in this place.


William Henry (Bill) Domm: The article continues:
Because Canadian criminal courts have become increasingly unable to deal quickly and effectively with crime and with criminals-
That is part of the main reason why we are here today. The article goes on:
We are, in Canada, rapidly and surely approaching the hamstrung, obstructed and hapless state of the administration of justice in the United States.
Our systems of justice and corrections now display almost every symptom of the illnesses the U.S. systems suffer from-
We are arriving, as Americans have arrived, at this disgraceful and unendurable state because, over the past 20 years, a spurious, dangerous, onesided debate about the nature and direction of law, order, crime and punishment has been allowed to go on-
Imprisoned crooks, pushers and murderers are also frequently interviewed and quoted at length on their "expert" views that it is society, not they, which should be tried and convicted-
The appalled witnesses and victims who manage to survive are usually too angry, frightened, dismayed, disgusted or ashamed to qualify, or be accepted by the media or the governments, as "experts"-
Plea-bargaining-the venereal disease of any system of criminal justice and the distinctive sore now on the U.S. system-once almost unheard of in Canadian courts, is now common to them. The joyful, semi-secret grapplings and couplings of defence counsel and Crown attorneys are performed daily, to their audible moans of delight and loud cries for "more"-
Parole, and temporary absence programs from prisons, sanctified by parliament-


Cyril Keeper: Stick to the issue!


William Henry (Bill) Domm: -and vigorously employed by regiments of corrections bureaucrats-


Cyril Keeper: What about the rule of relevance?


Mr. Winegard:: Shut up!


William Henry (Bill) Domm: -demonstrate a thinly veiled but effective contempt for the judicial function and have now almost devalued and debased the judicial coinage-
In that event, why not be a nice, warm, progressive, exciting (even trendy) judge and toss out absolute and conditional discharges-like confetti at a wedding?
Citizens of Canada triple-lock their doors, return to and cower behind medieval walled or guarded residences, abandon their streets and parks to thugs, hooligans and criminals, arm themselves with cans of mace and lead pipes and attend night classes in the martial arts.
Add to that the rise of vigilanteism here in Canada, which I do not support, and I have a difficult job trying to explain why people in Canada will give from their pockets their hard-earned cash to store-owners who try to defend property and life against criminals. What causes that?
The article continues:
How pathetic, how absurd, how shameful, how infuriating-how unnecessary-when one recalls that the first duty of the state is to protect its law-abiding citizens.
The thin blue line of peace officers, baffled and frustrated, represses its anger and says, all too often and all too dangerously, "what's the use?" So do more and more judges.
This particular judge has had it. Long before his time of retirement in the City of Vancouver he sent in his letter which said: "I quit." He quit because of the policies of the judicial system in Canada. We as parliamentarians are responsible for the mess that the country is in because we have sat back for decades and have allowed convicted, planned, deliberate murderers parole, not in 25 years but in 15 years. Do Hon. Members realize that today nine people who were on death row prior to 1976 are now coming up for parole? It is for parole after 15 years. They were sentenced to death and were on death row in 1976 and are now eligible to go before a judicial review to recommend parole before a parole board.
Let me tell you, these criminal lawyers-and there are some in this House of Commons-are working toward judicial review. And why do you think criminal lawyers want a judicial review? Why do they not want the Canadian Parole Board to make the decision on behalf of the people? The Canadian Parole Board is appointed by the Government and as such is accountable to the people.


An Hon. Member:: So is the judge.


William Henry (Bill) Domm: The judiciary are there until retirement.


An Hon. Member:: They are put there by the Government.


William Henry (Bill) Domm: They are there until retirement, unless they choose to quit, as was the case with the judge that 1 have quoted extensively, an individual who was also a writer of law journals. After 21 years as a magistrate and a judge of the British Columbia Provincial Court (Criminal Division) and six years before his statutory retirement, this individual wrote the provincial secretary, as the law requires, to advise him that, as of April 30, 1981, he was quitting.
The abolitionists say that there is no problem with homicides in Canada; none whatsoever. Let me tell you that when you break down the homicide rate-


Svend Johannes Robinson: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The Hon. Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson) on a point of order.
April 27, 1987


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, 1 think perhaps the Hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr. Domm) would like to advise the House that the judge in question also said that women have no brains before the age of 30. It is the same judge-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: That is not a point of order. The Hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr. Domm) has the floor.


William Henry (Bill) Domm: I predict two things today-and these are not matters that I came to lightly. I predict, first, that Parliament will be required to amend the Criminal Code, bringing in stiffer penalties, including capital punishment in certain circumstances, as a result of this debate; and secondly, I predict that, if the Senate refuses to pass the Criminal Code amendments as passed by the elected representatives of the people, supported by the majority of the Canadian people, the Government will embark on a program of major Senate reform, urged by the Canadian people to do just that.
In our parliamentary system of Government, the Government has the responsibility to represent constituents. When it comes to an issue of conscience, I realize the difficulties involved. I was raised as an abolitionist, the son of a United Church minister. I know the positions taken by abolitionists, and I respect those positions. What bothers me is that the abolitionists tend, very often, to personalize the debate, going so far as to call those who do not agree with them antiChristian.
I have yet to hear a retentionist in Canada call another church leader anti-Christian because of that leader's support for abolition. Why do the abolitionists persist in this low-level debate, personalizing positions rather than discussing conscience?
A question raised earlier today was: Is there any deterrence effect in having capital punishment on the books?


Some Hon. Members:: No.


William Henry (Bill) Domm: I can give you the names of 14 people who would be alive today, innocent people who would be alive today, had that first-time murderer been executed.
Those are 14 crimes that would have been prevented. For those who bring up the half-way house case in Ottawa, the Sweeney case-I am not dealing with Sweeney because it is now under appeal-I remind those individuals that the father of the victim in that case is a determined and devout abolitionist, and I respect that position. But the mother of that girl who was raped and murdered in the half-way house now supports capital punishment. That is something that should be mentioned. The mother of that girl went on national television to voice her support for capital punishment.
Just this past month, we have learned of a series of chainsaw murders in Montreal. We had 17 pieces found of one victim of a chain-saw murder.
Capital Punishment
I am sick to death of reading in our newspapers and hearing on radio and television about the suffering of someone who was executed. What about the 11 children in British Columbia who were raped and murdered and then buried along the highway? What about the Montreal victim whose body was cut up into 17 pieces? What about the young girl who was raped and murdered in the half-way house? What about Eli Guay? What about the six convicted murderers who, having been paroled, murdered again? What about the judges? What about the jurors? What about these judicial reviews?
If an individual, having gone through all of the steps in our criminal justice system, is found guilty of first-degree murder, that individual should be executed. We do not have one known case of wrongful execution in Canada since Confederation. No such case has ever been produced to me. Yet, I can produce dozens of names of innocent people who have been murdered as a result of the judicial review process. The same judiciary who say we should not execute because we may execute the wrong person have caused, indirectly, the murder of dozens of innocent people because of their judgment as to who should and who should not be paroled.
Is it more ethical to be bigoted when it comes to judicial review than when it comes to murder? I support capital punishment for planned, deliberate, premeditated murder; murder arising from a hijacking or hostage-taking incident; contract killers, hired guns; and for serial killers. As well, I support capital punishment for the killing of police officers and law enforcement agents, and prison guards.
Until this debate ends, whenever it ends, I will be fighting for the return of capital punishment for those six offences. I am prepared to produce, name for name, those in support versus those opposed. I think the people need to be heard, and the Government needs to respond. This Government, the Progressive Conservative Government, has shown some responsibility in this respect. This will be the first true free vote on this matter since Confederation. All of the other "free votes" had solid blocks of cabinet Ministers voting for abolition. We have one individual sitting in this House who was a member of the Cabinet at the time of the last "free vote" on capital punishment, and he at that time, notwithstanding that he was a retentionist, voted for abolition as part of the cabinet block of votes; and I can give you the names of two others who were in a similar circumstance in 1976. Had those three individuals voted for retention in 1976, we would still have capital punishment on the books today. All we needed were three more votes, and we had three supporters of capital punishment who voted for abolition. These three individuals polled their constituents and came out and said they supported capital punishment, and in fact spoke in support of it. Yet, as part of the cabinet block of votes, they voted against it.
The Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Mulroney) has now offered the Canadian people the opportunity to have their elected representatives cast a free vote on this question. The elected representatives of this country are responsible to their

April 27, 1987
Capital Punishment
conscience, their constituents, and their Party. I am proud of the Progressive Conservative Party for allowing this question to be debated; I am proud of the Party for allowing members of Cabinet to vote as they see fit. I respect the abolitionists, and I expect the same in return. This is a debate which should not be personalized.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Questions or comments. The Hon. Member for York Centre (Mr. Kaplan).


Mr. Kaplan:: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr. Domm) has stated, categorically, that he has knowledge of 14 lives that could have been saved had capital punishment been imposed in the first instance. The Hon. Member has said that he could provide us with those names. If delicacy prevents him from providing us with the names themselves, perhaps he might just outline for us the circumstances, such that we will at least have an insight into what it is he is driving at.


William Henry (Bill) Domm: What we now have available to us, from the Department of the Solicitor General, Statistics Canada and the Department of Justice, are the statistics from 1960 to 1979, and those statistics indicate that those persons murdered in our penal institutions at the rate of one every 50 days. We also have available to us the names of convicted murderers who, having been sentenced to a penal institution for murder, murdered again while incarcerated.
In addition, I have with me information on six convicted murderers who, having been released on parole or mandatory supervision, murdered again. As well, there is one that I cannot use, as it is under appeal.
The statistics will bear out the figures that I have given, and I would be pleased to supply those figures. If it is the wish of the House that I table them, I shall be glad to do so.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr. Domm) a question with respect to the timing for this debate.
In introducing the motion in the House this morning, the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Lewis) took direct issue with the suggestion that was made by the Hon. Member for Peterborough with respect to the June 30 deadline imposed by him on this very important and very fundamental debate, a debate which has to do with the kind of society we in Canada want.
The Hon. Parliamentary Secretary suggested to the Hon. Member for Peterborough that he was quite wrong in attacking the Government by saying that if this resolution were not adopted in the House by June 30, his Government and his Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) would look weak and vacillating in the eyes of the Canadian public.
Has the Hon. Member for Peterborough now had a chance, after hearing the words of the Parliamentary Secretary, to
reflect upon what he said earlier? Is it still his view that if the House should not adopt the resolution by June 30, it would be a sign that his Prime Minister and his Government are in fact weak and vacillating on the issue? Is that still his position?


William Henry (Bill) Domm: Mr. Speaker, let me make it abundantly clear that it was the statement of the Deputy Prime Minister's office, as quoted in the paper at the time we delayed the debate from March until April, that it was still the intent of the Government to deal with this issue before the end of June and bring back within 90 days a report to Parliament on the proposed amendments-when capital punishment would be applied and which type of execution method would be used.
I stand firm on what I said. I feel we have set our own timetable. It must be obvious to anyone watching the debate, or anyone who has followed it with any amount of interest over the past number of months, that the New Democratic Party has only one objective, that is, to filibuster, delay, and not make it possible to put the vote. We have offered every opportunity to both the NDP and the Official Opposition to cause the debate to end as quickly as possible. We have offered to stay late at night, sit weekends, or limit speeches to 15 minutes, and they turned down every opportunity to limit the debate and get on with the vote.


Mr. Orlikow:: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Hon. Member. I wish the Hon. Member would accord as much right to differ with him on this issue to members who oppose capital punishment as those of us who oppose capital punishment accord to him, the right to his belief in capital punishment.
With the exception of the United States, every democratic country of which I know has refused capital punishment, such as Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Germany, France, Belgium, Holland, Spain, Australia, and New Zealand. I will also mention Great Britain and Israel, two countries which are constantly facing the real threat of actual assassinations of people in their countries. All those countries have refused to have capital punishment as part of their judicial system.
Why is it that the Hon. Member, instead of thinking that we should follow their example, wants us to follow the example of communist countries and countries with military dictatorships, all of which have capital punishment?


William Henry (Bill) Domm: Mr. Speaker, I think we should point out first that the United Kingdom still has capital punishment for acts of treason in its Criminal Code. I think we should also point out that Canada still has capital punishment in our military law. The Hon. Member should know this. He should not even have asked the question because one of his members has a Private Members' Bill to abolish it from our code in military law.
I think he should also know about the situation in the United States where they have returned to capital punishment. If we add up all the states which have capital punishment and take the average per year over the last five years, we see that those
April 27, 1987

states have had decreases in their homicide rates at a much faster clip than the other states. The good news is that in the United States, where they returned to executions in 1977, they have had an annual decrease in not only the number of homicides from 23,000 per year down to 17,800 last year, for which complete figures are available, but they have decreased 23 per cent in their homicide rates. We do not enjoy that luxury, except in the occasional year when we have a drop, and then it goes back up.
We had the largest number of homicides in Canada in 1985. There were 700 and some homicides in Canada. That is nothing to be proud of. In the United States it is going down at the rate of 23 per cent.


Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr. Domm) has listed a series of crimes which he believes warrant capital punishment. Does he not think that instead of having this debate on the opportunity of reinstating capital punishment, it would be better to examine the possibility of implementing a full employment policy so that we might reduce the number of starving people, and of youths resorting to prostitution, or getting into drugs and then having to shoplift and go on to hold-ups? Does he really think capital punishment is a deterrent for criminals, and does he not remember that in Chicago, at the time of A1 Capone and his gang, it was not the death penalty that put an end to the massacres, but the Income Tax Act that sent those people to jail? And as a last question to the Hon. Member, since he is in favour of reinstating capital punishment, would he be ready to act as the hangman to execute those he wants put to death?


William Henry (Bill) Domm: Mr. Speaker, I think I should take the time to point out that during the time the Liberals were in office violence in Canada or violent crimes rose in 1962 from 41,000, according to a Statistics Canada report, to 179,000 when they lost office in 1984.
What is he telling me about the reason for the violent crime increase being as astronomical as that? What about attempted murders during their time in office? They rose from 83 in 1962, as reported by Statistics Canada, to 922 in one year, in 1984. What did they do about reform in our justice system? What did they do about our parole system and mandatory supervision?
1 suggest that the Hon. Member should start looking in the mirror. The reason we are in a mess today is because of their inadequacy in dealing with criminals and major capital offences, and now first degree murder. The first degree murder rate in Canada has gone up from 202 in 1980 to 300 and some in 1985.


Svend Johannes Robinson: What about 1986?


William Henry (Bill) Domm: It dropped in 1986, but those were only temporary figures. What about the 329 people, homicides, all
Capital Punishment
of whom went down in the Air India air crash? Not one of them was reported by Statistics Canada.
If we add that 329 figure to the homicide rate, we would have the highest homicide rate in Canadian history. The Indian investigation has already determined that the crash was caused from an explosion in the luggage compartment, which makes Canada fully responsible. It is our homicide rate. There were deaths, and they do not even appear in the Statistics Canada homicide figures for 1985 or 1986. However, they will appear and we will catch up.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I will recognize the Hon. Member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom) and the Hon. Member for Argenteuil-Papineau (Mrs. Bourgault), if we can get it in before five o'clock.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, I have been in the House since 1968. I have seen for most of the important debates public hearings on what the public thinks about the pros and cons of certain issues, be it the Crow debate or whatever.
Since the Hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr. Domm) talked about public opinion being so important, why would he not support a resolution which would allow a parliamentary committee to hear the pros and cons on capital punishment from the people of Canada? If this resolution passes, all this particular committee will do is hear opinions on offences and methods of executing people.
Why would he, as a long-time parliamentarian who respects the views of the country, of the church leaders, and so on, not want to have a committee to hear the pros and cons in principle on whether or not we should talk about bringing back capital punishment and then at a further stage talk about what offences or the way we should kill people?


William Henry (Bill) Domm: You obviously have not been around for the last few months because it was my motion which went before the Standing Committee on Justice and is still on the books-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The Hon. Member should address his remarks through the Chair, please.


William Henry (Bill) Domm: Mr. Speaker, I think it is important to point out that the Hon. Member, who asked the question about why I would not support an all-party committee to hear the reasons we should or should not have capital punishment, is out of touch with reality.
It was my motion which went before the committee. The committee is still dealing with it. However, we have a motion in the House which takes precedence over standing committees. The motion before the House would allow exactly that when we set up this 15-man committee to go across Canada during the summer-


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Fifteen-man?

April 27, 1987
Canadian Post-secondary Institutions


William Henry (Bill) Domm: -15-person committee to go across the country this summer to hear evidence on what offences we should have capital punishment for.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I regret to inform the Hon. Member for Argenteuil-Papineau that questions and comments are now terminated.
It being five o'clock, the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.
OO)


PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS-MOTIONS   EDUCATION ACCESS BY INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS TO POST-SECONDARY INSTITUTIONS
Hon. William Rompkey (Grand Falls-White Bay- Labrador) moved:: That, in the opinion of this House, in order to foster the development of other countries and to promote international understanding and in order to allow Canadian society to benefit to a greater extent academically, culturally, politically and financially, the government should consider the advisability of developing policies and implementing programs which provide greater access by international students to Canadian post-secondary institutions.
He said: Mr. Speaker, it is a great pleasure for me to speak to this motion. It is the first time I have been able to do so for a motion or a Bill of mine in the 15 years I have been in Parliament, so it is a bit of a thrill for me.
There has been a 43 per cent drop in the number of foreign students studying in Canada over the past five or six years. It has been a gradual decline and it is important that Canada do something to correct it for various reasons. First, all Canadian students to whom I have spoken from one end of Canada to the other support the presence in our universities of foreign students. They tell me that a dimension of their education would be lost if they did not have the company, the consultation and the comradeship of foreign students. They tell me it adds something special to their education and without it they have a diminished kind of education and will not be as well rounded in the kind of people they become. There is complete support from Canadian students for this particular motion and initiative. Canadian students tell me that they get good contacts for the future because they make friends from all over the world.
As well Canada makes friends all around the world. I have been to a number of countries, as we all have, and in many countries I have found leaders in business, industry, government and education who are graduates of Canadian universities. There is no better public relations exercise to give us the kind of influence and presence that we need today in various countries than former graduates of Canadian universities.
There is support as well for greater access by foreign students, not from the universities themselves. I remember the President of the University of Windsor speaking very eloquently on the need to increase the number of foreign students in Canada.
Indeed, Professor Reuben Green of the University of Windsor issued a paper showing not only that there are important intangible benefits to foreign students, but there are important tangible benefits because foreign students make future contributions to Canada economically and socially and also give an immediate infusion into the Canadian economy. Professor Green's study has shown that between $600 million and $700 million a year is injected into the Canadian economy directly by foreign students studying here. They all buy supplies and they all shop. They are all housed and they spend money here. There is a net pay-off to Canada in the long term and in the short-term. Improved international relations result as well. For all of these reasons it seems to me that in 1987 we should stop the decline of foreign students in Canadian universities for the reasons I have outlined, and we should start on the road in the opposite direction.
I would like to quote, if I may, from the Canadian Bureau for International Education which is interested in this topic. In some of the literature when speaking about their particular organization we find:
The National Consortium believes the Federal Government should work with provincial counterparts in the formulation of policies and programs which will increase Canada's capacity to market its educational services in the world and which will create greater access by foreign nationals to Canadian postsecondary institutions. The Federal Government should also take unilateral action now to provide to the provinces additional funding tied to elimination of differential fees-
That is an impediment. There are differential fees in a number of provinces. In other words, foreign students have to pay more than Canadian students. The elimination of differential fees will be important. This article continues that the National Consortium suggests that the federal Government should:
-expand the number of scholarships for developing countries, and remove bureaucratic disincentives to study in Canada (e.g. restrictions on part-time employment, cumbersome student authorization application and renewal procedures, inequitable taxation and mandatory contributions to CPP and UIC from which foreign students can derive no benefit).
The Canadian Bureau of International Education has put forward these suggestions which I think are eminently sensible and important. There are impediments to foreign students in Canada and the Government of Canada, and this Parliament, can have a direct role here. Education we know is a provincial responsibility but the impediments to foreign students studying in Canada are to a degree, and to too large a degree, federal. I remember in Windsor we talked to one professor who wanted to bring in a student from the West Indies to study in Canada. She was prepared to be the sponsor of that student yet six or eight months later there was still no movement even though the student was being sponsored by a professor.
The student was asked to give an understanding that she had $8,000 in the bank wherever she lived and had all other sorts
April 27, 1987

of red tape to go through before she could study in Canada. This is where the Government of Canada could help. It should help for the reasons I have given. It has a public relations value to Canada and as well because there is an immediate financial pay-off. Last, but by no means least, Canadian students and Canadian university professors, teachers and presidents all say there is a dimension of education here that will be lost unless we facilitate the entry of foreign students into our country.
I call upon the Government today through this motion, which I hope will be supported on both sides of the House, to devise a policy which would facilitate the entry of foreign students into Canada so that we can welcome them as citizens of the world. In helping them I believe in the long run we will help ourselves.


Mr. Jean-Guy Hudon (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, it is common knowledge that, for many years, the presence of students from other countries in Canadian post-secondary institutions has benefited Canadians in many ways. Other statements made in the course of this debate have pointed to the diversity of the programs set up over the years to attract students to Canada or to encourage those who cannot take part in our programs.
The number of foreign students in Canada at the end of the seventies and beginning of the eighties increased considerably, culminating at all levels during the academic year 1983-84. Since then, Mr. Speaker, there has been a regular drop in numbers at most, but not all levels.
Similarly, the number of students enrolled at the postsecondary level has dropped in most, but not all regions. There is no simple explanation for this decline, but tuition fees and the cost of room and board are obviously a decisive factor.
Canada does not have a monopoly on this situation. In fact, the drop in the movement of students between Commonwealth nations has been so obvious that a special task force was set up to study student mobility. That unique multilateral organization is concerned in particular with the potential impact of such a decline on itself.
Canada tried to meet those concerns, which probably will be expressed again at the meeting of Commonwealth Education Ministers scheduled for next July in Nairobi. One of the solutions was to increase from 300 to 500 the number of scholarships offered under the Canadian Commonwealth scholarship and development bursaries program. It should be noted that a very large majority of those scholarships are destined to Commonwealth developing nations and can therefore serve directly the goal referred to by the opposition Member, which is to foster development in other countries.
Canada also is very closely monitoring the work of Lord Brigg's Committee, which is looking at possibilities for education from a distance as a means of fostering development and improving understanding internationally or within the Commonwealth. Briefly stated, we want to examine not only
Canadian Post-secondary Institutions
traditional methods, such as scholarships, to reach the goals indicated in the motion but also-and with similar goals-all new methods involving technologies in which Canada is a leader,
The Commonwealth, Mr. Speaker, is not the only multilateral forum in which Canada has an interest, nor the only one to be interested in matters such as student mobility. This is why the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney), at the Paris Summit, announced a new program of scholarships for French-speaking nations. Under that program, Canada will provide 350 scholarships to developing Francophonie nations, at a cost of $6 million. Also, we are looking at the possibility of setting up a remote education system to support development needs in those countries and to strenghten the links between Frenchspeaking nations on the basis of better mutual understanding.
In view of the importance of foreign students not only to multilateral institutions such as the Commonwealth but also the Canadian education institutions and all the Governments concerned, both provincial and federal, that decline is a cause for concern. Steps that could stop or reverse that decline are the subject of various proposals that were submitted for instance to Parliamentary committees. Concern has been expressed over various aspects of the time spent by students in our universities and colleges. Various matters were raised concerning the overall environment in which they live and study, and also the rules and procedures that apply to them.
For those reasons, Mr. Speaker, in November, the Government stated, in answer to the Special Joint Committee, it would launch an in-depth study of foreign student policies and programs. This detailed review, which is currently being carried out, takes into account all aspects of our national interests affected by the presence of foreign students in our teaching institutions. It deals also with the most immediate and practical issues concerned with the way to look after the students, from their very first contact with the Canadian authorities until the end of their stay in Canada and their returning home.
I should remind Hon. Members that education and teaching institution policies are provincial responsibilities. The provincial Government and the teaching institutions have expressed the same concerns as we have about the reduction in the number of students. The Council of Ministers of Education, Canada, presented, in November of last year, a very useful report in two volumes about foreign student related issues. This document provides not only a general review of the issues, but also quite extensive data on foreign students, as well as federal and provincial policies and programs.
The Council of Ministers of Education, Canada is also carrying out a review of issues under provincial jurisdiction concerning foreign students. Federal and provincial authorities are keeping in touch while these reviews are progressing.
I can assure Hon. Members that the Government, once this review is completed, will clearly define the goals and objectives

April 27, 1987
Canadian Post-secondary Institutions
which it deems appropriate concerning this major element of our external relations.
It will also make comments about the various means to ensure a greater access to our post-secondary institutions through policies and programs implemented at the federal level, as well as define the possible means to encourage such an access.


Ms. Lynn McDonald (Broadview-Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate the Hon. Member for Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador (Mr. Rompkey) for introducing this motion today. I can certainly assure him of my full support and the support of my caucus for the motion which deals with an extremely important matter and which reads as follows:
That, in the opinion of this House, in order to foster the development of other countries and to promote international understanding and in order to allow Canadian society to benefit to a greater extent academically, culturally, politically and financially, the government should consider the advisability of developing policies and implementing programs which provide greater access by international students to Canadian post-secondary institutions.
Unfortunately, we know that access by international students to Canadian universities and colleges has declined in recent years. There are a number of economic and regulatory reasons for this.
I had the benefit of being an international student at the University of London. I can certainly attest personally to the great benefit it was for me to have received my graduate education in England. I attended an international college which meant that I met students from all over the world. That was an excellent experience for me and is something on which I can fall back for information and contacts. As a university teacher in Canadian universities and indeed a teacher in Europe on a brief sabbatical, I know of the immense contribution international students make. Canadian students going to Canadian universities learn something of the world by having a chance to mix with international students. It is something that we very much want to promote.
The means for promoting this are not adequate. Canada has a budget for overseas development assistance and we have made commitments, although I am sorry to say that we have fallen back on the commitment to increase overseas development assistance up to .7 per cent of GNP. We are not there yet and we are not moving very quickly toward that but nevertheless, we do have commitments to overseas development. We do spend money on education in developing countries. However, the amount of money we spend educating international students in Canada is extremely small. Considering the excellence of our Canadian universities and the contribution they could be making to development, I think it is very much too small indeed.
Scholarship support by Canada for developing countries in 1985-86 represented only .3 per cent of Canada's total overseas development appropriation and amounted to only $7.9 million. This is a very small sum of money when we consider
what we could be doing. Canada provides roughly 1,500 scholarships to developing countries every year whereas a number of other countries are much more generous in the support they give. The United Kingdom, the United States and Japan each provide nearly 20,000 scholarships per year. We are very far behind even though we are certainly able to contribute, and of course we would benefit from the participation of international students at our universities.
Apart from our desire to aid development, there are of course benefits for Canada itself. Mention has already been made of the economic benefits of students coming to Canada and of course the very long-term benefits to Canadians who make contacts. These contacts can be useful later to students who become Parliamentarians, business people, professionals and researchers. We live on a planet, we do not simply live in our own country. These contacts are beneficial to Canada. There should be a network of people who actually know each other personally who are active in Governments and the economic, political and cultural lives of their countries. These people will know Canada and will come here when they want to purchase goods and services, when they want to award contracts of various sorts and when they want to work with us collectively on some political project or other. They will see us and know us as friends. These kinds of contacts will bear fruit for many years.
Apart from the fact we do not give a large number of scholarships to foreign students, we have to realize that of those international students who do come to Canada, a disproportionate number are from the richer countries. They may be Third World countries, but obviously there is an enormous difference in wealth between countries in the Third World. Our programs have not benefited the poorest countries. For overseas development assistance to be realistic, education is crucial, and we could be doing a great deal more than we have. We also have to be sensitive to the needs of the countries in the poorer parts of the Third World and the enormous pressures on them. They have had to take over and fund education systems. They are in crisis now with debts to pay. Some countries have natural disasters to deal with and in many instances have had to cut back on their own education systems. This would be an absolutely ideal opportunity for us to show some sensitivity and see that our aid actually gets to those who need it the most. That is simply not the case right now.
According to a study by the Canadian Bureau for International Education, there has been a 23 per cent decline in the number of international students at the post-secondary level in Canada in the past two academic years. Furthermore, only 5 per cent of our international students come from the leastdeveloped countries. In 1985 Canada provided scholarships to nationals from such rich countries as France, the Federal Republic of Germany, and Japan, but not to nationals from Chad, Madagascar, Burma or Equatorial Guinea, which are among the world's poorest countries. Here we really do see the
April 27, 1987

need to adapt our policies to face the reality of the world at the present time.
The last time I raised in this House the need for development assistance for students in post-secondary education, I received a letter from a constituent of mine raising a concern that I am sure many people have. The student asked why we were so concerned about the problems of international students when students here in Canada have enough problem going to university. She pointed out that by the time she graduated with a Bachelor of Arts degree she would be facing a debt of $6,000. We know that some students have debts higher than that. She pointed to the sacrifices she had to make to go to university and is concerned that this is perhaps an either/or situation; we can only help Canadians or international students but not both.
I simply want to say to people like her that it is not an either/or situation at all. We have a separate budget for overseas development. We have made a public moral commitment and it is a question of how we use the money. The question of how we deal with our own students has been raised in this House many times. We have talked about the inadequacy of student loans and bursaries and so forth, and the need for reform. The provinces need to be doing their share as well in making post-secondary education accessible to people of all income levels in Canada. It is not an either/or situation. Canada will benefit from having these international students here and we must address both the question of Canadian students and international students.
To conclude, I very much welcome the resolution introduced by the Hon. Member for Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador. I assure him of the support of my caucus for measures which would increase participation by international students in Canadian institutions.


John Henry Reimer: Mr. Speaker, I am glad the Hon. Member for Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador (Mr. Rompkey) brought this motion before the House. I think it is a very good motion and its intent is very important. The policy recommendations that would flow from it if it were adopted would have a very desirable effect. I commend the Hon. Member for the motion.
I believe that the presence of international students in our universities, colleges and training institutions right across Canada is very desirable for many reasons. It is good for Canadian education as well as for those who come from overseas to further their studies here in Canada. This kind of interchange is an essential part of Canada's role in the world. It is one way we take part in the flow of ideas between societies. It is one of the dimensions of Canada's life as an active and open and responsible member of the global community. As a teacher at Conestoga College in Kitchener, my own personal experience was that we were all enriched by the presence in our classes of overseas students. We benefited from their experience and the way in which they sometimes saw things from a different perspective.
In the brief time I have I would like to deal not with students from the U.S., Europe or other industrialized countries, but with those who come from the Third World,
Canadian Post-secondary Institutions
particularly under the auspices of Canada's aid program. I am particularly interested in this topic as a member of the Standing Committee on External Affairs and International Trade. We have been studying overseas development aid since last May. We have heard representations from people right across Canada. We have heard representations about the subject of this very motion. That is, that Canada has slowly been decreasing its commitment to bringing more and more students here. The numbers are falling, yet the ability to do more is there. I am distressed by this fact and that is why I support this motion. However, our past record, despite the fact that the number of students coming to Canada has been declining, has largely been positive.
There are literally thousands of people in key positions in Third World countries who have benefited greatly by their training here in Canada, mainly under scholarship and training programs financed through the Canadian International Development Agency or the External Aid Office before CIDA was created. These people include cabinet Ministers and senior decision-makers in the public and private sector in country after country, in Asia, Africa and the Americas. I do not think there is any doubt that the funding Canada provided to enable such people to prepare themselves for positions of responsibility represents a very wise investment. It has enabled those students to return home and contribute to their development.
It is also a matter of enlightened Canadian self-interest. These students constitute an important network of people in the developing world who know something about Canada. They are familiar with our goods and our way of doing business. Perhaps most importantly, through their contacts here they have learned from other students who have become leaders in their own country. They have developed a very important network and vast reservoir of friends and acquaintances in this country. When they go home they are well disposed to work with us in various business ventures, in the international forum of the UN, or in development projects in their own or neighbouring countries.
In 1985 some 3,300 students and trainees from Third World countries were here in Canada under the auspices of CIDA. To a large extent and in a very real way they are the friends and acquaintances Canada will need in the Third World in years to come, whether that is 10, 20, or 30 years down the road. Our children will be dealing with a very changed world and different economic and political patterns in which today's developing countries may well find themselves playing a much more central role. I hope the experience that they, this year's complement of Third World trainees and students, and next year's have as our guests will equip them to play valuable roles in the development of their homelands and that they will be well received by their fellow students here and the communities they live in during their studies so that they will learn about Canada and take good memories home with them when they leave.

April 27, 1987
Canadian Post-secondary Institutions
However, we must remember that the students we welcome to Canada are only a fraction of those whom we are helping to prepare as our contribution to world development. There are others whom we never see who are being trained in their own countries or in facilities available in their own part of the world under conditions much closer to those they will actually work in.
The fact is that the approach to training has changed quite drastically over recent years to take account of lessons learned from experience and to get the best possible impact out of the limited number of dollars available for aid programs. Some of these lessons have been negative. We have learned, for example, that taking students out of a poor country with many social, economic, and political problems and putting them for a number of years into a very rich country such as ours with all of our facilities and opportunities is not always the best way to overcome the brain drain which occurs from Third World countries to others.
It is a simple fact of life that when they study here for four or five years or more they would want to stay. That is a factor which we must take into account. It is a problem for both them and us. Our purpose is to assist them so that they can return home and be of assistance to their own people.
We have also learned that, while we have excellent universities and colleges here in Canada, their expertise is not always relevant to what the developing countries need. To put the lesson in more positive terms, we have seen a number of developing countries advance very strongly in the field of education to the point where they can take care of a large part of their own needs in the area of general university education so that it is no longer essential for large numbers of their students to go abroad for undergraduate training. We have gained the wisdom to realize that in a great many situations the best training and the right training is training carried out at home within institutions of their own country or region and in the context of the society that they know and hope to develop.
The fact is that the whole question of education and training within the framework of development co-operation is much more complex than it once seemed. Most of the answers involve providing opportunities in the countries where the skills are needed. We have to develop a whole range of training, not only university education, but many kinds of technical training, the acquisition of skills needed in the context of various development projects, and the development of institutions which are essential to national development in the countries with which we are co-operating.
When the Committee on External Affairs and International Trade visited Africa late last November and early last December members were struck by the fact that the skills required by these people are basic maintenance and management skills rather than PhDs.
Most of our effort is, as it should be, beyond our borders and involves finding new ways of providing our help such as links between Canadian and Chinese universities and institutions through which Canada is playing a substantial role in the process of human resource development in China. Another example is the arrangement by which Ontario Hydro will help to train several hundred officials and technicians of the Egyptian Electricity Authority.
In conclusion, I think the thrust of this motion is very good. The Committee on External Affairs and International Trade has been reviewing this since last June, as I indicated earlier. It will be reporting to the House this June. A part of that report, I hope, will contain a large measure of recommendations for human resource development along the lines of that which the member has introduced here today. I am confident that it will.


Mr. Richard Grise (Chambly):: Mr. Speaker, I rejoice at the interest expressed by the Hon. Member for Grand Falls- White Bay-Labrador (Mr. Rompkey) in seeing Canada play a greater role in the development of international cultural relations. Indeed we can all support the objectives mentioned in his motion "to foster the development of other countries and to promote international understanding". Similarly the benefits which Canada stands to gain from academic, cultural, political and financial viewpoints-benefits which, according to him, can be obtained through our pursuit of such objectives-are considerable and justify serious measures on the part of the Government.
Mr. Speaker, I take this opportunity to inform the House that indeed this kind of program already exists in the riding of Chambly which I have the honour to represent. Once again, Mr. Speaker, we are leading the way in these cultural and intellectual exchanges, particularly at the school of aerotechnics, the only junior college in Canada where students are trained in the sector of aerotechnics, and soon in aeronautics as well. I also want to stress the importance which Pratt & Whitney management attach to these exchanges. Representatives of their clients in practically every country of the world come to their training centre and the Chambly School of Aerotechnics, in Saint-Hubert more specifically, to enable those people to learn new techniques, and inversely for them to become familiar with the difficulties these people may face.
In response to this motion, I should like to refer to a program which, in my opinion, proved to be one of the particularly strong impetus in achieving these objectives, namely the Department of External Affairs international relations program in education. As opposition Members are aware, the Government has approved an increase in funding for international cultural relations. An initial increase became effective during the last financial year, and the increase will be sustained during the next three financial years. The program budget for this sector is expected to double.
April 27, 1987

The decision has already caused an increase in the number of bursaries under the Canadian Government's bursary program for academics at the master's, doctorate and postdoctorate level, from the Federal Republic of Germany, Italy, The Netherlands, Japan, Mexico and Brazil. The program also provides bursaries for students from 15 other countries. In addition, it seems the Department of External Affairs has started discussions with several other countries in Asia and Latin America with a view to expanding the scope of the program.
The program is based strictly on reciprocity. In other words, for every bursary offered by Canada to another country, we expect that country to reciprocate with a bursary for one of our own promising students. Furthermore, the program is structured in a way to ensure that the beneficiary has a specific reason for studying in Canada rather than the United States or another country. The reason could be that the student's study program focuses on Canada, its history, literature, and so forth, or on an area in which Canada has special expertise or has an international reputation, such as telecommunications technology or computer science. Recently, we have seen what a company like Cascades Paper has been able to accomplish at the international level.
These rules help to ensure that the foreign student is able to receive in Canada the best of what we have to offer. And of course, Mr. Speaker, anyone going through the riding of Chambly will get the best of what we have to offer here in Canada. In every case, especially in the case of countries like Mexico, Brazil or Egypt, students can acquire the kind of expertise and knowledge they can put to good use in pursuing the development of their own country. During his or her stay in one of our universities, the student cannot help but acquire a better appreciation and understanding of Canada. Similarly, Canadian students who get reciprocal bursaries come back home with a more mature understanding of the world, and certainly a better judgment and also a better knowledge of the country where they studied. Their expertise can only be to the advantage of Canada. In short, this program which is being expanded to include more bursaries and more countries, contributes very directly to two stated objectives: encourage development and promote international understanding.
Another important program in External Affairs contributes directly to the stated objectives and provides enormous advantages for Canada. This program helps Canadian studies abroad, that is to say that it encourages foreign institutions and professors to increase education, research and publications about Canada. Hon. Members might recall that in the field of research and education, the Ministerial Task Force on Program Review had indicated that, in order to demonstrate the increased interest of Canada for other nations and to reinforce our relations with them, it would seem appropriate to broaden the scope of these programs. In fact, the Government's decision to increase the education budget of international relations programs will permit this. I understand, for example, that programs designed to help Canadian studies
Canadian Post-secondary Institutions
will be initiated this year in other countries in Asia and Latin America. These efforts will complement those already undertaken in Japan, the United States and Western Europe. In fact, there are now 13 foreign associations of Canadian studies, representing 20 countries. While, barely 10 years ago, some 20,000 students throughout the world were taking courses on Canada, Mr. Speaker, it is felt today that, in the United States alone, over 20,000 students are taking courses every year on what is taking place in Canada.
The fact that foreign universities are offering programs on Canadian studies and other subjects concerning relations and common interests between Canada and their own country contributes very directly to the promotion of improved international understanding.
Some could question the so-called economic advantages of such programs for Canada. It is significant that according to an analysis of Canadian study expenses in the United States, for every dollar which the Canadian Government grants to the American community for Canadian studies, the latter spends $3 in Canada. This means a ratio of $1 for $3 invested in Canada to reinforce Canadian studies at home. The nature of these expenses is particularly noteworthy, considering that a large percentage of these are made for magazines, specialized publications and Canadian literary or university books. In other words, thanks to these ventures, we are creating a market for our own cultural and university production, thereby reinforcing the position of our cultural industries.
In view of that, it would seem that the goals set forth by the opposition Member and the potential benefits for Canada can be achieved by measures such as the promotion of Canadian studies abroad, rather than an increase in the number of foreign students in Canada. In other words, bringing Canada to the student may be just as efficient if not more efficient than bringing the student over to study in Canada.
At any rate, it is my conviction, Mr. Speaker, that those comments prove the Government not only realized the value of university exchanges but implemented realistic, sensible and extremely efficient programs to support those exchanges.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, I would like once more to emphasize the importance of those exchanges to give our graduates new horizons, new opportunities in order that they become better ambassadors for this country, and at the same time that Canada may better know what is going on elsewhere, in other countries, in order to improve our already excellent external relations with the majority of countries.


Roland de Corneille: Mr. Speaker, the motion put forward by the Hon. Member for Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador (Mr. Rompkey) reads:
That, in the opinion of this House, in order to foster the development of other countries and to promote international understanding and in order to allow Canadian society to benefit to a greater extent academically, culturally, politically and financially, the government should consider the advisability of developing policies and implementing programs which provide greater access by international students to Canadian post-secondary institutions.

April 27, 1987
Canadian Post-secondary Institutions
That motion is extremely reasonable in light of the studies which have been conducted by the Standing Committee on External Affairs. It certainly fits into the experiences we have had as we researched this matter across the country.
Having served as the Liberal critic for the Secretary of State for two years and as Chairman of the National Liberal Task Force with my colleague, the Member for Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador (Mr. Rompkey), I have devoted considerable time and study to our post-secondary educational system in Canada.
In the course of this examination we received submissions from 160 individuals and organizations. We listened to people from all across Canada, including students, professors, university and college administrators, parents and alumni. People from one end of the country to the other have a concern about the condition of the post-secondary educational system but, interestingly enough, despite their preoccupation with that area they also showed great concern to bring to our attention the subject of international students.
Whether we listen to presidents of universities like Dr. Bill Saywell of Simon Fraser at one end of the country, or Dr. Andrew MacKay from Dalhousie at the other end of the country, or Dr. Ron Ianni, President of Windsor University, and to presidents all across the country, they have all expressed a deep concern about the problems facing international students in our country.
Of course, this involves the fact that there are certain fees which must be paid by foreign students which are greater than those fees paid by Canadians. It may be an initial thought that this is only fair, since they are coming from a foreign country and taking advantage of our universities. However, when we consider the question in more detail we find that those university students abroad enrich our country, not only by their presence or culture, but economically.
Various studies have been made on this matter, but I think that a summary which was made by the Vancouver Board of Trade, in a study into this entire matter, is extremely revealing. It brings to our attention the fact that international students bring us riches financially and economically as well as in many other ways.
The Board of Trade says that it is estimated that there were 53,500 foreign students in Canada during 1985-86. According to these statistics, it is projected that their presence will contribute over $500 million to the Canadian economy, with roughly $400 million of this amount originating outside Canada. Therefore, it is clear that the education in Canada of students from other countries is a significant, "invisible export", contributing in the order of $400 million to Canada's balance of payments. In other words, international students in our country are a kind of industry, an industry that brings to us economic reward and gain. It is not as if we are being kind
and generous by bringing them here. In fact, it is more than a two-way street. We are in fact the winners. For this reason one has to wonder about some of the comments which have been made by some of those who spoke in the debate before me and who boasted about the tremendous job that is being done when we consider the following from the Canadian Bureau for International Education which notes:
-that while a great number of Canadians have come to recognize the importance of international education, nobody seems willing or able to contribute financially. Although all levels of government have now joined education, business, and cultural groups with verbal support of international education, little is being done in concrete terms. The number of international students in Canada has decreased by 43 per cent in four years. Opportunities for Canadians to participate in study and exchanges abroad are diminishing.
We may hear glowing reports with respect to some of the steps we are taking, and I am pleased to say that whatever is being done is certainly good and a contribution. However, the strange thing is that the policies which we are pursuing are not enlightened ones. They are not even self-serving. They are destructive. We are literally watching an industry diminish. That is to say we are watching this educational industry diminish. From a purely pragmatic point of view I suggest that the Government urgently needs to re-examine this matter with great energy.
The Canadian Bureau for International Education states that a national strategy is lacking. I hope members of the Government will take note of its assessment which states:
A national strategy is lacking. A host of impediments continue to deter prospective students from coming to Canada. There is no systematic approach for providing foreign nationals with information on study in Canada or for providing Canadians with information on study and exchanges abroad.
I am quoting from a brief presented by the Canadian Bureau for International Education to the Standing Committee on Secretary of State. This is the business of the Bureau and it has made recommendations to the Government. I am pleased to observe that the Standing Committee on Secretary of State has taken note of these concerns and is addressing itself vigorously to a concern about the way in which we can assist in developing nations the whole question of human resources and the development of those resources in those countries. Surely one of the most important ways in which Canada can contribute is to help with the educational concerns of these people in these countries. That may mean bringing students to Canada. It may mean bringing them not merely to universities but also to technical schools and community colleges, any institution of education in Canada, be it private or public. It also means that Canadians must be entrepreneurs in a way and go forward into those countries in order to bring educational facilities and opportunities to them so that they may develop themselves more fully. Whichever way it is there is an urgent need for us to address ourselves to this subject.
I commend the Hon. Member who brought forward this motion. I commend those from the government benches who agree with it. I only regret that the motion will probably not
April 27, 1987

come to a vote unless the debate comes to a close before six o'clock.
I wish to add that the gain is not only economic in terms of strengthening the foreign student presence in Canada, but that it is cultural, academic and political as well. Many of us realize that the United Kingdom had an enlightened policy in this respect in terms of welcoming to its shores people from many Commonwealth countries. When they went to Britain they were able to contribute to it their culture. They returned to their countries of origin with an understanding of the British parliamentary system. When those nations ceased to be colonies, they established from these experiences in Britain a great deal of wealth which they had brought with them. I think that in the future Canada would be well represented with political friends if we were able to see those people go from Canada and henceforth to other countries.


William C. Winegard: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to the motion put forward by my hon. friend whose interest in education is well known in Canada and certainly well known in this House. He and I have talked many times about my own university's very large program with respect to an exchange of students and faculty between the University of Guelph and the University of Ghana. Today, 1 would like to focus my remarks on the domestic implications of having foreign students study here in Canada.
There are three reasons why we should extend even further than we already have the promotion of foreign students. They are international understanding, which is obvious; research, which is perhaps not as obvious; and direct economic benefits, which have been mentioned earlier today. The foreign students who come to Canada give us a window on the world, something which all good and great nations need. If one considers what they have done for us one will see that they have helped us break down the "them and us" mentality which grows so easily in any country, and certainly in a country such as Canada which is relatively new. They help us to appreciate how much we have in common with other countries of the world, not simply what the differences are.
In terms of research it is not commonly understood that much of the research in our universities is now done by foreign students. Foreign countries send their very best to us. This is certainly true with respect to the Third World. We make effective use of these students by having them perform research which, on the whole, is of benefit to Canada. They perform research at a level of intellectual achievement which is a stimulus and an inspiration to Canadian students. I have watched this in operation many times over the years.
I was pleased to hear the Hon. Member for Eglinton- Lawrence (Mr. de Corneille) talk about international education since the Canadian Bureau for International Education has been following this debate for many years. It has certainly been following it for well over 15 years. I was President of the organization some 15 years ago at which time we were debating this subject. At that time we were pushing the same
concepts as are being pushed today. There has been some progress over that period of time. I believe it is the Canadian Bureau for International Education which reckons that the net benefit to Canada in terms of students returning to their country of origin and ordering our goods and so on is worth well over $300 million per year. I think the Hon. Member mentioned the figure of $400 million, which I believe is an estimate of the Vancouver Board of Trade. However, the Canadian Bureau for International Education mentioned $300 million as a basic figure. I have no doubt at all that that is an accurate figure.
I think we need to have this infusion of talent in our country, not only at the university level or the college level, but at all levels of our educational system, whether it be the formal educational system or the rather informal educational system which occurs in industry throughout all parts of the country. I hope that as has been expressed-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I regret to interrupt the Hon. Member, but the hour provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired. Pursuant to Standing Order 42(1) this order is dropped from the Order Paper.
It being six o'clock I do now leave the Chair until eight o'clock, at which time the House will proceed to the question of corporate takeover of Dome Petroleum by Amoco Corporation.
At 6 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.

Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Leave has been granted to the Hon. Member for Oshawa (Mr. Broadbent) to move the adjournment of the House pursuant to Standing Order 29 for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter requiring urgent consideration, namely, the proposed corporate takeover of Dome Petroleum Corporation by Amoco Canada.


John Edward Broadbent: That this House do now adjourn.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I want to say, at the outset, that the New Democratic Party believes that action is required by the Government of Canada, and required soon, to deal with the serious situation that Dome Petroleum Corporation is now in.

April 27, 1987
Problems of investment in the important energy sector are at stake; about 4,000 jobs are at stake; the energy future of our country, given the size of this corporation, it is not too great to say, is also at stake. But also, in the view of the New Democratic Party, Mr. Speaker, these are Canadian problems that require a Canadian solution.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, in this important debate, I want, at the outset, to say, on behalf of my colleagues here in the House of Commons, and I am sure on behalf of a very large number of Canadians from coast to coast, why we think that action is needed, and needed promptly, by the Government.
Dome Petroleum Corporation, as everyone knows, has been in terrible condition. It is more than $6 billion in debt. At stake are some 4,000 jobs directly, and many more indirectly. Many important projects in western Canada have been put on hold because of the precarious situation that Dome Petroleum Corporation is in. In short, whether we are talking about jobs or investment for our energy needs in the future, something has to be done, and done quickly, about the current circumstances of Dome Petroleum Corporation.
But that is not to say that the Government should simply stand back and take the first buyer or welcome action from any part of the globe, wherever it may come. I want, therefore, to immediately turn away from the question as to why some action is needed, and needed in the near future, to our proposed direction of action, namely, the necessity of keeping this very large energy company in Canadian hands.
Something in the order of 48 per cent of the shares of Dome Petroleum Corporation are already held by Canadians. It may be that if one counts the shares individually, something more than a majority is held outside of Canada. But, as everyone knows, what is crucial in this debate is where the controlling shares lie, where that crucial body of shares that really determine decisions lies, and it lies firmly in Canadian hands.
As everyone knows, this company has its headquarters in Calgary. Its management is Canadian, and virtually all of its assets, of course, are Canadian. It is, in short, a large important Canadian corporation that is currently in serious difficulty-
It is worth informing Canadians outside of western Canada as to the actual scope of Dome Petroleum Corporation. It is the third largest oil and gas producer in our country, and is the second largest in terms of gas reserves. It has what are probably the richest and most extensive exploration prospects of any energy company in western Canada right now in terms of its 52 million acres in western Canada. It has unequalled expertise in terms of Arctic exploration, expertise that has not been matched by any other company from any other part of the world-something that is very important, I think, in terms of the energy sector in this country.
Dome Petroleum Corporation, like other energy companies, has gone through a difficult period in terms of world market prices. We are now moving, as the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Masse) knows very well, and have been for many months now, to an upward trend in terms of energy prices, something which is a positive prospect for companies in the energy sector and for the men and women who work for those companies, as well as for the regions of Canada dependent upon the revenues derived from our energy resources. There is some upswing under way in that sector. It is certainly anticipated, in terms of our needs as a nation, that we will become a net importer of oil in the early 1990s. That kind of consideration, when we are having a debate in 1987, ought to be a very serious one for a government which would like to be looking beyond the next election, and ought to be looking into the next decade and beyond in terms of our energy requirements as a nation.
I repeat that it is anticipated by most people who have expertise in this field that within five years or so we will become a net importer of oil.
Given all the circumstances about the changing environment, if I can put it that way, for oil and gas production in global terms, as well as in domestic terms and in terms of our needs as a nation in the next decade, it is for us the height of folly for a Government of Canada to allow the Dome Corporation at this point in history to fall into foreign hands.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: The simple truth is that multinational firms cannot be assumed to operate in our national interest. This is not because multinational corporations are inherently evil. It is, in terms of their modus operandi, simply not on their agenda to make decisions which are in the national interests of particular countries in which they operate, general when multinational corporations, in terms of the point I want to make-and I will have something to say about Amoco in particular in a few minutes-make decisions about energy investment in Canada, they think of their investments in the Middle East, and in a number of other parts of the world which I could mention. Their priorities are well understood. Their priorities are not to the people of Canada, not to the people of Alberta, not to the people of Saskatchewan. Their priorities are to their shareholders. When their priorities in terms of their global interest happen to coincide with the interests of Canada, that is fine. Given the history of the country since the Second World War, it is more than naive- in fact it is the height of stupidity-for a Government of Canada to define its energy interests as a nation to coincide with the energy interests of a multinational oil corporation.
On the question of nationality in this sector, national ownership can make a difference. The Minister should consider, for example, the figures for 1986. When we turn to the most recently available figures, certainly to those of us on
April 27, 1987

this side of the House, in terms of the performance of multinational firms in this sector compared with Canadian firms, what do we find? We find the following.
Canadian companies with 48 per cent of the upstream revenue made more than 58 per cent of the capital expenditures in this sector. Put differently, foreign controlled companies with 52 per cent of the revenues made only 42 per cent of the investment. It is very clear that, quite apart from Petro-Canada or a public sector firm, even if we are comparing Canadian firms in this sector with multinational firms in this sector, Canadian firms have a better record in terms of Canadian interest. The Government of Canada should be recognizing that and taking steps to ensure that this company remains in Canadian hands.
Another reason for ensuring that this very large corporation remains Canadian is that Canadian taxpayers have already invested billions of dollars in Dome Petroleum. With the experience of the last Government, the Liberal Government, and the program of PIP grants, of which this Party did not approve, Dome Petroleum got more than $1 billion from the taxpayers of Canada. Since then, and as a result of a ruling by the present Government, it has been forgiven another $1 billion in a special tax ruling. As well, through a variety of other direct and indirect tax benefits, there have been literally millions of dollars in additional cash benefits provided to Dome Petroleum by the taxpayers of Canada.
Let us consider the net result of this darling about which most Canadian taxpayers did not know anything for the past decade. If we consider the net financial effect, we should really be saying that those assets which are technically now Dome's should be shown to be the assets of Canadian taxpayers; that is the reality. Its reserves should be seen not to be the private reserves of Dome shareholders but the reserves of the people of Canada. That is the way we should properly see this. In our view these reserves should not be turned over to some foreign multinational firm.
Now I want to shift to the present circumstance as I understand it in terms of proposals which have been made to take over Dome, to say something about those proposals, and to say something about the Government's response to the situation. The whole public knows that the Amoco Corporation and TransCanada PipeLines were involved in competing bids. Almost the whole country knows that Imperial Oil was the third company involved right up to the last minute. Although I understand that Imperial might still be interested-and I am not sure of that-we certainly know that the two companies which remain actively interested in acquiring the assets of Dome Petroleum are the Amoco Corporation, a U.S. based multinational, and TransCanada PipeLines in Canada.
Amoco and Dome between them claim that the Amoco bid is better. In applying a number of criteria it may turn out on a purely cash basis, short-run basis, to be the better bid. I am not in a position to know that for sure, nor I suspect are most Members of Cabinet including, I regret to say, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, and the Minister of Finance
(Mr. Wilson), who incredibly seem to have taken a hands-off attitude, to say that this is a private sector decision to be made about a private sector problem.
The most important executive officers of Dome have recommended the Amoco takeover because they believe it is in the interests of their shareholders. I understand very well that that is their immediate and primary responsibility. However, I ask again, ought we in Parliament, the elected body which made so many millions of dollars available to Dome Petroleum, to assume that because Dome's chief executive officers believe the Amoco deal is the best one for their shareholders it is also the best deal for the people of Canada? We in this Party do not believe that the two are synonymous. It may be that what is in the best interests of the stockholders is not in the best interests of the people of Canada.
If a broader interest in terms of our energy needs should lead the Government of Canada, which was considering everyone including shareholders' claims, to conclude that the TransCanada bid was a better one, surely we ought to know that. Surely a Government concerned about energy needs in western Canada, jobs in western Canada, and our long-range needs in the country ought to be looking at both deals with a great deal of care.
There is one particular variant on this. I have, as have the Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Turner), the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Masse), obviously, and I think too, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson), had discussions with the officers of the Dome Corporation and with TransCanada. I have had information as a lay person in this field which has certainly caused me to ask some further questions.
TransCanada claims, for example, that if you look at the net effects of its proposal on the taxpayer of Canada and compare it with the net effects of the Amoco proposal you will see that there is no difference in tax to the Canadian taxpayer. Because one will be operating in part through American tax law, while the other would not, and because of certain other different complexities of which I do not know the precise nature, according to TransCanada spokespersons the final conclusion-this from those who do know the technical nature of the matter-is that TransCanada's offer in terms of its effect on the taxpayer of Canada, I repeat, is equal to the Amoco proposal.
Again I ask the question and I will provide the answer. If we in Parliament are to be given the information that the private Canadian company is making a package of proposals that, when comparing its turn-out in term of its effects on the Canadian taxpayer, is just as good, or just as bad, however we want to phrase it, as the proposal coming from Amoco, and a decision is to be made on that criteria alone, then surely the Government of Canada should not stand back but should say it prefers the Canadian company. That ought to be the answer. If it is not the answer, then the Minister of Energy has an

April 27, 1987
obligation to tell us what his answer to that particular question would be.
Some of us have also been in touch with our fellow Canadians in Alberta, principally-not just in Alberta but elsewhere, in the north too-who are concerned about jobs. Again, I am going on the public record, and in part on private conversation. A key spokesperson for the Amoco Corporation said that Amoco will not guarantee the existing jobs in Dome Petroleum in its take-over. If TransCanada PipeLines-whatever else one might say about the impact of its takeover-won the bid, a lot of things would have to be considered, and when it comes to jobs, TransCanada has not only said to me privately but publicly that it would guarantee the existing jobs in Dome Petroleum. If that is the criteria, and this Party is interested in those men and women in Alberta whose jobs are dependent on this corporation and who have been in a precarious existence for many many months now, and we have to judge on the basis of these public commitments, then it seems to us that Trans-Canada's offer is better than Amoco's. If the Government has evidence to the contrary, then the Government has an obligation to provide that evidence to the House of Commons.
It is our view that the Government is simply irresponsible in standing back and watching this whole drama unfold, a drama that has a profound effect on the nation as a whole, and on a particular part of our nation. The Government in our view should be involved in the discussion. It should be actively involved with a number of departments in a number of ministries in the Government involved in the discussions with Amoco officials and with TransCanada officials and, I add importantly here, Petro-Canada.
This Parliament in the last decade created Petro-Canada, like most other petroleum companies around the world, on the perfectly straightforward national interest policy basis that it makes sense to have a large-not simply national but large- public role in the energy sector. I simply cannot understand why in 1987, when we have a large company like Petro-Canada in the public sector, the Government of Canada has not given a mandate to Petro-Canada saying, get in there, have a look at the situation at Dome, report back to us and tell us, should there be a joint venture solution, should there be a public solution-give us your expertise. It is the height of irresponsibility for the Minister of Energy to tell the President of Petro-Canada or his leading officers to stay away from this situation. This is exactly the kind of situation that Petro-Canada was created to be involved in. We believe that the Government should now involve itself as quickly as possible through the active participation of Petro-Canada.
I want now to say something very specifically about Amoco, and why we have some concerns. The first point about that particular bid is, of course, that Amoco is owned 100 per cent outside our country. There is no Canadian president, no Canadian board, and no Canadian shareholders, unlike a number of the other multinational corporations that have made an effort to Canadianize a good part of their operations
with beneficial results, at least in part, and I will come to that in just a minute.
The next point is that Amoco has shown no particular interest in Canada as a nation. Its performance record when you compare it with other multinational corporations in this sector is simply lamentable. I have had a look at the performance of Amoco in comparison with Imperial, Shell, Gulf and Texaco for the past two years. I want to share some of this information with the House tonight.
If you look at the year 1985, in dividends paid out by these companies, what do you find? You find that Imperial paid out some $268 million in dividends, Shell paid out $83 million, Gulf paid out $122 million, Texaco paid out $151 million and Amoco paid out $200 million.


Some Hon. Members:: Good.


John Edward Broadbent: They are saying good.


Mr. Speaker:: I very much regret interrupting the Hon. Member for Oshawa (Mr. Broadbent) but we are bound by the rules here. The Hon. Member is reaching the end of his speech; in fact, he may be overtime. Under the circumstances it is often the disposition of the House to give the Hon. Member a few more minutes. I can ask Hon. Members if they would agree to do that.


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I express my gratitude to Members of the House for that decision.
Those are figures for 1985. I want to move to what the same corporations have done in dividend payments for 1986. Imperial Oil paid out $262 million, Shell paid out $82 million, Gulf paid out $159 million, Texaco paid out $145 million and Amoco $686 million. I want also to put on the record for each of these two years what the five companies have done in capital investment for the development of our energy resources in the future. Then I want to compare those figures, one with the other-the capital investment record with the dividend pay-out record. I think some rather disturbing information will emerge from a comparison of the Amoco Corporation with the other four major multinational companies working in our country.
In 1985 Imperial Oil spent $885 million in capital and exploration expenditures, Shell spent $367 million, Gulf spent $378 million, Texaco spent $267 million and Amoco, which is down at the bottom of the list, spent $190 million.
For the past year, 1986, what was the record of investment in Canada in the development of our future energy resources? Imperial invested $457 million, Shell invested $361 million, Gulf invested $262 million, Texaco invested $258 million, and Amoco is once again at the bottom of the list with an investment of only $107 million.
April 27, 1987

On the basis of those two sets of figures for 1985 and 1986 I would like to compare the dividends paid out to shareholders as a percentage of the capital and exploration expenditures of these five large companies. In 1985, for Imperial it was 30 per cent, for Shell it was 23 per cent, for Gulf it was 32 per cent, for Texaco it was 56 per cent and for Amoco it was 105 per cent.
In more straightforward terms, that means for every dollar Amoco invested in 1985, it took $1.05 out of Canada. There was a net outflow in 1985, and the situation was much worse in 1986. In 1986, the percentages for Imperial were 57 per cent, for Shell 23 per cent, for Gulf 61 per cent, for Texaco 56 per cent and for Amoco 641 per cent. Again, to put it in straightforward terms, that means that for every dollar it invested in Canada in 1986, it took $6.41 out.
It is that kind of situation that has caused my colleagues and I, along with many other Canadians, to be concerned, not simply about the continuing problem of foreign ownership in this sector but about the performance of this particular corporation.
I would like now to ask some questions. The Minister has slipped out of the House, momentarily, I am sure, as he has been here for the debate. When he returns, I hope he will deal with these questions.
Given this extraordinary situation, the potentially powerful situation in which Dome Petroleum will be if it remains in Canadian hands and the key role that it can play, the troublesome performance of foreign-owned firms in this sector in general and the more than troublesome performance of Amoco, how do we explain what can only be described as the lamentable behaviour of the federal Government in these circumstances? I believe that there are two answers to this. One is the market bias of this Government, the view, bluntly stated, that what is good for the shareholders in any decision must necessarily be good for Canada. We believe that in the private sector, one must take into account the shareholders' needs. However, it is a major mistake for any political Party to equate the good of the nation with the good of the shareholder, and it is time the Conservative Government understood that.
Second, and I think this is nearer to the mark, and I hope the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources deals with this, I think that beyond the market ideology that characterizes so many of the Government's decisions, the Government has now involved Canada in this terrible mess or has failed to get us out of it because of the free trade talks. The whole country knew during the last election campaign that the Reagan administration wanted to get rid of FIRA. The Americans thought that we had too much national control over investment patterns in Canada and they objected to FIRA. The Conservatives promised to change that, and they did. They put in its place Investment Canada.
Investment Canada has approved virtually every significant takeover bid, but again, as all of us who have been following the free trade talks know, the Americans have objected to
Investment Canada and have made it very clear that there will be no agreement with the United States in the free trade talks that are so high on the agenda of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) unless there is virtually a total free flow of investment patterns across the 49th parallel.
In more direct terms, that means that they want complete access to any kind of takeover in any part of the Canadian economy in which they wish to invest. If the Government accepts this continental market mentality it may please its own back-benchers, but it will regret the day when the people of Canada understand that that will finally mean the sellout of Canada, and we will not stand back and watch the Government get away with it.
To illustrate the point that this is not simply a general contention, in tonight's news, Mr. Bruce Smart, the United States Under-Secretary for Trade, was quoted as saying that Investment Canada, in the view of the United States, had better not turn down the Amoco takeover bid. He is saying that Investment Canada, an agent created by the Parliament of Canada, had better not act in the Canadian interest. We say that neither the Government of the United States nor any of its trade officials have any right to tell us what sectors we want to control in the Canadian interest. The democratically elected group of men and women is the only group that can make that decision and that is the Parliament of Canada, not the United States Congress or any of its representatives.
I regret to say that I believe the Government has not involved Petro-Canada-


Mr. Kindy:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I think the allotted time for a speaker is usually 20 minutes and the Hon. Member has now been speaking for about 30 minutes.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Calgary East (Mr. Kindy) has raised an objection to the amount of time the Hon. Leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Broadbent) is taking. The Hon. Member is of course procedurally correct. However, Hon. Members will know that the Chair intervened a few minutes ago and indicated to the Hon. Member for Oshawa that on the narrow lines of debate he was over his time but that there was a convention in this place that under these circumstances there is a certain amount of flexibility. The Chair suggested that that would be appropriate under the circumstances and the House indicated that that was so.
I am sure the Hon. Member would want to go along with the usual courtesies and allow the Leader of the New Democratic Party to finish his remarks, keeping in mind, of course, that under the reformed rules, in the spirit of debates of this kind, there is a certain amount of latitude. If it was the disposition of the House, the Chair would prefer to proceed that way at the present moment, and I am sure the Hon. Member for Oshawa would not abuse the extension that might be granted by the Hon. Member for Calgary East.

April 27, 1987


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, as is virtually invariably the case, you have made the appropriate comments and I will wind up my comments very speedily.
The Government of Canada has an obligation to act, but it has not done so because of its deep entrenchment in the free trade talks. This entrenchment is leading to real dangers, illustrated not only by the particulars of this decision, but by the fact that it will lead to even more, or equally horrendous problems for Canada in all other sectors, if the Government continues in this direction.
1 would like to conclude by saying that TransCanada PipeLines has expressed a continuing interest in having its bid reconsidered by Dome. The president of PetroCan has made it clear that if the Government authorized him he would be very interested in pursuing the Dome matter, to look at it with care to see if it would be in the interest of PetroCan to get involved. He is waiting for that word. I say to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources who is here tonight, think about what is going on, think about the energy needs of Canada, think about the job needs of western Canada, get PetroCan involved, look at the TransCanada offer and get a Canadian solution for a Canadian problem.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I wanted to let the applause meter run out on that performance.
This debate is not so much about the bid by Amoco to take over Dome Petroleum as it is about the failure of the Canadian Government to find a Canadian solution to the future of Dome Petroleum.

1 want to say to the Minister who is honouring us with his presence this evening-he is pretty much alone, but at least he is here-that the subject before the House this evening is not just the takeover of Dome Petroleum. It is his failure and that of his colleague, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) and of the Canadian Government, to ensure that we as Canadians can look forward to a Canadian solution to the problem.

The Government of Canada has known about this situation for months. Despite efforts by the Minister of Finance to plead innocence and say that a tax ruling was a question for his colleague, the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. MacKay), despite the elegant dancing-

-or perhaps a more apt French word, "patinage", by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Masse).

-it is clear that the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources were kept abreast of the
situation on a daily basis by all the potential bidders. They were kept abreast of the situation by Amoco, Imperial Oil, TransCanada PipeLines, and others who, at one stage or another, were involved in finding a process for taking over Dome. The Government cannot pretend it did not know.
We are faced with one of the largest, if not the largest, takeovers in Canadian history. It is obvious to those of us who sit in this House that our Government has done absolutely nothing about it. We want to say at the outset that had we had the responsibility of power we would not have ceased trying to obtain a Canadian solution to this problem.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: I recall that shortly after the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) assumed the mantle of office he went down to New York to meet the American investment banking community at the Economic Club. He put on the black tie and said-


Some Hon. Members:: Gucci shoes!


John Napier Turner: I will not be as detailed as some of my colleagues would like me to be. He said: "Hi, guys, my name is Brian Mulroney. I'm Prime Minister of Canada. I'm glad to be in New York this evening because I want to tell you that Canada is open for business again." When he came back to this Parliament I said "Terrific". We are open for business again? I always thought we were open for business. I want to say to the Prime Minister that we may be open for business again but we are not up for sale!


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: Once again we see under this lackadaisical and passive Government that Canada is open to the highest bidder, and here again a very crucial industry- our oil and gas industry. I ask the Minister how many more auctions of Canadian industry must we endure before the Government of Canada comes to its senses and reacts in a positive and concrete manner? How much longer are we going to be forced to watch what happens in Chicago, New York or Washington and see our Government do nothing?
It appears that under current American tax law Amoco can claim virtually a complete write-off of this entire investment. During the free trade negotiations, and the Hon. Member for Oshawa (Mr. Broadbent) has made mention of this and 1 am going to have something to say about it as well, the Americans have said they love a level playing field. When they talk about that, and I brought this up on the issue of our sell-off of the Canadian lumber industry to the Americans through the export tax, they are talking about a field with their lines, their rules, their referee, their ball and their goal posts, and when we start to do well on that field they change the rules and move the posts. Amoco has more than a level playing field. They can compete better than any Canadian company because under current American tax law this takeover will be a complete
April 27, 1987

write-off for Amoco against its taxes. The offer is not a level playing field transaction.
I have to ask the Minister, and I can hardly wait until he gets on his feet, why he has been so mute, so silent? Why has the Minister of Finance been so evasive? Why has he tried to rely on a narrow and purely technical interpretation which says it is the responsibility of his colleague, the Minister of National Revenue? Is there yet another quiet little deal? Is the real purpose of the Government's passivity to ensure that this deal does not interfere with the continuing negotiations on free trade with the U.S.?
Just a minute ago my friend the Hon. Member for Oshawa referred to what an Under-Secretary of State for the U.S. said this afternoon in Toronto. I will quote initially from the Canadian Press wire report, which is all we have before us. It says: "The Amoco Corporation purchase offer for Dome Petroleum Ltd. is an example of free trade investment which should be allowed to proceed, says Bruce Smart, a top official in the U.S. Commerce Department." He said: "I am encouraged by the fact that the Canadian Government does not appear to be objecting to it at the moment." He also had this to say in response to questions: "I would say if it is allowed to go through it would be an encouraging sign of an understanding that open investment is a necessary companion to free trade. We are convinced that unless capital flows and investments are free between the two countries you can't have a true free trade agreement. A free trade agreement that doesn't include investment will not be acceptable to the United States". There we have it. A threat without even the subtlety of being veiled.
I do not believe the Government of this country can afford to allow itself to continually be subjected to this kind of menacing remark. What we have been suggesting in the strongest terms to the House of Commons and the country is true. The Government is afraid to stand up to the American Government because it does not want anything to interfere with the free trade negotiations. FIRA was not enough and the Government threw it away. The National Energy Program was not enough and it was thrown away.


Jack Wendele Shields: You are right on that one!


John Napier Turner: The book publishing industry, the drug industry and the lumber industry were not enough and now we see Canadian ownership of the oil and gas industry sacrificed once again so the negotiations are not derailed. I do not think we could have a better or more current demonstration of that than what we heard in Toronto this afternoon from Mr. Smart.
The Government gave us a lot of rhetoric about Canadiani-zation, particularly of the oil and gas industry. I want to recite the election commitments of the Progressive Conservative Party. If ever a document was not worth the paper it is written on, it is the 338 promises of the Conservative Party of Canada.
Here is a dandy. The Conservative Party said: "We believe that the energy sector is an engine of growth for the entire Canadian economy rather than a source of revenue for the federal Government. A stable national energy policy will help achieve energy self-sufficiency". The Conservative Party favoured increased Canadianization of the energy industry, keeping prices low and so on. I will give that to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources in due course.
We have seen a change of heart. That commitment was reaffirmed by the former Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources before this House on March 29, 1985, but there was then a change of the rules, a relaxation of that commitment. The current Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources said, "We are, however, prepared to consider the acquisition by foreign concerns of a Canadian controlled firm which is in clear financial difficulty. In this way we seek a balance between welcoming new investment and protecting our Canadianization gains". That is a significant change in attitude which he has not yet sufficiently explained to Parliament and the people of Canada.
When it comes down to the crunch, the Government has not done a single thing. Knowing how this transaction has proceeded and despite the fact that the Minister has been kept involved on a daily basis by all the participants, including his colleague the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, and surely the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Mazankowski), the Government has not done a single thing to help fashion or facilitate a Canadian solution.
We recognize, as has the Member for Oshawa, that the health of Dome Petroleum is vital to our Canadian economy. We begin with the 3,800 jobs in Calgary and the thousands of other related jobs which depend upon the health of Dome Petroleum. Thousands of farm-out deals within the independent oil and gas producers throughout the western sedimentary basin depend on the health of Dome, because if Dome were to go under they would be called upon in each one of these farm-out arrangements to make up the difference.
We understand what this means in terms of the western economy. We have not only a commodity crises in western Canada involving oil and gas, grain, potash, and half the mines in western Canada, we have a crisis of monumental proportion and it does us no good to hear the Minister of Finance and the Prime Minister remind us that the statistics are good. They do not reflect the reality of what is happening in western Canada.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: The issue is our nation's self-sufficiency in hydrocarbons and the health of our oil and gas industry. Because of the immense debt hanging over Dome Petroleum like an avalanche the integrity of the Canadian banking system is in question. Our exchange rate is at risk. As I said in Calgary last Wednesday, although there is a special urgency for Alberta, we recognize fully that this is not only an

April 27, 1987
Alberta problem but a Canadian problem, and we intend to deal with it here in Parliament as a Canadian problem.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
[ Translation]


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, in Western Canada we have a crisis of monumental proportions, a crisis that has been neglected by the present Government. Friday, and again today, we talked about the crisis situation with respect to grain. We talked about the crisis in the potash industry. We talked about the crisis in our oil and gas sectors. We talked about the crisis in the mining industry. All these areas are being neglected by the Canadian Government, which wants to ensure Canada's prosperity by concentrating on southwestern Ontario and part of the City of Montreal, while neglecting the entire east end of Montreal, despite eloquent representations by the Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie (Mr. Malepart). So what we have here is a very serious and a very acute Canadian problem.

I had the opportunity to meet with Howard Macdonald and senior officials of Dome Petroleum in Calgary last week. It is obvious that time is running out. It is obvious that that debt hanging over the company like an avalanche is ready to be secured. The waivers that the company was granted by its major creditors expire at the end of June. There is not much time left. If a solution is not found, those creditors will be entitled to proceed against their individual securities. The Canadian Government has known these facts, has watched this happen, and has not been astute or careful enough on behalf of Canadians to facilitate a Canadian solution to the problem.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: We would like to ask a question of the Minister and we hope he will respond with the frankness which we expect of someone in his position. In his opinion, and in that of the Government of Canada, is the Amoco bid binding? Is there still room for other bids? What would the effect of other bids be on Dome Petroleum and on the perspective of the oil and gas industry? I can tell him that other bidders are still available. I ask him whether other bids are still welcome.
This afternoon at the annual meeting of TransCanada, Gerry Maier said that as far as he is concerned TransCanada is still an available bidder. I would hope that there are other Canadian-owned or Canadian-controlled enterprises, in consortium or alone, which would be available to proceed. The Government is refusing to indicate whether other bids are still welcome. Will the Government facilitate a reopening of the situation to assure a Canadian solution? I can tell him that in this quarter of the House we want and will insist upon a Canadian solution, with all the tools available to the Canadian Government.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: This is not only an academic question. The Government of Canada is the custodian for Canadian taxpayers of billions of dollars already invested in Dome, whether by way of the PIP grants, tax incentives, current tax losses or write-offs. Through its passive attitude the Government is neglecting the fundamental rights and interests of Canadian taxpayers to be represented. That interest is being thrown away.
Before this Government assumed power, Parliament's primary role, that of examining the expenditures of Government and approving the taxation measures of Government, was considered paramount. Because the taxpayer is involved we are demanding that this deal come before Parliament, not after it is consummated, but before the deal is concluded. Bring it before the Committee on Energy, Mines and Resources tomorrow. Our members are ready and the government Members are ready. We are demanding that any deal be brought before Parliament. We want the deal scrutinized before the appropriate committee of the House of Commons.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: The Minister has been very relaxed about this. His colleague, the Minister of Finance, has been very passive about it. The Minister looks very relaxed and I admire his very benign personality. From time to time I have been soothed by his engaging smile. However, it is never too late, and the people of Canada will insist that Parliament have something to say about the final conclusion of this deal.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: After all, the Amoco-Dome Petroleum deal must still be approved by the creditors. It is subject to review by the courts and to approval by the shareholders and must be reviewed and approved by Investment Canada. The Minister still has the levers and the authority. I believe that he and his colleagues should consider a Canadian solution to be a priority.
What we are talking about is the largest potential takeover in Canadian history. We are talking about the future ownership of the oil and gas industry in Canada, and about Canadian sovereignty. We are talking about the health of the oil and gas industry in western Canada, and the economy in the western provinces.
No matter who takes over, we want to know about it. We want to know about the guarantees for Canadian jobs. We want to know what the management will be like and what will happen to Arctic drilling. We want to know what will happen to the continuation of Canadian exploration and what will happen to the Sarnia petrochemical plant.
What will happen to Encor Limited? We want to know the Minister's plans for Canadianization of Dome and what the
April 27, 1987

future holds for it. We want to know how it impinges upon the Canada-U.S. trade talks and what pressure may have been placed on the Minister by the United States Government.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John B. Stewart: Who built Dome?


Mr. Forrestall:: We want to know who built Dome.


John B. Stewart: Who built Dome by taxation?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, this is the first reaction we have had from the Conservative benches all day.


J. Michael Forrestall: Typical Liberal cynicism.


John Napier Turner: I can hear the flapping of the fins as those trained seals get up into action.


John B. Stewart: Who built Dome by taxation? Talk about Dome Canada.


John Napier Turner: I might say that they are a lot more alive at nine o'clock in the evening than they were at eleven o'clock this morning. As happened this morning when we began the capital punishment debate, the New Democratic Party and Liberal Party outnumbered, two to one, Members on the Conservative benches. That is the way they treat Parliament and the importance of this particular issue.
We are not only looking at a passive Minister, at a Minister of benign neglect, we are looking at a lonely Minister. We are looking to keep him company until he gives us a proper answer this evening.

I hope that in the final instance, the Minister will address the emergency and the requirements of this debate in a courteous fashion, that he will be a lot franker and far more, not honest, but far more free in his opinions-


An Hon. Member:: Open-minded.


John Napier Turner: -far more open-minded, that he will take us into his confidence, and not just the Members of this House but the Canadian people. It is not too late, even after displaying an attitude that was a little too cool, or cavalier, that is the word. I hope that in the final instance, the Minister will realize, and with him the Prime Minister and especially the Minister of Finance, that Canadians will no longer tolerate that kind of neglect. None of us want industry after industry, economic sector after economic sector, to be abandoned and sold without further ado to the United States.

That may be on the political agenda of the Government, but it is not on Parliament's agenda. I urge the Minister to come clean this evening.
On behalf of the Canadians whom we represent, we do not intend to remain silent. We will continue until we get some satisfactory answers and a satisfactory conclusion to this entire issue.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Marcel Masse: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to take part in this debate on the proposed acquisition of Dome Petroleum. This transaction is the object of considerable interest among Canadians in every region of the country, and understandably so. Any transaction involving a company which in terms of gas and oil output ranks second in Canada's petroleum sector, which is the source of employment for more than 4,000 people, and whose survival is threatened by a debt exceeding $6 billion should be the object of enlightened debate and deep reflection.
Mr. Speaker, I could quote various editorials and articles which were written in recent days. Since this is an important debate and many people have expressed their views on the question, I should like to quote to the House passages from a column by Alain Dubuc published in last Saturday's La Presse. The article is entitled, and rightly so:
The White Elephant of Black Gold. The Dome Petroleum venture has been an appalling fiasco. This spectacular failure has led the company to the brink of bankruptcy and been a telling illustration of the extent to which federal bureaucrats and politicians were misled by their energy policy.
And I add: this Government is not putting Dome up for sale: it was done, a few years ago by the former Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, Marc Lalonde. I continue the quotation, Mr. Speaker:
Thank God, the last chapter of this miserable saga is being written. And it gives rise to a lively debate because the rescue of the company will undoubtedly come after-
I say maybe, one never knows-
-it has been taken over by a foreign company, Amoco. However we have a tendency to forget something. The main stake in this case is not the glorious recovery of the company; it is more like a rescue. This is the stake: Dome is a petroleum company which does not sell gasoline. It is a major producer of petroleum and especially gas.
And in the specific case of Dome I think that the article properly sums up the problem, which is why I am using it:
In the specific case of Dome it is a false debate. For starters, Dome is not really a Canadian company. Fifty-two per cent of its shareholders are foreigners and, more to the point, its fate rests in the hands of its creditors.
Half its $6.3 billion debt is owing to foreign institutions. On the other hand Dome, which posted a $2.1 billion deficit for 1986, is caught in a vicious circle: it is sO hard pressed to repay its debt that it has no money left for operations which would get it out of the hole. If a rich company gains control, it will be in a position to give Dome the dynamism it is now lacking, make capital investments, speed up exploration and production works, and create jobs. Dollars rather than principles are used to drill for oil. The fact remains that most Canadians, given a choice, would much rather that it be a Canadian company-
And I said so publicly. But for the time being it seems the best offer came from Amoco.
Besides, there is something disturbing about using public funds to help one of the richest companies in Canada.

April 27, 1987
And I am surprised to see the NDP implore the Elouse today to help Bell Canada, the top-ranking Canadian company. To me it is a source of enlightenment to realize that, for a few hours perhaps, the NDP has turned capitalist, advocating the use of public funds to bail out Bell Canada. That is surprising.
Especially when we know that part of the money would be pocketed by shareholders.
The Dome shareholder
this is not a group of small investors.
We have here a lot of speculators who are taking a gamble on the benefits of a takeover bid. They are consenting adults who are taking a calculated risk, and they should not be bailed out with public funds.
There is of course
says the NDP
another choice, that of giving Petro-Canada a mandate to purchase Dome. That would be even worse.
-says our reporter.
Canadian consumers have paid billions of dollars to subsidize this Crown corporation. It has used this money mainly to purchase foreign companies at exorbitant prices.
Mr. Speaker, I could go on to quote many more articles. Elowever, I think this one by Mr. Dubuc in Saturday's La Presse accurately summarizes the problem. Dome Petroleum's bankruptcy is a consequence of the interventionist policies of the previous Government. Dome Petroleum was put on the block by Mr. Marc Lalonde. The solution favoured by the NDP is to take public funds to help Bell Canada, our largest Canadian corporation. The NDP solution is to help Petro-Canada purchase another foreign corporation with billions of dollars of taxpayers' money.
Mr. Speaker, those are the two solutions favoured by the Opposition parties. We must reject these solutions because they do not lead anywhere unless we want to go back to where we were a few years ago, which led to the kind of results we see today, the bankruptcy of Dome Petroleum.
Mr. Speaker, that is why this debate is important. It should be the subject of public discussion, and that is why I am delighted that this House-where, 1 am convinced, the interests of this country will outweigh the interests of the Parties-has chosen to take this opportunity to discuss the issue.
Like all Members of this House, Mr. Speaker, the Government is fully aware of the importance of this transaction. Our desire to let the private sector be mainly responsible for finding a solution to the financial problems which for a number of years have been plaguing one of our major corporations in the oil industry, does not mean, as the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner) would have others believe, we are indifferent. We have made it abundantly clear, ever since the first corporation, TransCanada Pipelines, publicized the purchase offer it had made in the course of discussions that had been going on for several months, that the transaction would in any case have to be in the interests of Canada. In fact, I publicly
reaffirmed this commitment last Thursday at a press conference in Ottawa where I clearly defined the course we had to take.
Mr. Speaker, a 17th century Spanish essayist, Baltasar Gracian, said the following in his book The Honest Man-and I am sure the Leader of the Opposition has spent many a night reading it:
Yes and no are short words to say;
-says the essayist-
-but much thought is needed before the saying.


Jean-Claude Malépart: Nothing to write home about.


Marcel Masse: Mr. Speaker, under a memorandum of agreement signed on April 19 of this year, the board of directors of Dome Petroleum agreed to suggest to shareholders and creditors of the corporation that they agree to a purchase offer submitted by the Canadian branch of Amoco, a U.S. corporation, for the amount of about S5.1 billion.
The agreement is the result of a number of attempts made in recent years by the management of Dome to find a private sector solution to the corporation's financial troubles. During that period, the corporation managed to sign an interim agreement with its creditors in Canada and abroad that will remain in effect until June 30 of this year. An analyst qualified this agreement as the biggest debt renegotiation for a company in the history of mankind. Several times during these delicate negotiations, the possibility of the corporation's bankruptcy was mentioned.
Despite its heavy debt, during that period Dome Petroleum managed to attract the interest of a certain number of companies, including Amoco Canada. TransCanada Pipelines and Imperial/Exxon also submitted propositions to acquire control of Dome Petroleum.
We followed the evolution of this case carefully and with great attention. Still the fact remains that this company, however important it may be in our oil and gas sector, is first and foremost a commercial concern. The state does not own Dome Petroleum. For this reason we took the position that the Canadian Government did not have to intervene at this stage of the process aimed at setting Dome Petroleum back on an even financial keel. Any decision made by the management of this oil company is dictated by commercial considerations, as it should be.
The financial woes experienced by Dome Petroleum have a considerable impact on the whole economy of Western Canada. All observers in business circles know full well, as stated by the president of Dome Petroleum, that the bankruptcy of this company has been and remains a real possibility. The consequences of such an eventuality would be very harmful not only to the Canadian petroleum sector but also to our entire economy both in Western Canada and in the other regions of the country.
April 27, 1987

It has also been suggested that Petro-Canada should play an active role with respect to the acquisition of Dome Petroleum. Under the terms of its mandate Petro-Canada must now operate on the same basis as any other commercial undertaking. However, Petro-Canada remains a Crown corporation, and considering the nature of Dome Petroleum's problem, it would have been impossible for it to make a purchase offer without bypassing the principle of seeking a solution to the problem through the private sector and without committing the Government, which might have had to pay a substantial amount disguised as a subsidy for the purpose of buying Dome Petroleum.
It is therefore clear that responsibility for decisions concerning the acquisition of Dome Petroleum rests, for the moment, in the hands of management, stockholders and creditors of the corporation. There is no reason for the Government to intervene on behalf of one buyer rather than another.
The future of Dome, its thousands of employees and hundreds of other companies which depend on its activities, rests on its ability to prosper within the domestic and international energy markets and not on massive injections of public funds. Key players in the private sector have said it can be done.
The size and importance of Dome Petroleum, whose revenues from its upstream activities account for 7.3 per cent of all revenues for the Canadian oil industry, certainly raises questions about Canadian control and about competition in the domestic market. The Government is fully aware of the potential impact of the proposed transaction on these two issues and its responsibilities with respect to them.
Our Government has clearly stated in its legislation and policies its position on foreign investment in general and foreign investment specifically in the upstream oil industry, and its principles on competition in the domestic market. Any transaction involving acquisition by a foreign company is subject to examination under the Investment Canada Act with a view to establishing whether the proposed foreign investment represents significant benefits for Canada.
The criteria for evaluating these investment projects are well known by Members of this House, particularly with respect to Canadian participation, its economic impact and our competitive position in foreign markets. Moreover, my colleague, the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Andre), and the Minister responsible for Investment Canada, assured us that all provinces in which Dome is active will be consulted during the examination by Investment Canada.
Our Government also stated in December, 1985, its policy on foreign investment in the upstream oil industry. Because it was designed to promote concurrently 50 per cent Canadian
participation as well as foreign investment, which our industry greatly needs if it is to prosper, the policy, among other things, prohibits the acquisition by foreign interests of financially sound gas or oil undertakings whose net worth is over $5 million. However, it does allow the purchase of Canadian corporations that are experiencing serious problems.
There is clearly no doubt in the House that Dome, which is considered to be a Canadian controlled undertaking by Investment Canada even though it is 52 per cent owned by non-Canadian interests, is in extremely poor shape.
Any proposed purchase of Dome must also be subject to the provisions of the new competition legislation. If the Director of Investigation and Research deems it appropriate he could, where applicable pursuant to the Act, refer it to the competition tribunal. Once again, the evaluation criteria are clear and well known to Members of the House.
These provisions will be complied with. I have committed myself to that. My colleagues and I will submit any proposed transaction to a rigorous examination and will ensure that if the acquisition of Dome Petroleum is approved by its creditors and shareholders it will serve the Canadian interest.

At this point, however, we are not about to prejudge any eventual decision by speculating on the potential advantages or drawbacks of a transaction that has yet to be agreed upon by the parties concerned.
The Leader of the Opposition asked me earlier to table the information or to set up a committee to examine the transaction. He should know that, first of all, the transaction has yet to be concluded by Dome management, and second, that the Canadian Government has not been advised, through Investment Canada, of any proposal whatsoever in this respect. We will be so advised at the appropriate time, when the Government will make a decision, Mr. Speaker. However, I cannot pass judgment on a proposal that does not exist.


John Napier Turner: You wash your hands!


Mr. Gauthier:: Pontius Pilate-


Marcel Masse: In view of the precarious financial situation at Dome Petroleum, it would be totally irresponsible in our view to try and establish policies on the basis of mere assumptions.
We know very well, Mr. Speaker, that Amoco Canada, which reached a memorandum of agreement with Dome's management, is 100 per cent under foreign control, just as the officers of that American Corporation are aware of Canadian laws and policies. When taking over Dome Petroleum, Amoco Corporation would become the most important Canadian oil company. In that capacity, it should be in our view a model Canadian corporate citizen, respecting the host country's context. I can assure this House that the Government will require satisfactory commitments to that end, as a prerequisite for approving any takeover of Dome Corporation.

April 27, 1987
It is mainly through its research and development activities, purchasing policies, participation to Canadian life, reinvestment methods, dividend policies, and also through the presence of Canadian men and women at every level of its management and decision-making that a firm proves itself to be a good corporate citizen.
From this point of view, Mr. Speaker, our initiative is coherent and transparent. The Canadian energy industry is a vital element of our development and future. It is much too important for the Government to improvise policies. We know the interest of Canadiens. It is expressed through an increase of Canadian participation since 1984. We find it also in the renewed activity witnessed in the Canadian oil industry, in Western Canada as well as offshore and in the Arctic area. It is expressed in the confidence of large international corporations in the future development of our resources. The new climate of cooperation which we have established with our provincial partners in the area of energy also supports this interest. To end the uncertainty which has affected for years a major oil corporation and prevented it from fully supporting our economic development is also in the interest of Canadien man and woman from every region of this country.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak in this debate as energy critic for the New Democratic Party and to support my Leader on his motion.
I want to thank you, Mr. Speaker, for permitting this debate tonight. It means a lot to the average, ordinary Canadian. I know that we throw around figures in the billions of dollars with respect to corporate takeovers and so on. This is a crucial debate on a crucial issue for ordinary Canadians because they are the people who have paid out of their pockets for much of the building up of corporate capital in Dome Petroleum. They are the people who pay taxes, and they paid dearly for some of the build-up of Dome Petroleum.
I believe the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner) mentioned the American taxpayers and that there would be a tax break for Amoco in the United States. I thought of the ordinary Americans who are also being asked to swallow again a big subsidy to a very rich corporation. So this is a subject that does concern ordinary Canadians.
When we look around and consider in the past year the takeover of the Bank of British Columbia by Hong Kong interests, as well as the pending takeover of West Kootenay Power in the southern interior of my home province of British Columbia by a Missouri utility, and the takeover of Husky in Alberta with money from Hong Kong-


John B. Stewart: Buy some yourself.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: -as well as the takeover of Mitel by British interests, and the pending takeover of Cadillac-Fairview in Ontario-


John B. Stewart: What's keeping you from buying something?


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Perhaps the Hon. Member will realize that he has two ears and only one mouth, which means maybe he should listen twice as much as he speaks.


John B. Stewart: Turn sideways and I will look through your ears.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Perhaps the Hon. Member will listen.


An Hon. Member:: As Archie Bunker would say: "Stifle it"!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order, please. I believe the debate will carry on long enough without interjections by Hon. Members. I hope Hon. Members will allow the Hon. Member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell) the chance to speak. The Hon. Member for Vancouver-Kingsway.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, I also refer to the takeover of de Havilland by Boeing, and now the deal concerning Amoco of Chicago taking over Dome Petroleum. There is a pattern evolving here. The pattern is, in fact, the sell-out of Canada. That is why the average Canadian should be really concerned. We are seeing the opening up of Canada not only to foreign investment but to foreign control. This goes against all the measures we have been trying to take in the country over the past decade.
There was a consensus with respect to a policy of Canadiani-zation. There was a feeling in the country among all three Parties that energy being such an important resource, and the fact that energy security is so important, we should try to Canadianize the industry so far as that was possible. It is a long struggle to do that.
While the Minister was speaking I was looking back in the House of Commons Debates for November 13, 1979. The then Minister of Energy in the Clark Government, the present Minister of Justice (Mr. Hnatyshyn), was speaking, and I quote his remarks from page 1255 of Hansard:
We will take steps to ensure that Canadians have a greater and greater degree
of control over particularly the energy resources of this country. I make no
apology for that. I am proud of this country.
That was the consensus. It was repeated by the Hon. Member for Calgary Centre (Mr. Andre), the present Minister responsible for the Post Office, when he was energy critic. It was said by the present Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson), the Hon. Member for Etobicoke, when he was energy critic for the Tories. I remember them saying that in the House.
There was a reason for Canadianization, and there is still a reason for it. It is not just a woolly-headed ideological policy. There is a reason for it. We know, as the Hon. Member for Oshawa (Mr. Broadbent) said, that multinational oil companies have different interests to serve. They have different masters.
April 27, 1987

Canadian companies, whether they be public or private, or a combination of both in respect of some particular energy development, tend to serve Canada better.
We had two energy crises in the 1970s, one in 1973 and one in 1979, and there will be another energy crisis in the 1990s. All informed commentators tell us that. We know that during one of the crises in the 1970s a tanker owned by a large multinational oil company en route to Canada was diverted to another market. That kind of thing could happen again, and Canadians know that. Canadians are not stupid. They know that energy is a strategic commodity.
Canadians also believe that the oil and gas resources of Canada belong to Canadians and are not to be given away or sold out to foreign interests.
I wish to clarify some of the matters raised by the Minister in his speech, Mr. Speaker, and then I shall reply to some of the points raised. Before going through his speech in detail, let me put this question: Would the Americans allow a large Canadian company to make a similar acquisition in the U.S.? What would happen if the shoe were on the other foot, with a large Canadian company, a company with no American directors, no American shareholders, acquiring a large U.S. company?
In the case of Amoco Corporation, we have a company that patriated $680 million in dividends, while spending $107 million on exploration in Canada, constituting one of the worst records of any foreign company operating in Canada.


An Hon. Member:: The worst.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: My hon. friend says the worst record of any foreign company operating in Canada-and it is true. Would the Americans permit such a Canadian company to make a similar acquisition in the U.S.?


Some Hon. Members:: No way.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: There is no way that they would permit it. They would stand up for their rights.
Why are we in Canada so soft? Why do we permit this type of thing? Why do we throw up our hands and say that there is nothing we can do?
The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Masse) has misinterpreted the position of the New Democratic Party. We are not asking the Government to bail out Bell Canada or to subsidize Bell Canada. We think Bell Canada can look after itself. We are simply saying that the Government, given that a senior Canadian company is prepared to make a bid for Dome Petroleum, should allow that bid to be considered fairly and equitably, and over sufficient time. That is all we are saying.
The Minister suggests that we want to subsidize Petro-Canada. It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that the Government, and the Minister in particular, completely misunderstand what Petro-Canada is about. Petro-Canada was created to ensure
competition in the downstream side of the industry. That is not happening now because this Government is treating Petro-Canada as a private sector company. Its purpose was to provide a window on the industry. It was to be used in a crisis situation, and is precisely what this current situation calls for. It was a company to be used to develop our resources, when they had to be developed.
And look at the situation we are going to have now, Mr. Speaker, if we let Amoco Corporation take over Dome. The Hon. Member for Oshawa made mention of the fact that Dome has particular expertise in the Arctic, and in particular in the Beaufort Sea.
This was part of the great vision of Jack Gallagher-a vision which was clouded in many ways. I once said in this House, Mr. Speaker, that Dome often drilled more in Ottawa than it drilled in the Beaufort Sea-and there is some truth to that. But the fact is we acquired expertise in drilling in the Beaufort Sea, and the fact is that when we are confronted with the next energy crisis in the 1990s, it is the Beaufort Sea and the Hibernia projects that will provide the solution. And who owns Hibernia?-Mobil Oil, of New York. And who will own the Beaufort Sea reserves?-Amoco Corporation of Chicago.


Some Hon. Members:: Shame; shame!


Ian Gardiner Waddell: That is a crazy energy policy, and it is no way to ensure Canada's future energy security.


Some Hon. Members:: Shame! Some Minister!


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Minister for Energy, Mines and Resources forgets the commitment of the Progressive Conservative Party to Canadianization of our oil and gas sector. Indeed, he himself, in a little known speech delivered on November 6, 1986, paved the way for foreign takeovers in this sector.
I raised this matter at the time in the House of Commons. It was a speech delivered at Toronto, Ontario, on November 6, 1986, a speech delivered to the American Stock Exchange Seventh Annual Canadian Oil and Gas Symposium.


Marcel Masse: I remember the speech.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: The Minister knows the speech of which I speak. Hidden in at page 4 of the speech was the following:
Our policy calls for us not to approve the direct acquisition of a healthy Canadian-controlled firm valued in excess of $5 million. We are, however, prepared to consider the acquisition by foreign concerns of a Canadian-controlled firm which is in clear financial difficulty. In this way we seek a balance between welcoming new investment and protecting our Canadianization gains.
By that speech alone, and particularly by those words, the Hon. Minister opened up the oil patch for takeovers by American multinationals. There were a number of companies in financial difficulty at the time. He knows the list as well as I do: Sulpetro, Dome, and others, all of which were ready to be gobbled up by the Americans. The Minister's speech was an open invitation to the Americans to do just that.

April 27, 1987
I should like to refer to some of the remarks, Mr. Speaker, made by the Hon. Member for Oshawa, and I want to add a few points. Having had the privilege of being the energy critic of the New Democratic Party for a number of years, I have seen how some of these things have developed.
The Hon. Member for Oshawa made the point that Dome was a large Canadian corporation, and second largest in terms of gas reserves. He could have gone on to say that a lot of the reserves held are on freehold lands, with the result that they are not subject to royalty payments. So, it is not just a question of getting royalties from American-controlled Amoco Corporation; it is a matter of actually giving away a lot of those resources to a foreign interest.
I have already mentioned the tremendous Arctic expertise of Dome Petroleum Corporation. We are a northern country. Canadians have a special feeling for the north. That is what we in Canada are about. Having put so much money and effort into developing our energy resources in the north, we should not now turn around and give those resources to the Americans. John Diefenbaker would turn in his grave if he knew of this.
What kind of northern vision is it to give our northern resources away to the Americans? Such a move denies the whole basis of the Progressive Conservative Party; it denies the vision of the likes of Sir John A. Macdonald and John Diefenbaker. As well, it denies the visions of well known Quebec nationalists such as Henri Bourassa and George-Etienne Cartier. It denies what they believed in, that being to preserve a "nation" in Quebec and a "nation" in Canada as part of the larger Canadian nation. One does not achieve that by giving our resources away to the Americans. We would not have a Province of Quebec had the Hon. Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources been around 50 years ago, and we will not have any Canada if he stays for a few more years.
The question is whether there can be a difference with Canadian ownership. We think there can be a difference, and there has been ample debate in Canada as to why it is necessary to have Canadian ownership in the energy sector companies.
The three speakers who have preceded me in this debate raised the matter of jobs. We think that jobs will be put in jeopardy as a result of this takeover. Amoco will rationalize the jobs, with the result that there will be jobs lost. As well, Mr. Speaker, when one considers that Amoco and Dome are both large natural gas producers, we could possibly have a situation of Amoco sitting on the gas reserves of the Beaufort Sea rather than moving them to market in competition with their U.S. gas reserves. Has the Government thought of that?
The fact is, Mr. Speaker, that this is a very ill-considered takeover.
I have gone over a number of concerns, Mr. Speaker, and I wish to raise one more. It is one with which you yourself will be particularly familiar.
We have the notion that somehow western Canadians are in favour of this takeover, and that we in the Opposition, being against this proposed takeover, are against western Canada.
I am a western Canadian, and I want to point out to those who make that allegation, many of whom are from eastern Canada, that western Canadians are not just a bunch of ex-Dallas oilmen. They are workers; they are farmers; they are consumers. They are every bit as Canadian as anyone else in this country.
The fact is that when the National Energy Program was initially brought out, there was support for it in the West. There were areas where we disagreed with the NEP. We thought, for example, that the PIP grants given to Dome Petroleum, and others, were too rich; we thought that there should be more exploration in the Western Sedimentary Basin rather than in the Beaufort Sea and in the other frontier areas. As well, we lamented the big power struggles between Pierre Trudeau and Peter Lougheed for the sake of having power struggles per se. But the fact is-


Jack Wendele Shields: You also wanted to nationalize Imperial Oil.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: The fact is the thrust of the NEP was popular with the Canadian public. Public opinion polls at the time showed that 72 per cent of Canadians favoured Canadianiza-tion; and in fact 75 per cent called upon the Government to go further along that road. There was support for Petro-Canada; there was support for-


Jack Wendele Shields: You wanted us to nationalize Imperial Oil.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, there is no sense in the member yelling about nationalizing Imperial Oil, or whatever.


Jack Wendele Shields: That is what he said.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: What we are saying is that this hands-off attitude, this leave-it-to-the-market attitude, is not only naive, it is naive in the extreme. Any energy analyst in the world can confirm that we do not have a free market in oil and gas. What we have are large cartels such as OPEC and the Seven Sisters, the multinational oil companies. It is naive in the extreme to suggest that.
Any energy analyst in the world will tell us as well that there will be another energy crisis in the 1990s. We will need that land. We will need that control. We will need a Canadian company, either private or public. Canadians will wake up to the fact, when we have that energy crisis, that the Government and the Minister have sold it out. They are selling Canada.
We have offered an alternative. We do not pretend to have all the answers. The Hon. Member for Oshawa plainly admitted that. He said: "I am not an expert". However, he has tried. He has talked with the other companies and with other people. He has tried to come up with a Canadian solution.
April 27, 1987

What is the matter with a Canadian solution? We have come up with Canadian solutions in the past when the country was in crisis. Why does the Government not look at the possibility of a Canadian private company like TCPL, or a Canadian public company like Petro-Canada, or a combination of both? It is up to them to come up with a creative solution instead of throwing up their hands, giving up on Canada's energy future, and giving up on Canada itself.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Jack Wendele Shields: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in the debate this evening. I should like to comment briefly on the suggestions made by the previous speaker.
The bottom line was that we should support a Bell Canada-TransCanada PipeLine, takeover of Dome Petroleum, that the Government should get onside and support the group. However, he failed to mention that by doing this we would be giving TransCanada PipeLines a monopoly from the gas field, through the transmission, right to people's homes in central and eastern Canada. How does he square giving a large corporate entity a monopoly?
The Hon. Member also said that an alternative would be getting Petro-Canada involved. He failed to mention from where Petro-Canada would get the funds. Of course it would have to get them from Canadians through the tax system. Of course that would mean another Canadian ownership charge at the pumps. We are familiar with that. We have been through that before.
Dome Petroleum employs nearly 4,000 people, almost all of them in western Canada. It has been hamstrung in developing its attractive land holdings and using its other assets to the best advantage of the economy of the west and of Canada by an extended financial crisis occupying much of management's valuable time. It is a corporation which faces the real threat of bankruptcy. That is the bottom line.
I congratulate members of the Opposition on recognizing that the future of a company so important to western Canada and to our economy in general is indeed an emergency. It is a rare example of the sensitivity on their part to the problems of western Canada.
The urgency of the Dome situation, however, is virtually the only aspect of the situation which opposition Members seem capable of understanding. They have portrayed our policy in respect of Dome as a failure. It has in fact been a resounding success. They have argued that we do not have a Canadianiza-tion policy. Our policies and our record show the opposite. It is clearly on record. They also claim that an acquisition of Dome will compromise Canadian energy security when in fact it will be enhanced. Finally, they urge us to use the ability of government to intervene in the process and select a predetermined winner.
This shows an abysmal misunderstanding of the principles which we as a Government have laid down to guide our
conduct. They want to return to the good old days when the Government determined which companies would be successful and which companies would not, the good old days which gave us the national energy policy and helped create the very problems with which Dome is living today.
Let me discuss our policy on Dome. When we came to office in September, 1984, Dome's difficulties were already well known. We established clear principles to guide us on this troublesome legacy of the National Energy Program. Let me outline them briefly.
First, we said that Dome's problems should be settled in the private sector, not through a costly bail-out backed by the Canadian taxpayer.
Second, we said that, given the nature of Dome's problems, acquisition by any buyer should be considered because after all it was on the verge of bankruptcy.
Third, we said that any outcome must be consistent with the national interest as applied through legislation and in government policies, that is, that Dome's problems would not guarantee government approval of a proposed acquisition. Each proposal is to be judged on its merits according to the law.
The application of these principles has been a resounding success. Dome has been teetering on the brink of bankruptcy for a number of years. Today the corporation has selected Amoco as the successful bidder from among three suitors. Although the final outcome will not be known with certainty for some time, Dome's prospects appear considerably brighter today than they have for many, many years, to say the very least.
Let me now turn to Canadianization. The Opposition has argued that our willingness to consider Amoco means that we have no Canadianization policy. On the contrary, our Canadianization policy for upstream oil and gas acquisition is a clear one.
First, it allows the acquisition of already foreign controlled firms subject to commitments on Canadianization and investment.
Second, it disallows acquisition by foreign controlled firms of Canadian controlled firms in good financial health.
Third, it allows consideration of acquisition of Canadian controlled firms in clear financial difficulty.
This policy has been successful. When the present Government came to office in 1984, Canadian ownership in the upstream oil and gas industry stood at 42.5 per cent. In 1986 it was 48 per cent. All these gains were achieved through consultation and negotiation, not through costly incentives and heavy-handed regulations which characterized the previous Government and, I might add, which characterized the policy of the previous Government supported by the New Democratic Party.

April 27, 1987
While we would prefer to see an increase in those numbers, we recognize that over time there will be plus and minus entries on the ledger, especially during periods of restructuring and downturns such as the industry has recently been experiencing. What is important is the over-all and longer term trend.
We all recognize that should an application by Amoco be approved, Canadian ownership in the upstream will be reduced. Our policy, however, is designed to be flexible enough to allow such changes in Canadian ownership where the acquisition can be demonstrated to be of net benefit to Canada.
The Government remains committed to maintaining a strong Canadian presence in the oil and gas sector. However, this presence should be a healthy and vigorous one. To pursue Canadianization at any cost, as the Opposition would have us do, by providing excessive and biased incentives like those offered by the previous Government and supported by the New Democratic Party is one of the root causes of Dome's problems today. All Members of the House know that.
The Opposition has also claimed that the acquisition of Dome by a foreign company would compromise Canadian energy security. It is my belief, Mr. Speaker, that there is only one way to enhance security in the oil and gas industry and that is the economic development of Canada's oil and gas potential. The most important element in this is a financially sound industry. A transaction which removes the uncertainty hanging over the largest landholder in western Canada can only promote economic activity and enhance security of energy supply.
If a foreign firm proposes to acquire Dome, the Investment Canada Act as well as other regulatory powers provide ample means to ensure that our resources are developed in ways that contribute to Canadian energy security. Every Member in this House of Commons knows that to be true.
Finally, the Opposition has urged us to intervene to determine the outcome of the bidding process for Dome. The Opposition suggests that we use the authority of the Government to ensure that a Canadian firm is selected. First, this suggestion displays an ignorance of the law. The Investment Canada Act requires the responsible Minister to review each foreign investment on its own merits. The Opposition knows that. This does not allow consideration of the existence of other bidders, Canadian or foreign.
This whole debate tonight is strictly politics, politics and politics, so opposition Members can get on the late night show.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Nelson Andrew Riis: Imagine politics.


Jack Wendele Shields: It is the sleazy kind of politics; it is not responsible politics, Mr. Speaker.
It is our view that government must establish a clear and predictable framework for firms wishing to do business in Canada. Let me repeat that. It is more important and it is our view that government must establish a clear and predictable framework for firms wishing to do business in Canada. This means all proposals, like Amoco's, must be reviewed on the basis of laws and policies of general application. To do otherwise would create an atmosphere of arbitrariness and uncertainty which would affect perceptions of Canada as a good place to do business. This would have a serious negative impact on investment and job creation in Canada. We all saw the impact of the National Energy Program on investment in Canada, and we all saw the disaster it caused.
Dome's problems are for the private sector to resolve. Ultimately Dome's shareholders and creditors, many of whom are Canadian, will decide what is in their best interests. They will consider any and all offers available to them.


Nelson Andrew Riis: What about Canada's best interests?


Jack Wendele Shields: Only after a successful agreement is negotiated will the federal Government get involved through Investment Canada and/or the Competition Act. Of course, the Government is prepared to discuss any issues regarding its policies or procedures with any private party.
In summary, the success of our economic policies has made Canada's energy sector an attractive place to invest once again for foreign and Canadian firms. While no application for approval has yet been received, and the bidding process does not appear to be over, if a foreign bidder should be successful I am confident that we have in place the laws and policies necessary to ensure that any application by a foreign acquisitor which may be approved will benefit Canada.
If we accepted the advice of opposition Parties and began to intervene in an arbitrary and unpredictable way, perhaps we would not face the necessity of reviewing proposals from foreign acquisitors. Perhaps, too, Dome would continue to limp along, or go bankrupt with serious impacts on our economy, in particular western Canada. I know which problems I prefer to deal with, Mr. Speaker. Indeed, I welcome them and have confidence that they can and will be dealt with in a way which will result in economic benefit to Canada.


Russell Gregoire MacLellan: Mr. Speaker, the Government would have us believe that it is of no importance to this country who takes over the very valuable reserves of Dome Petroleum, the second largest reserves of natural gas and the third largest producer of oil. These are, as has been said this evening, reserves that have been largely financed by the people of Canada through energy programs or tax concessions. Indeed, they are reserves which the people of Canada will be depending upon very strongly in the years to come.
The Government has done a complete about-face on energy policy, if you could call it energy policy. The process of Canadianization and security of supply, the two major pillars
April 27, 1987

of the energy program, have been completely abandoned by the Government. The Government is saying that now it is all right to sell the assets of Dome and that Canada will be looked after by this foreign multinational.
How did this change come about, Mr. Speaker? As the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner) said, during the last election in 1984 that was not the case. That was not the dogma of the Conservatives. The Conservatives were saying that an increase in Canadianization was an important part of the Progressive Conservative Party's platform. Conservatives were saying that security of supply would be vital to this country.
When did this change come about? I think the most marked difference was last November 6 in a speech by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Masse) in Toronto. He said that Canadian companies in financial difficulty were available for sale to foreign interests. This could only have been uttered with Dome Petroleum in mind. It opened the doors of multinational corporations and opened the ears of their executives. It was then, as we have read today in the paper, that the President of Amoco Corporation in Chicago first felt that Amoco had a chance to buy Dome Petroleum. He proceeded to give the scenario of how it was recommended to him by his senior officers that Dome Petroleum could become a part of Amoco Canada.
That was not only an inadvertent policy on behalf of that Government, it was careless and irresponsible. If it were only that then perhaps we could excuse it to some degree. But it was more than that, Mr. Speaker. It is a bail-out of everything the Government should stand for. It is a bail-out of what the Canadian people expected from the Government when the people elected it in 1984. It is a bail-out of what this Government promised to Canadians and how it would protect the interests of Canadians. The Conservatives have completely turned around what they said they were going to do.
What is the Government now telling us? It does not matter who owns Dome Petroleum! The Government said it does not matter about TransCanada PipeLines. That is a Canadian company. It cannot protect you any more than Amoco in Chicago. Amoco Corporation owns Amoco Canada 100 per cent. There is not one measly share in Canadian hands at the present time. The president is an American. There is not a Canadian on the board of directors of Amoco Corporation. As the Hon. Member for Oshawa (Mr. Broadbent) has said, Amoco Corporation last year sent dividends to its head office in Chicago in the amount of $686 million.


Jack Wendele Shields: Because of the National Energy Program.


Russell Gregoire MacLellan: Because of the NEP. Because of the fact that Amoco was allowed by the Government to get away with it. Amoco was encouraged by the Government to do so the way Chevron was encouraged to send $500 million back to its head office in San Francisco.
In 1986 alone, $2 billion was sent by foreign owned oil and gas companies back to head offices outside Canada. This is an
increase of the average between 1982 and 1985 of between $600 million and $900 million, more than double in one year because the Government was looking the other way when the interests of Canada were first and foremost in the minds of Canadians but not in the mind of that Government.
The Government was doing a song and dance for the last two years about how the multinational oil companies would reinvest in Canada. The Government told us that at the time of the Western Accord. It told us that last September when it did away with the petroleum and gas revenue tax once and for all. The Government said it was doing this on the understanding that the multinational oil companies would reinvest that money in Canada. Where has this assurance gotten us? Where have these words gotten us? They have been hollow words because that has just not happened.
As Hon. Members have said tonight, this is not a condemnation of multinational oil companies, this is an attempt to stick up for the rights of Canadians, to protect the future of Canadians. This is an attempt to protect the security of supply in which we as Canadians have invested so greatly in the last few years. This is something with which we must come to grips. We have to say that this emergency debate is being held for a very good reason. We are faced with a very critical situation, a situation that could mean the sale of very important reserves of oil and gas to an American corporation, not one share of which is in the hands of Canadians.
We do not know anything about what the Government will do. The Government does not know anything itself. It said the matter would be referred to Investment Canada. The people of British Columbia heard that. They just experienced the decision of Investment Canada with respect to the West Kootenay Power and Light Corporation. A decision was made on Christmas eve to agree to the sale of that public utility to American interests without asking for pertinent files or information. If that happened, how can we possibly believe that Investment Canada will review this question with the attention it deserves?


Brian Vincent Tobin: Divestment Canada.


Russell Gregoire MacLellan: Divestment Canada is absolutely correct. We do not know when the matter will go before Investment Canada. All we know is that Investment Canada has 45 days to consider the question. It can get an extension of another 30 days, and if it wants another extension of 30 days it has to go back to Cabinet for approval. We do not know when the decision will be made. We do not know if that decision will be made prior to the decision of the shareholders of Dome Petroleum. We do not know if it will be made prior to the decision of the creditors. We do not know what information will be placed before Investment Canada. We do not know anything about what the Government will do. We do not know anything about how the Government will weigh this very

April 27, 1987
important question because the Government refuses to give anyone any information.
We are not talking about the sale of a corner store. We are talking about the sale of a very important corporation, a cornerstone of our economy in the oil and gas industry. We need more information than we have been getting. The people of Canada demand more information than they have been getting. This is not a question of convenient information, it is a question of necessary information upon which Canadians can make their own decisions. This will not be another occurrence of something the Government does so well, and that is making a decision and then building its case after the decision is made. We want the information before the decision is made. The people of Canada have an absolute right to know the full details of this.
This is not an issue that will go away. The Government would like us to believe that in the next while, this will all fade away.
The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources has said that clearly it is a matter of national importance that such a company should be a model corporate citizen, sensitive and open to the environment of its host country. How can those words convince Canadians that the Government will do something to protect the rights of Canadians to energy security and the very important principle of Canadianization which the Government has given its word it would uphold?
This is not what we want. This is not what we expect from the Government. Certainly Amoco has offered $5.1 billion for Dome Petroleum but that is not a gift. We do not make this out to be some kind of largess. The company has 15 million acres of oil and gas properties, nearly three million of which are producing acreage at the present time. Dome Petroleum is a company that is very badly strapped for financing, but even though it is terminally ill, it sits on nearly $2.5 billion in tax losses and $2 billion worth of tax credits and it lists $4.9 billion worth of assets.
This is an abominable situation that the Government is throwing at Canadians. In 1985 at a Public Accounts Committee meeting, it was stated that the Dome Petroleum situation was coming to fruition.
In February, 1985, a remission order pursuant to Section 17 of the Financial Administration Act was granted to the Hudson's Bay Oil and Gas Company Limited, a subsidiary of Dome Petroleum Limited. Over a 10-year period, Hudson's Bay Oil and Gas was authorized to deduct for income tax purposes the financing costs that Dome incurred in acquiring it. The value of the remission order was considerable and to that date amounted to $400 million. It is now estimated that that remission order could amount to $1 billion.
It was also stated that the remission order did not limit the benefit to the present owner of Hudson's Bay Oil and Gas, and it was stated at that time that this omission might result in an unintended benefit to another taxpayer should Dome decide to sell. There is the possibility that a Canadian subsidiary of an
American parent corporation, 100 per cent owned by that American parent corporation, will now pick up the benefits of that remission order in the amount of hundreds of millions of dollars. That is a scam and literally a give-away by the taxpayers of Canada to a foreign corporation.
How many of these situations exist? How much is going on about which we do not know? Why can the Government not come clean with the information that we need to know? Why can the Government, in the interests of the people, the Canadianization of the oil and gas industry and the protection of the security of supply, not come clean with what it wants to do and give us a reason for it? Why wait until the last minute and then say that the Amoco purchase is approved, as if to say it is too late now, we have to go with it? That is not good enough.
We in the Liberal Party are not convinced that there is not a Canadian solution to this very important question. We are not convinced that there cannot be Canadian ownership of Dome Petroleum. It is vital that the Government push for a Canadian solution. It should not wash its hands of this matter, it should say that it is something that Canadians want and it will work toward finding such a solution.
Obviously the Government knew back in November that it was preparing the way for a foreign takeover of Dome Petroleum. In all that time it could have worked on a Canadian solution but it chose not to do so. The fact that it does not now have a Canadian solution to propose to the House and the Canadian people is a disgrace but it is not an excuse.
The Government has let down the Canadian people. It is giving away the reserves of oil and gas that belong to the Canadian people, for which the Canadian people have paid and ownership of which the Canadian people are entitled to retain. That is not acceptable. It is not going to be accepted tonight or tomorrow. It will never be accepted by the Canadian people.


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Mr. Speaker, I find it a bit strange to be taking part in this debate tonight. Members of the Opposition wanted to adjourn the House so we could debate this issue. I see the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner) is here.


John Napier Turner: Nice to see you, too, Bill.


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: I hear him talking about "Amoco". That could be a milkshake where I come from. With his delivery I thought he would say Amoco. I am sure the people who service the Amoco rigs are from "Schlumburger" or Schlumberger.


John Napier Turner: That is a great contribution.


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: I find it strange because it is the Liberal Party that is responsible for the problems that Dome
April 27, 1987

Petroleum has today, along with their friends in the NDP. They put forward the National Energy Program which created Dome. It was an artificially founded company, regardless of the good intentions.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Dome was around for a long time before that.


Jack Wendele Shields: It was foreign owned.


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: I heard the Hon. Member for Vancouver- Kingsway (Mr. Waddell) be a touch critical about the amount of drilling done by Dome in Ottawa in the past rather than in the field. What the Opposition is asking the Government to reply to is something the Government has no control over.
We have heard the figures. We know. Dome owes $6.3 billion. Where is Dome Petroleum controlled from today? Is it Canadian controlled?


Nelson Andrew Riis: Yes, it is.


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: The NDP say yes, it is. No, it is not. Let us just read what the founder of Dome, Smiling Jack, had to say. He says that because less than 30 per cent of Dome's shares are held by Canadians we are not talking about a Canadian controlled company. When the best possible interpretation of the numbers is used it is 52 per cent foreign owned and only 48 per cent Canadian owned. What is all this about a Canadian owned company? Less than 30 per cent of the shares are held by Canadians. I do not understand.


Brian Vincent Tobin: He is being heckled by his own Party.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I still have around 14 or 15 speakers to go. If each member is going to take 20 minutes, I hope they will be allowed to finish and I will not have to interject and take time away from the speeches, please.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Heckling is not to be tolerated.


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Mr. Speaker, let us look at what the founder and former president of Dome has said. He says that any major company in the U.S. which has billions of dollars invested in pipelines, refineries and marketing must develop reserves on this continent to keep those facilities going. We heard mention of the reserves in the Beaufort.
Millions of acres have been leased on Canada Lands by Dome. They will not be explored because Dome does not have the money. Dome is presently strapped, flat broke. If you really want to know who controls Dome, it is the banks, both Canadian and foreign. Banks do not make good managers of oil companies. They are not interested in exploration. They are not interested in looking after the workers on the rigs or those providing services. Dome is so badly strapped for cash that it put forward a policy not to pay its payables for 90 days. What about the stickwelder? What about the guy who drives the water truck or the mud truck? They have to wait 90 days to get paid by Dome because Dome does not have the cash flow to pay in 30 days. Is that what the NDP and the Liberals want to see continue?


Brian Vincent Tobin: No.


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: The Hon. Member for Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe (Mr. Tobin) says no. I agree with him. I heard both Leaders of the opposition Parties ask if there was a way another offer could be made. It is not up to the Government or the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Masse), it is up to the shareholders and creditors of Dome. It is not a government company to sell.


Brian Vincent Tobin: That is not what you said about the banks.


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: I did not hear one alternative from them. Well, I guess I heard one from the NDP and that was expected. PetroCan should step in and purchase the company. That would cost another $5 billion or $6 billion. Do the NDP plan on adding another four or five cents a litre gas tax to pay for that $6 billion purchase?


Jack Wendele Shields: Of course.


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: How long will it be on? Will it be on as long as the Liberal tax was on to help pay for Petro-Canada?


Brian Vincent Tobin: It is still on.


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: It has been reduced. The Hon. Member from Newfoundland laughs. What about Hibernia? The Hon. Member from Newfoundland is very supportive-


Brian Vincent Tobin: Another broken promise.


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: -of the Atlantic Accord and the benefits this Government brought to his province-


Brian Vincent Tobin: Name them.


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: -by signing the Atlantic Accord. Yet his Leader stands up and says Dome is going to be sold-


Brian Vincent Tobin: Name the benefits.


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: -and it is a Canadian company and a Canadian company should buy it. He did not have one in mind. He did not make any suggestion-


Brian Vincent Tobin: Bill, name the benefits.


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: I see the Hon. Member from Newfoundland saying that he wishes we had not entered into the Atlantic Accord.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Name the benefits.


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: I find that strange because the Government he was part of could not sign an agreement with his province. This Government has signed an agreement, and the Hon. Member is a dog in the manger. He is saying he does not think that is a good agreement. I would like him to go home to his province and say we should not have signed that accord; it will not benefit the province. The Hon. Member is now saying that

April 27, 1987
he does not want any oil and gas exploration in Hibernia. Is that what he is saying?


Brian Vincent Tobin: Name the benefits.


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: I cannot believe the Hon. Member would say he does not want oil and gas exploration in Hibernia. Would you believe that? The Hon. Member for Vancouver- Kingsway is shaking his head. He cannot believe it.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: I cannot believe it.


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: The one thing we have to understand is that Dome has to be in strong hands. I hear suggestions that we should have a Canadian purchaser. So far I have not heard in the media that there is a Canadian purchaser acceptable to the owners of Dome. I can understand that the NDP would wish to intervene in the private sector but I find it very strange that the Liberal Party wants to do that. I should not find it that strange after the NEP which caused the problem we have with Dome-PIP grants, where $2 were paid out for $1 invested.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Three.


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: The Hon. Member for Newfoundland says I am wrong, it was three. Anyway, you can understand the philosophy behind it.
To my knowledge there is not a Canadian purchaser acceptable to the owners of Dome. I said before that Dome is not Canadian controlled. It is not majority-held by Canadians so I do not understand what the debate is about. I really do not. If a deal had been put forward and was being reviewed by Investment Canada, I could understand it, but to my knowledge there has not been a deal put forward. I ask members opposite where this Canadian company is that is going to come forward and buy Dome.
Are the members opposite saying Canadian taxpayers should put more money into Dome to have it purchased? How much more; $2 billion, S3 billion, $4 billion? I heard the spokesman for the Liberal Party talk about the billions of dollars of investment that have already been made.
The majority of Dome's land is leased, not owned. There are royalties payable. There is a regulatory regime. I know of no industry in Canada other than the nuclear industry which is as regulated by both provincial and federal Governments as is the oil industry. Why is everyone so concerned that a company which may be one-third owned by Canadian shareholders could be sold at the wish of the owners and strengthened through investments to allow exploration?


Brian Vincent Tobin: To whom?


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: The Member from Newfoundland is asking to whom. I suggest to whomever the owners and shareholders wish to enter into a deal with. I can understand the Liberals wanting to interfere in the oil industry because they did it so
well. I find it very strange that since the present Government came into office Canadian ownership has increased from what it was when the Liberal Government was in power. I understand why the New Democrats want to interfere in the industry. They do not believe in the free enterprise sector. They do not believe in Canadians being able to invest their money in a company such as Dome and then dispose of it as the owners of Dome will.
To my knowledge there has not been a deal cut. To my knowledge there has not been another offer. I read in the paper that TransCanada Pipelines said it had made an offer. Are members opposite sure that was all Canadian money, that TransCanada PipeLines was putting forward only Canadian dollars, that there were no foreign partners, foreign banks? I am not sure of that, but that is not my responsibility. I neither own the shares nor am I a creditor.


Brian Vincent Tobin: There is a difference between a foreign creditor and a foreign master.


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: I find it strange that the Liberal Party talks about foreign masters. When the Progressive Conservative Government came into power it increased Canadian ownership in the oil industry.
I heard a speaker from the Opposition talk about a remission order. I do not know much about remission orders, but I do know that if a company owes more than it is worth a remission order does not have much value.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Like the banks.


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: I know the member opposite does not understand, but I will give him a little hint. I do not remember a bank that was saved. I remember assisting credit unions, pension funds, and municipalities. I remember assisting those depositors. I do not remember this Government ever saving a bank.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Wells Fargo, City Bank, Bank of America, Hong Kong Bank, just to name a few of them.


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Now his colleague from the New Democratic Party is coming forward. I heard his colleague talk about coming from western Canada and about having an interest in western Canada and what takes place in exploration. I agree with that. However, how can a company which owes $6.3 billion and has assets on the books of about $4 billion continue with exploration? There are about 100 properties which are jointly operated by Dome and Amoco now. How can Amoco go ahead and develop on those properties when it has a partner which is terminally ill? It cannot be done.
I am not here to defend Amoco. It does not need to be defended because the shareholders and creditors of Dome Petroleum will make a decision as to what deal they feel is appropriate. I find it very, very strange that we are now talking about Amoco. Amoco Canada was here when Leduc came in 40 years ago. I know that a lot of people will have to consider
April 27, 1987

whatever decision is made by the creditors and the shareholders. The stick welders, the roughnecks, the drill workers, the mud slingers and the water truck drivers will make a decision.


Brian Vincent Tobin: They have already decided. You guys are in a deficit situation just like Dome. You can't operate any more.


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: I understand the nervousness of the NDP and the Liberals because they are now trying to decide who is best qualified to interfere in the oil and gas industry. Is it the Member from Newfoundland, the Member from Kamloops, or the Member from Montreal? Are they best qualified? They are having trouble making a decision amongst themselves as to who has the best method of interfering in the sector, who has the new national energy program to put forward. Is it the socialists on the left or the socialists on the right? Who has the best plan to interfere in the new national energy program?
The Government does not know, any more than the members of the Opposition, the decision that will be taken by the creditors and the shareholders of Dome. However, it will be decided when exploration goes ahead. The majority of those millions of acres are leased from the provincial or federal Governments. There are royalties due on them and they are controlled by regulations. Exploration will take place and jobs will be created. Consider those service workers who now must wait 90 days because Dome is broke. They cannot pay the bills in 30 days like others, but now must wait 90 days and perhaps 120 days.
Decisions will be made as to what will take place in the future and whether the shareholders and creditors of Dome had the right to dispose of their shares. When that happens, the Government, through Investment Canada, will make a decision. However, we cannot make a decision on a hypothetical case put forward by the Opposition.
I listened to the Minister, and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson). They have not said that an offer has been made. The Hon. Member from the New Democratic Party signals that I am right. If nothing is consummated, there is not much to be gained by debating it.


Nelson Andrew Riis: The Speaker did not feel that way.


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Not much more can be said until the shareholders and the creditors, the owners of Dome, make a decision. The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources has said that it is not up to the Canadian taxpayers or the Finance Department to bail out Dome, it is a problem that should be solved by the private sector and that is the bottom line.
I am sure that the private sector can make a decision that will ensure exploration, ensure a supply of oil and gas, ensure jobs for thousands of Canadians, ensure security and will result in an industry that does not have to carry a sick corporate client. Instead, it will be a strong and healthy company that will contribute-


Brian Vincent Tobin: American company.


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: I am not sure the Hon. Member from Newfoundland would be concerned about where he was healthy. I am sure he is as happy to have the development in Hibernia, off his shore-


Brian Vincent Tobin: What development?


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: -as we will be in western Canada when a strong, financially sound Dome Petroleum continues to explore and bring on supply and jobs which will create sound investment opportunities for Canadians in the future.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I must shake my head at hearing an important Minister in Cabinet asking why there is this fuss. He wonders why the Speaker decided earlier today that there was in fact an emergency in the oil patch and that the time is now for a special debate as requested by the Opposition.
One of the critical major players in the Canadian energy field is bankrupt and people want to buy it. The Minister asks why there is a fuss and says that it is rather irrelevant. He wants to know why there is a fuss about the fact that this is the largest takeover in Canadian history. This will have a significant impact on the amount of foreign control over this important, integral, cultural resource in this country. The Minister wants to know what is the problem.


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Cultural resource?


Nelson Andrew Riis: You can bet that the petroleum industry is a cultural resource. Our entire culture in the western world is based primarily on energy and the oil and natural gas sector of that energy sector. Anyone who thinks differently obviously does not understand the world around them. That is why it is a critical cultural resource.
The Minister asks who cares if we lose a major share of this critical cultural resource to foreigners. We care, and many Canadians care. As a matter of fact, the majority of Canadians care.
For a number of years Canadians have heard the bafflegab and rhetoric of the Conservatives about Canadianization. However, when push comes to shove and the Conservatives must make a decision, they say they will sell out to the foreigners any day, particularly if they are Americans.
I do not know why we are surprised at the Government tonight. It will go down in history as having approved, through Investment Canada, more foreign takeovers than any Government in the history of this country. In fact, since the Progressive Conservative Government came to office it has approved more foreign takeovers than any country in the world. Although we are not a major country in terms of business and industry, not one country has experienced more foreign takeovers than Canada. I am not surprised that that Cabinet Minister would ask what is the big deal and why worry now that there are 1,201 takeovers.

April 27, 1987
As my hon. friend, the Member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell) said earlier, imagine what would happen in the Congress of the United States today if a major Canadian oil company was about to move in and become one of the significant players in the U.S. energy field. If the board of directors was entirely composed of Canadians, with a Canadian president and a head office in Canada, the Congress would be in an uproar. They would not accept that for one moment. Yet the Government of Canada not only accepts this absolutely ludicrous situation, but applauds it, saying that it is wonderful for Canada.


Brian Vincent Tobin: They will not even let us sell lumber.


Nelson Andrew Riis: As the Hon. Member says, the one area in which Canada has been progressive and successful in becoming one of the major players is in wood sales in the United States. Yet the Americans are not prepared to accept us in their wood industry there and have taken significant steps to remove us.
The Government of Canada supports selling out to the Americans and having decisions about the future of the Canadian oil business made in Chicago. Canadians do not like that. They will have an opportunity in some 20 months to go to the polls and consider whether they want to return to office a government that is prepared to sell Canada out, as it has done with this oil deal, with West Kootenay Power and Light, as it has done 1,200 times in two and one-half years.
When Canadians are asked if they want this process to continue, a majority of them in every province and territory will say they have had enough and will not allow the Progressive Conservative Government to continue to sell their destiny to foreigners. Tonight's debate is absolutely crucial. The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Masse) indicated that it is important that this new player in the oil field from Chicago is a good corporate citizen and that it operates in the best interest of Canada. When we consider its track record, I do not think there could be a more erroneous sale approved by the Government, assuming that it will do so.
For example, in 1986, for every dollar invested in Canada by Shell, it sent 23 cents back to the United States. Texaco took 56 cents out of every dollar it invested in Canada. Imperial Oil was more aggressive and for every dollar it invested, it removed 57 cents. Gulf removed 61 cents out of every dollar it invested in Canada. However, the company we are concerned with tonight removed $6.41 for every dollar it invested in Canada last year.
That is the kind of corporate behaviour we will now find in the entire oil patch in Western Canada and in the frontier areas and it is something which does not bode well for our country. As the previous speaker indicated, this corporate citizen has been operating in Canada since the Leduc fields opened in Alberta. The way this company is operating in Canada, with an American president and an American board of directors, and for every $1 invested in Canada taking out
$6.41, is shameful corporate behaviour. Yet we are told it it will give assurances that jobs will be created.
Let us face it, one of the obvious things that will occur, as my friend, the Hon. Member for Vancouver Kingsway and other members in the House have pointed out, is that this company will rationalize its operations in Canada. It is a major gas player in the United States. It is taking over a company which is the second major gas player in Canada. Obviously, it will rationalize its operations. This U.S. company will now control one of the largest blocks of exploratory lands in Canada. When we look at those exploratory lands it is interesting to note that a good portion of them are way into the future. In other words, these lands do not expire in terms of their ownership, therefore, what this foreign company has purchased is control over the resource value lands in Canada for decades into the future. So as it develops its operations in the United States, it knows it can sit on these lands in Canada for two years, 10 years, or 20 years, and some time in the future perhaps it will get around to developing them, using the lands as a sort of secure back-up for its operations.


Brian Vincent Tobin: International feudalism.


Nelson Andrew Riis: As my hon. friend says, it is international feudalism. That is what we are talking about. On the other hand, when we have two of these large giants coming together with thousands of employees, we know those firms are going to be rationalized. That is what happens when the takeover process is under way. We have seen it happen time after time. In fact, we have seen it happen 1,200 times in terms of foreign takeovers only, not including domestic takeovers.
When those companies rationalize their operations, they know they do not need two accounting sections, only one. They do not need two marketing sections, only one. So they start eliminating jobs. I say that particularly for those people in western Canada who are concerned about their jobs. If they believe all those jobs will be kept in place, let alone expanded, as a result of the takeover by this large foreign multinational, they should know it is just not going to happen. We are going to see significant job loss.
Right now, as we debate this matter, in the American part of the Beaufort Sea there is a drilling company called Canmar, a subsidiary of Dome Petroleum, which employs Canadian crews. Canadian crews are working right now on that drilling rig. But you can bet your bottom dollar, Mr. Speaker, that when that American multinational becomes the owner and controls that operation, it will hire Americans. It will not retain those Canadian crews.
I believe it is very, very critical that a lot of Members on the Government side have mislead people today by saying there will be job security and new jobs as this company expands into its frontier exploration zones. Such will not be the case. Anyone who has studied one iota of the takeover process will recognize that the net result is inevitably jobs lost as opposed to any jobs being created.
April 27, 1987

Our Party is very concerned about what this means. What we are seeing here is simply part of two critical processes which are starting to raise more concerns with Canadians than ever these days. The first process is the continuous sell-out, the willingness of the Government to accept the notion that what is a good deal for the shareholders of Dome is a good deal for Canada. I think a case can be made, as my colleague, the Hon. Member for Vancouver-Kingsway did so well today when he indicated that the major shareholders of Dome Petroleum are actually Canadian citizens, Canadian taxpayers. Think of the hundreds of millions of dollars Canadians have invested in that critical natural gas and oil company through their taxes.
I think, as responsible parliamentarians, if we are concerned about the investment which has been made by the shareholders who have invested in Dome, as well as the taxpayers who have also invested heavily in that company, we must realize there is a vested interest and responsibility to ensure that the deal which is made with this particular company is in the best interests of Canada as a whole. We are all well aware that Canada, unfortunately, will be a net oil importer by the early 1990s. We have to become aggressive in the development of that resource.
As long as there are critical decisions being made about oil and natural gas, not in Calgary but in Chicago, Dallas or Houston, those decisions will not necessarily be made in the best interest of Canadians. That is what we are saying. It seems to me when we call for an emergency debate, we do so to get some information. There are all kinds of questions which need to be asked. My Leader went through a long litany of questions which people have asked, yet there has been no response from the Government. Our energy critic, the Hon. Member for Vancouver-Kingsway, asked another set of questions; what are we getting for this? What steps is the Government taking to ensure that this is a good deal for Canada? All we hear are rather flowery speeches and rhetoric from Members of the Government, including the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. That is not the way to conduct business. That is not the way this House of Commons is supposed to operate. In fact, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Shields) had the audacity to suggest that it seemed like we were being political. Of course we are being political. This is a critical political question. Who owns Canada? Who controls Canada? Who controls this important resource? That is what this is all about.
It is critical that we move away from a Government which believes that what is good for the shareholders of Dome is automatically and unquestionably good for Canada and its future. We also have to ask why we are moving so quickly. Why is it that the directive went out to the Chairman of Petro Canada: "Do not talk to Dome"? Why did the word go out to the chairman of Dome: "Do not talk to Petro Canada"? It seems to our Party that this is part of the process of the Government giving in to the United States because of its rush to negotiate a free trade deal. It is in effect admitting it gave in
to the States on the softwood issue and on a whole range of other issues, including acid rain. This American giant wants to gobble up one of the major players in our energy sector and the Government is laying down its cloak and saying: "Welcome to Canada once again. This is another takeover and we like takeovers in Canada". That is the voice of the present Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources and the federal Government.
Our Party believes this is not in the best interest of Canada. We have articulated a whole host of reasons why we believe a better deal can be struck. A joint venture can be put together which would be in the best interests of Canada and would retain this critical Canadian company in Canadian control.
I want to simply issue a challenge to members of the Government who are here tonight. Can any of them tell me of an oil country in the world which would allow a majority resource to be controlled by foreigners? If there is such a country, I am unaware of it. I am unaware of any country which would allow foreigners to dominate its critical industry let alone own and control it. If there is such a country, I would challenge Members of the Government to identify it. Is there any other country which is prepared to sell out its petroleum industry as the Government of Canada has been doing over the years and will certainly do if it gives its approval to this particular takeover?


Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, My remarks will be addressed through you to members of the Opposition and to the people of Canada. This happens to be a subject which one could call by several headings. It could be called "The Canadian solution". First, in reply to the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis), I challenge him to read the oil and gas regulations which deal with the Canada Lands. If he did read them, or if he ever does read them, he will find out that the law is very clear. That land belongs to Canada and is given out to companies either in the form of a permit or later on in the form of a lease. With one breach of the lease the whole acreage is lost.
I ask the Hon. Member to take a look at that and then come back to the more serious question. Any person who has read the British North America Act, and in particular the Alberta Natural Resources Act and the Saskatchewan Natural Resources Act, will know that it is made very clear as part of the Constitution that the sole owner of those resources, including water, is in the hands of the province. So when Hon. Members use the word "control" they do so without realizing the amount of control that we have set on all our industries. I do not think they should get too excited about this great perceived danger.
There is an Hon. Member sitting behind me who was in the Alberta Legislature in 1940. He belonged to the Social Credit Party. He knows that the Province of Alberta controls all the land in that province.


Mr. Taylor:: Right on.

April 27, 1987


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: He knows that the Province of Quebec controls all its resources, too. It received the right in 1867. Alberta and Saskatchewan did not receive the right until 1931.
When I hear these people who pose as great experts talk on subjects about which they know so little it makes me a shade annoyed. I planned to say saddened. But when members have been here for a certain length of time I think they owe it to their country to do some research and reading and not leave it to their staff. Staff have never heard of the British North America Act. Staff have never heard of the Saskatchewan Natural Resources Act or the Alberta Natural Resources Act. It is the Members themselves who have to do the digging. When Members get these facts clear they can then look at the situation as it is today.
1 happen to be a long-time friend of Jack Gallagher. He drilled the first well on the Arctic islands when I was Minister of Northern Affairs when no one else had the nerve to do it. The tragedy was that if he had moved that well just a few yards farther north he would have discovered the first oil field in the Arctic. With respect to that, why did I put such emphasis as the first Resource Minister of Canada on going into the North? It was because I knew from the experience of the 1920s and the 1930s in Alberta and Saskatchewan that these were not the main resource pools of oil and gas. Therefore, when I drove into the North it was with the offer of Canadian oil and gas regulations that made it clear that there be no heavy front-end loading charges put on those who went up into the north. When they found oil, or gas, they would be given enough return on their money to get their money back and make about a 25 per cent profit, which would be enormous, and the people of Canada would get at least 50 per cent.
I want to go back and mention another story. I sat in the Saskatchewan Legislature in 1950, not as a member but with the courtesy of the Premier. All Hon. Members here know that Premier's name. He was the Hon. Tommy Douglas. He first came into politics in this House in 1935. He made honest and sincere statements of his purpose and intentions. He stated that he would go for the new Jerusalem. By planting the flag of socialism on Parliament Hill the people would own and control everything. That was his pledge in 1935.


Michael Morris Cassidy: Hear, hear!


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: The Hon. Member is right in saying: "Hear, hear". Tommy Douglas was an honest man and a great Canadian. However, by 1950 he was 15 years older. He had been the Premier of Saskatchewan for six years. What did he say in the Legislature when I was there in 1950? He said that he had to face the resource situation. The Americans were coming into Alberta but not into his province. He got up and said to the House that there were two choices. The first was to take the public money and go in to look for the resources. The other choice was to let private enterprise come in to look for them. He decided on a third choice. It was that in a risky enterprise no democratic government could afford to go into risk enterprises.
He said that in one year $100 million could be lost, thereby destroying a province. So he chose a system whereby no charges, or few charges, would be placed on the oil companies coming in to explore. However, when they found something, a certain share of that would be taken back and a very good royalty would be added on to it. He used the figures that I have just used, that is, 50 per cent to be returned to the people. But the control would always be in the hands of the Government of Saskatchewan, with respect to both freehold and royalty lands. I put this point before Hon. Members because Tommy Douglas was a man who loved this country like no one else could love it, even in the face of the disappointment he had in not being able to go into service overseas in 1939 with the South Saskatchewans. Yet he stood up and was man enough and Canadian enough to face the realities as they were, and Saskatchewan became a fair oil and gas province.
The second point I want to make along this same line, and I am speaking to members of the NDP with some feeling, is that this matter came up in the House in the early 1950s with the setting up of a great pipeline to pick up the gas from western Canada to bring it to the east. Then it was the Conservatives and the NDP, and they called themselves CCF in those days, who fought like tigers and even challenged the Speaker because the Government was insisting that Canadians could not build this land. It was being said that they did not have the competence or the money with which to do it. The Conservatives and the NDP were both nationalist Parties.
Having started that, what actually happened? The government will prevailed. It did give a few shares to Canadians but the bulk was owned by southerners in the United States, the big oil companies, the shares in this TransCanada PipeLines which would be a public utility. As the years rolled on Canadians bought back almost every share of TransCanada PipeLines as individuals or as companies. We paved our way into ownership as well as control.
Time goes on. Ownership passes around. Now, a big corporation, Bell Canada, holds the biggest share. But Canadians are still willing to invest. I suggest to members of the Opposition if they do not have any ideas of their own, except maybe one with respect to a joint enterprise comprised of a broke government and a broke company, that they should consider this one. Let the Canadian people give us a Canadian solution. Just say to Amoco that one of the terms and conditions we will consider is this. "We would like to put your Amoco into a Canadian company registered in Canada and make every one of the shares of that company available to Canadians. We will buy your Amoco". That is the positive way to go. I think that is one way that we could certainly garner the support of the people of Alberta. They did that with the building of their pipeline system through their province.
In the building of the pipeline system through Alberta,
200.000	shares went to those who produced the gas and
200.000	to those who bought it. The balance of the shares went
April 27, 1987


An Hon. Member:: That was Blakeney's fault.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: The second mistake of the New Democratic Party was when, for the sake of nationalism, it supported the National Energy Program brought in by the Liberal Government. There has been enough said about that. I do not have to tell Hon. Members what happened. That program constituted front-end loading by the federal Government on top of the oil and gas industry, backed up by all of these huge grants, and it was a program that interfered directly with the Constitution. No federal Government has the right to do indirectly what it cannot do directly under the law.
The Liberal Party, with the help of the New Democratic Party, passed the National Energy Program, a program which ultimately damaged all of the large companies in the oil patch. The NEP encouraged these companies to engage in wild expenditures and into large borrowings, regardless of the interest rates. The result is that all companies in the oil and gas sector were hurt. Dome Petroleum Corporation, in acquiring the deep gas reserves along the Foothills and involving itself in its Beaufort Sea exploration program got behind, and like any common farmer or businessman, once one gets behind in times of high interest rates, one is a dead duck. The interest rate policy in Canada led to that particular situation, and as such we all have to take responsibility for it.
The third mistake of the New Democratic Party relates to its position on the proposed takeover of Dome Petroleum Corporation by Amoco Canada. Amoco is no bigger than an elephant, and it is easy enough to upset an elephant if one gets him off balance. Amoco has to have the reserves, or it is a dead duck; but in order to acquire those reserves, it has to adhere to the regulations of the Provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan and, to some extent, British Columbia, and certainly in the Canada Lands, where the majority of the holdings of Dome Petroleum Corporation are.
If one is truly thinking of the interests of Canada, one should not think in terms of building a wall around us. We cannot take the position that we are going to grow only enough to feed our own people or to produce only enough to keep our own people working. We are part of one world economically. We are part of a situation where both parties get wealthier if they trade with each other. As traditional proponents of freer trade, Hon. Members opposite should not take the position that free trade constitutes a sell-out. Canada and Brazil, and

April 27, 1987
to a lesser extent Russia and China, are the countries of the future.
The nation that has the resources wins wars, and the nation that has the resources wins when it comes to trade. But we have to learn how to use our strengths. In dealing with an elephant, we should not try to use our strength. Instead of getting out the battleships and waving the flag around, we had better figure out some way by which to get the elephant off balance.
I had such an experience myself in the 1957-1959 period, when the Americans imposed a 100 per cent embargo on the shipping of lead, zinc and oil into the United States. My advice to the Government of the day was to refrain from making any complaint. Given the traditional practice of the Americans to cut their own throat, I knew that they would eventually run out of lead and zinc, and oil. With that in mind, I suggested that we construct a railway line to Pine Point, the source of our lead and zinc deposits. We passed the necessary legislation, with much laughter in the House. Here we had a railway going from no place to no place.
When one looks at the figures today, one realizes that the only railway in Canada that paid for itself in a period of six years is the Pine Point Railway. The company itself, which was a subsidiary of Cominco, which was in turn a subsidiary of CPR, paid for the mine in a period of 15 months. There is no other mine in British Columbia that can make that claim. The reason, of course, that it was able to do so was that prices tripled when the Americans did run out. It goes without saying that a few shareholders benefited too.
The three mistakes that I have enumerated stem from a negative nationalism point of view. Nationalism is great, until one thinks it through. One has to ask oneself what a "me first" attitude means. Does it mean jingoism? Not entirely. But in the end, it does amount to jingoism. Negative nationalism espouses the philosophy of "me first; nothing for the other fellow. Bang him down." We know what happened when we started that in the late 1920s with the Smoot-Holley tariff in 1928, with the Bennett Government blasting at world markets in 1930, and with the tariffs since 1932 under the Democrats. Then there was the rise of parties in Germany and Italy based on emotional leadership. We had to have living room. They were into a trade war with us and American and Canadian soldiers died to pay the price for huffing and puffing by nations which followed negative jingoistic nationalism within the trade side or military threats. They have all gone to the dust now.
However, here we are again beginning to repeat the same experience. All these decisions on Amoco are pretty elementary. There are other things as well such as free trade and the whole business of relations with the Third World. I hope we realize that we are one world economically and the only good deal is where both sides benefit, not us alone.
I do not give a hoot whether one is American or Canadian, we both must accept the fact that we are sinners more often than we are good men. I would like to see Parliament think a bit before it starts making extravagant claims about a poor broken down company which tried its level best and was caught up with the same problems many of us had, namely, high interest rates and the inflationary mentality that developed a few years ago.
I would think that the correct term should be positive nationalism. One makes decisions with one's heart and one's mind, but one makes them on the basis of what is best for one's country, not according to some theory or one's religion.
I hope that we in the House will look at the matter frankly. I hope we will look at it with emotion but also with sanity because if we get involved in this banging of our neighbour just to say that we are protecting our Canadian interest, we will not help the working man, the farmer, or the businessman. All we would do is make this a quarrelling place on emotional issues which do not hold water when the situation is examined.
I do not know whether the taking over by Amoco is right. All I do is trust the Government which must make up its mind on what it will do when the time comes. I would think that the people of Canada will respect a positive approach to our problems rather than a negative one.


Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have an opportunity this evening to speak on the emergency debate concerning the takeover of Dome Petroleum by Amoco, an American corporation.
I was very interested in the comments of the Hon. Member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain (Mr. Hamilton). He brings a great deal of historical perspective to any debate. Certainly he had broad experience in northern development. We all enjoyed his comments this evening.
I should like to refer to his comments toward the end of his speech when he said that what we want to do is the best thing for our country. Clearly that is what the debate is all about. We are all concerned that this takeover of a major player in the Canadian petroleum industry is in the best interest of the country.
Tonight we clearly saw a further elaboration of the government policy espoused first last fall that foreign ownership was not really such a bad thing, that Canadian ownership was not really necessary if it was not convenient. Of course that is a dramatic change from when the Government campaigned in the 1984 election. At that time it was for greater Canadian ownership.
When Gulf Canada, which is owned by Gulf in the United States, was taken over by two Canadian companies, that is, by Petro-Canada and by the Reichmann brothers in Toronto, the then Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources trumpeted it before the House of Commons. It was a major move to increase Canadian ownership as she had promised in the general election of 1984.
April 27, 1987

When we look at the takeovers, we see that the Petro-Canada one cost the Government some $1 billion to acquire some 1,800 oil and gas stations in eastern Canada. How that really increased our reserves no one is quite sure.
Many Tories in western Canada, especially in Saskatchewan and other parts of the west, fought and opposed Petro-Canada. They wrote to the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) asking why Petro-Canada was expanding and taking over thousands of gasoline stations which did not increase Canadian reserves. The Prime Minister wrote back and said: "We really do not have anything to do with Petro-Canada. It operates purely as a private corporation".
We saw the takeover of Gulf by the Reichmann brothers. Through an ingenious tax advantage, the Little Egypt Bump, the cost of that operation amounted to some $1 billion as well to Canadian taxpayers.
The idea of government involvement in massive investment to increase Canadian ownership seemed to be the policy of the Government. However, there was a dramatic change last July when the new Minister was appointed. He espoused a new policy which was carried through this evening. In his statement tonight the Minister essentially said that a transaction in the oil and gas industry was the same as any other commercial transaction and that they would judge it through Investment Canada if it were over $5 million. He indicated that essentially it was a private transaction and that they did not worry very much whether it was a Canadian or an American transaction.
Let us refer to what has changed. A year ago last fall the Government launched its free trade negotiations which are into a very critical period now. Clearly the Government would not want to do anything to offend the United States. We heard a statement this afternoon by the United States Under-Secretary of Trade in Toronto in which he gave his blessing to this Amoco takeover of Dome, which I believe is our second largest reserve of natural gas and our third largest reserve of oil. They want it to go through, with no questions being asked. Of course the Prime Minister, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Masse), and the others on the Tory side of the House will not do anything to impede that takeover.
A couple of years ago Petro-Canada was taking over a major American producer of oil and gas, and Gulf had no input or say in it. When Petro-Canada was set up it was to be a window on the industry. It is a major Canadian producer of natural gas and oil. Perhaps it is involved in as many plays in the oil and gas industry as any other Canadian company. Surely it might have been able to give the Minister of Energy another perspective. It could have been that window on the industry. Perhaps it could have played some role. After all, Dome has billions of dollars of tax write-offs. Yet Petro-Canada was forbidden to have any part in this even though the Minister was getting daily reports since last October or November as to the state of play between the various suitors for the takeover of Dome.
It was interesting tonight to hear the Parliamentary Secretary who represents the constituency in which Syncrude operates. He was very generous last December when he took the full responsibility for the Tory caucus when the Minister of Energy refused to give any assistance to Syncrude. The Syncrude people came before Members of the House of Commons with an excellent presentation with which I believe every back-bencher agreed, but the Minister turned that down. We have a situation where the Government has a laissez-faire approach to this matter, a very relaxed view with no effort at all to see these major Canadian reserves of oil and gas go to a Canadian company.
We would like to see a Canadian solution. We would like to see greater Canadian control. We have, according to the estimates about which I have heard, something like 55 per cent of the oil and gas industry now in Canadian control. Ownership is something less than that. If Dome is taken over by an American company like Amoco then that Canadian ownership and control will be dramatically reduced. This is only the latest in a long litany of government actions on energy.
If you remember, Mr. Speaker, we talked about energy in 1984. The Government talked about energy being the engine of the economy, and that it would create hundreds of thousands of jobs. The estimates were from 100,000 to 300,000 jobs as soon as the Western Accord was put in place. If the Western Accord could not do that, then the Atlantic Accord would. The Government talked about Petro-Canada being scaled down. If you listened to the Hon. Member for Calgary Centre (Mr. Andre), who is now the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, who fought Petro-Canada tooth and nail all the way through committee meetings and through the election campaign, Petro-Canada was going to be made to tow the line. Conservatives did not actually say that they would sell Petro-Canada. They said that before the 1979 election, but before the 1984 election they left it rather open and indefinite. Shortly after the 1984 election it took over 1,800 gasoline stations, and we all wondered about the Government spending either directly or indirectly some $1 billion to have that many Petro-Canada stations across Canada.
Do you remember the pride of the then Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources in the Gulf takeover when both Petro-Canada and the Reichmann Brothers increased Canadian ownership of the oil and gas industry quite dramatically, mostly at the expense of the Canadian Government which in the election campaign it had opposed vehemently? The only one who did not seem quite as happy was the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) when he saw how much it was going to cost Canadians.
Then just a year and a few months ago, in January and February, 1986, in spite of this great Western Accord, the whole thing collapsed. The price of oil dropped from $30 a barrel to $10 a barrel and coincidentally with that the PIP grants were discontinued at the end of March last year both for the Beaufort Sea and for the East Coast offshore. The

April 27, 1987
whole industry collapsed. When people got looking at the Western Accord, there was one little paragraph at the bottom which said that if oil and gas prices should drop precipitously, there would be negotiations. There have been no negotiations and the industry has been in a tailspin ever since with tens of thousands of jobs being lost in the Beaufort and the western sedimentary basin and in the East Coast offshore.
That spread out through the entire Canadian petroleum industry. It was not just in Alberta. It was in communities like Sault Ste. Marie which had just built a $375 million tube mill. It laid off 1,500 workers. That mill has still not recovered from the industry which was going to create hundreds of thousands of jobs. Capital investment dropped from $11 billion to around $6 billion. That represents over 100,000 jobs in the industry. The Government at that time was going to discontinue PIP grants and also discontinue the PGRT. It continued to collect the PGRT even though accusations went back and forth between Edmonton and Ottawa until the late fall when finally the Government discontinued the PGRT.
We have seen a continual litany of difficulties and pratfalls. In the summer of 1986 the whole energy policy of the Government started to change. Suddenly the new Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources was saying that self-sufficiency was not really achievable with lower energy prices. Elere is a Government that came to power talking about hundreds of thousands of jobs and about self-sufficiency, greater Canadian ownership and greater participation of Canadians in the oil industry. All of the objectives, incidentally, of the National Energy Program. Suddenly all these things were being abandoned. First, oil self-sufficiency. Soon the Minister was saying "Well, the energy sector is not really a sector for the creation of jobs either". Later in the fall he said that if oil companies were in financial difficulty or under $5 billion in assets and value, no questions would be asked if they were taken over by a foreign owned company. Now we have come full circle. It seems not only do we have our small oil companies being taken over by multinationals but no questions will be asked even with big ones. The whole oil policy is coming unstuck.
I mentioned the question of Syncrude where the Government refused to provide a guaranteed agreement for some couple of hundreds of millions of dollars. In the end the Government went ahead with only the guarantees of the Province of Alberta for a major project which will increase the production of Syncrude by some 20,000 of barrels of oil a day from 130,000 to around 150,000, setting the project up for the doubling of production on toward the end of this decade. The federal Government would not even provide that guarantee basis, so the Alberta Government went ahead on its own.
Then the industry pleaded for an oil-depletion allowance similar to that which the mining industry has. We heard representations on that for at least five or six months. Finally the Premier of Alberta said that if the Government did not come forward with an oil-depletion allowance program, he
would split the Alberta PC Party from the federal PC Party. Within a week or two of that threat, the Government moved to provide that allowance.
PIP grants were foreign, objectionable and unacceptable to the Tory caucus but they look surprisingly like the Canadian Exploration and Development Incentive Program grants of 33 per cent. Of course these grants are being well received now that they have been put in place. There should be a gross expenditure of some $350 million and a net expenditure of maybe $60 million or $70 million and the creation of some
15,000	to 20,000 jobs.
We have seen a mixed bag of disasters for Alberta and the energy-producing areas of western Canada in the last 12 or 15 months. Tonight we are asking if the Government is abandoning the policy on Canadian ownership on which it was elected, a policy which the former Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources trumpeted. It is abandoning an attempt to find a Canadian solution to the Dome problem. Clearly that is achievable, whether on the basis suggested by Hon. Member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain of requiring Canadian ownership or, better still, on the basis of having a Canadian company take over Dome or work with Petro-Canada to do so. In any event, we in this caucus believe that there is a Canadian solution to this problem. We believe that a Canadian solution is in the best interests of Canadians. We can have jobs and reserves in Canada and maintain not only Canadian ownership but Canadian control of the life-blood of our economy, the oil and gas industry. It is vital that there be Canadian ownership and control over this very important producer of this vital commodity.


Russell Gregoire MacLellan: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. We are running out of time in this very important debate and there are a few Hon. Members who would like to speak but have not spoken. They are not very many in number and I would ask for the unanimous consent of the House that we not see the clock in order to allow the Hon. Members who are present in the House right now an opportunity to speak.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Then I will recognize the Hon. Member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor), the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill (Mr. Blaikie), the Hon. Member for Calgary East (Mr. Kindy) and the Hon. Member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia). Perhaps Hon. Members could use discretion so we could get this debate over with as soon as possible.


Gordon Edward Taylor: Mr. Speaker, as I listened to the leader of the socialist Party and the Leader of the Liberal Party (Mr. Turner) tonight and as I listened to some of the other members of the Opposition, I was reminded of the saying: "History repeats itself'. About 40 years ago, I heard
April 27, 1987

similar debates in the Legislature of Alberta. At that time, the province was the poor cousin in Canada. It had a debt of $69 million and its people were unemployed. Agriculture was going downhill. The price of wheat had gone as low as 19 cents a bushel. Nobody had a job and 52 cents out of every dollar collected in taxes went to pay the interest charges alone.
There had been oil in Alberta to a small degree for a number of years. As a matter of fact, gas was first discovered in Medicine Hat in about 1890 and there had been some discoveries of oil in the Turner Valley area. In 1947, Imperial Oil brought in the Leduc oil well, sending the message around the world that there was a vast ocean of oil under the ground in the Province of Alberta. Then the Government endeavoured to get people to develop it. The then Minister of Mines, the late Hon. Nathan Tanner, went to eastern Canada to beg it to invest in our oil. There was nothing doing, no one would come. He went to Britain and France but no one would take up the bid. All they would say was that it was too risky. He then went to the United States and invited the Americans to invest. He promised them a fair deal if they came to Alberta to find oil. As a result, in 1947 when Leduc came in and from then on, millions of dollars were spent drilling holes that were dry. Eventually, we found a large number of oil and gas wells.
In the debate which occurred while the Minister was inviting the Americans to invest their money, I heard almost the same arguments I heard tonight in the House about Amoco. What were these arguments? It was said that we would lose jobs in Canada. That made me wonder at the time because we hardly had any jobs in Alberta. It was said by the Liberals and the CCF, the Opposition, that the Americans would hire other Americans and not Canadians. They said that the President of Imperial Oil was not Canadian and Imperial Oil had no Canadian shareholders. It was said that we were selling out Alberta. How could we sell out Alberta? The Americans could not move that oil south of the 49th if they wanted to. It was under the ground in Alberta. We were not selling out anything.
The Opposition said as it is saying tonight, that we were destroying social services. As one of the NDP Members mentioned tonight, it was said then as well that we were destroying our culture and losing our sovereignty by letting the Americans come in. It was said that the company would send all our Canadian money down into the United States and we heard the same thing tonight. Some opposition Members even said that if the Americans come in, they will sit on the oil and develop oil in the United States without developing ours.
The Alberta Government listened but it did not heed the arguments. It asked the Americans to come into Alberta to operate under our laws and under our control, as suggested just now by the Hon. Member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain (Mr. Hamilton). We now have an oil industry in the Province of Alberta that never would have existed if we had listened to the Liberals and the CCF who were so bound to keep the American money out of Alberta.
It was said that we would lose jobs. I came from an area with 90 per cent unemployment. There were no jobs. Our homes were impoverished. We had to share the food on the
table. I saw my own mother go without food so the kids could have something to eat. Many mothers and fathers did the same thing. The Opposition said that we were losing jobs to the Americans. When the Americans came, they did not bring other Americans, they hired Canadians. Those Canadians got a pay cheque instead of welfare. Who cared if the president and shareholders of Imperial Oil were American? They were spending American money in Canada, creating jobs, developing an industry that was later a tremendous asset to the whole of Canada.
It was argued that our social services would be destroyed. After the oil money started coming in, we had better social services than any other province in Canada. We even had what was called a maternity grant. At the time, 75 per cent of mothers were having their babies in their own homes. The Government felt that this was not very good because doctors were saying that we were losing too many babies. Because of the oil industry, the Government was able to provide a grant so that mothers could have their babies in hospital. About 95 per cent of the mothers gave birth to their babies in hospital and that was a wonderful thing for every pregnant woman in Alberta at the time.
We were not destroying social services, we were building them up. Were we destroying our culture? Why, culture never had such a boost as it did after the Americans came in with their money. We lost no sovereignty. They did their work under our laws and under our control. They did not sit on the oil. They invested and reinvested and reinvested until they found tremendous volumes of oil in several other places, a great ocean of oil under the province. There is still lots of oil there.
The Americans came to Alberta and they were treated fairly. We said that they will operate under our laws but if they find oil we will divide up the area. They would get half of it and the rest will belong to the people of Alberta. The sale of that half of the oil that was found by American companies brought tremendous amounts of money to the coffers of the Alberta Government. Our provincial debt was paid off because we permitted the Americans to come in and develop our oil industry, bringing buoyancy to the economy, and providing jobs for our people. Yes, all these things happened because the Americans came in.
What would the alternative have been? As the Hon. Member mentioned a few moments ago, the oil companies lost millions of dollars before they found oil. We were told to borrow the money and invest it. If we had done that we would still be head over heels in debt. We were told we could increase taxes. Increase taxes? We were already being taxed to the hilt. When I listened to the then Leader of the Liberal Party and the then Leader of the Socialist Party, I had to decide whether I would vote with the Government or with the Opposition. I decided our condition was so bad I would vote with the

April 27, 1987
Government, and I am glad I did because that brought a new era, a new day, a new hope, a new horizon to the people of Alberta and the people of Canada. None of those bad things they thought would happen actually happened. Just the reverse.
I hear people talking about losing our sovereignty. We are not losing our sovereignty. I support Amoco coming in, whether the Government does or not, because I can see millions, maybe billions in American capital coming into this country to develop our resources and provide jobs, some 3,800 jobs in Alberta alone. I do not know how many hundreds of jobs across the country. People will have jobs if the company takes over. What is the alternative? Borrow a few billion dollars or increase taxes. I do not think Canadians want either one.
I heard an Hon. Member saying we want a Canadian solution. Almost everyone wants a Canadian solution but they did not tell us what it was. Is it to borrow a few more billion dollars and increase our national debt? Canadians do not want that. Is it to increase the price at the pump as the Liberals did when they let PetroCan buy Petrofina at a price twice what it was worth? The people do not want that either. We have a Canadian solution. I feel it is a Canadian solution to let Amoco come in with its money and expertise and provide jobs for Canadians while developing our resources.
People have talked about selling out our country, areas like the Beaufort Sea and other places. How can we sell them out? They can be developed only under our laws and under our rules and under our control. They cannot be moved south of the border. That is impossible. They will work under our laws and regulations.
Someone was complaining about money being brought in from Hong Kong to save the Bank of British Columbia. Would they rather have had the bank go down the drain? The Chinese money will be used under the laws of the Province of British Columbia. It will keep the bank going and keep the people working. What is wrong with that? I see nothing wrong with bringing money in from other countries, whether it be the U.S., Germany, Japan or China, or any other country, as long as the companies work under our laws and under our control and provide jobs for Canadians while developing our resources. That is what we want. That is what will make a great Canada. That is the kind of Canada I want. The taxpayers paid money to buy Petrofina's gas pumps. That is all they got. You can say they own Petro-Canada. Well, if I own it, I want to sell my share. I do not want to own part of Petro-Canada. I want it to develop its properties, pay taxes and hire Canadians just like any other company would.
I see a great future for this company if the shareholders permit Amoco to come in with its money and expertise, working under our laws, to develop our industry and bring buoyancy to our economy and provide jobs for thousands of people who are unemployed today.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, I always enjoy listening to the Hon. Member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor), particularly when it affords me the opportunity to get a bit of a history lesson. I have to speak from a different historical perspective. When oil was discovered in Leduc it was four years before I was born. So I always value the opportunity to listen to Members like the Hon. Member for Bow River and, for that matter, the Hon. Member for Qu'Appelle- Moose Mountain (Mr. Hamilton).
The Hon. Member for Bow River said something about not learning from history. I remember an Old Testament professor of mine who said we do learn one thing from history. The one thing we learn from history is that we do not learn from history. Perhaps that is another way of saying that the debate we have before us tonight is, quite rightly, as the Hon. Member for Bow River said, an old debate. We do not pretend to be saying anything novel. We are consciously repeating the other side of an argument which we know has gone on for 40 or 50 years, or for however long Canadians have been disagreeing with each other about the best way to develop our resources.
After listening to the Hon. Member, one of the things I most regret about Canadian history is that Canadian investors, when Alberta, went to Ontario on its knees looking for money to develop its resources, were not willing to do that. If they had invested in Alberta we would not have the kind of emotional affection for American money that we find in the consciousness of Albertans. The Member for Bow River is a good example of that. I do not say that negatively. It is just a fact that that has affected the historical consciousness of Albertans. When they wanted Canadians to invest in their economic future, Canadians would not do that while Americans did. That has not been forgotten and it affected the political judgment, if you will, of Albertans for decades after the 1940s.
The Member for Bow River says that none of the things which were predicted at that time came true. I disagree with that. Some of the forecasts, like a lot of forecasts, proved to be not totally accurate, but some of the concerns which were raised at that time became genuine concerns. They had to do with a fundamental disagreement about power.
The Hon. Member for Bow River and the Hon. Member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain said many times tonight that as long as these corporations are operating within our laws and subject to our regulations there is nothing wrong with them. The difference between that analysis and the analysis of the NDP is that we believe that when multinational corporations, about which we are particularly concerned, are in possession of enough resources and economic power the law becomes a secondary instrument of control. It is not enough only to have control of the law if corporations, by virtue of how much of any particular sector they own, are in a position to dictate quietly what the law will be because of the enormous power
April 27, 1987

that they can wield in the market-place and the enormous pressure which they can put on the Government.
The Hon. Member for Bow River has been around long enough to know that that happens. Corporations which own a great deal of any particular sector, whether it be oil, grain, or forests, have a power over governments commensurate with the amount of the sector over which they have economic control even though governments retain, at least in theory, and many times in practice, the control they have through laws and regulations.
I would ask the Hon. Member for Bow River to acknowledge at least that there is a legitimate concern for those who worry about the concentration of ownership in the hands of people whose fundamental or immediate agenda is not the well-being of Canada but the well-being of their profit margins or whatever the case may be. I have heard the Hon. Member for Bow River say such things about other economic institutions, particularly the banks. Oil companies are not exempt from some of the criticisms which the Hon. Member has made about the banks. I say that with respect to that which the Hon. Member has said.
The Hon. Member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain gave us a bit of a history lesson on the pipeline debate of the 1950s when, he said, the Conservatives and NDP stood together as two nationalist political Parties. I agree, but I say with all sincerity that 1 think that main stream within the Conservative Party is an endangered species. That kind of nationalism and red Toryism which we associate with certain members of the Conservative Party and certain traditions within the Conservative Party is almost extinct. One sees very little evidence of it in the Conservative Party today. Although I respected the arguments offered, I was a bit shocked that it was the Hon. Member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain, who was a cabinet Minister in the Diefenbaker Government, who made some of the arguments which he made in favour of the Amoco takeover.
The Hon. Member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain said that we cannot build a wall around Canada, that we cannot be satisfied to produce enough to feed ourselves. That was the example he used. I agree, but when we speak of producing enough to feed ourselves we are talking about agriculture and grain. We are talking about a renewable resource, something which, if managed properly, can last for a thousand years. When we speak of oil and gas we are not speaking of a renewable resource. That is quite a different commodity. That is something which, if not managed and controlled properly, may be used up more quickly than it should be or sold off more cheaply than it should be depending upon the economic contexts which arise.
If I have learned one thing in my few short years in Parliament it is that the context is forever changing and it is, therefore, difficult to make forecasts. However, I certainly reject the example given by the Hon. Member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain of producing more than we
need to feed ourselves and therefore being open to international market trends as being something that we should imitate in the oil and gas sector. I think an entirely different kind of attitude is required.
Every once in a while in the House of Commons one gets a sense of why New Democrats are New Democrats and why Conservatives are Conservatives. It is always a little harder to figure out the Liberals. This is one of those occasions when there is a stark difference of attitude, emotion, and political judgment between the New Democratic Party and the Conservative Party of Canada. It is personified in the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Masse) who has an incredibly passive attitude toward his role as Minister.
As far as the Minister is concerned this is basically a decision which must be made in the market-place and the Government will concern itself with the matter when it absolutely must. The Minister has previously indicated that the Government will not stand in the way of an American takeover of a Canadian corporation in trouble, which obviously fits this situation. That is a very passive, stand-back attitude; whatever happens happens.
The Minister had the same attitude when I asked him a question about the federal nuclear policy. The week before the Easter break I asked him what the federal Government's policy is with regard to the building of Lepreau II in New Brunswick. The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources said he did not know, that it was not his problem, it is up to New Brunswick.
On both occasions he pretends that the federal Government has nothing to do with it, that it is just an idle spectator and it is totally up to New Brunswick whether another nuclear reactor is built in Canada and totally up to the shareholders of Dome whether one of the largest Canadian-owned oil and gas corporations falls into the hands of an American multinational. The Government is in the political peanut gallery wondering what will happen, waiting to read the newspapers to learn what happens.
That is very, very different from the attitude which New Democrats take in both these situations in which we see a definite federal responsibility to ask the difficult questions and construct the appropriate policies to give federal leadership on these issues in order that decisions on very difficult questions about energy choices and the structure of our energy economy are made in Parliament rather than according to the whims of the market-place or whatever provincial election agendas may be in the making, as is the case with respect to Lepreau II in New Brunswick.
There are times when it becomes clear why members belong to certain Parties in the House of Commons. I recall another emergency debate on energy, concerning the Prebuild of the southern portion of the Alaska gas pipeline. I recall that evening in July, 1980, I believe, when the Hon. Member for

April 27, 1987
Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell) was the energy critic for the NDP as he is today and we stood to oppose what the Liberal Party, the Government of that day, was going to do to Canada by arranging for the export of Canadian gas on the basis of a commitment from the Americans that the northern half would be built soon. The Hon. Member for Regina East (Mr. de Jong) recalls that debate, but I wonder if Liberal Members in the House remember the debate.
During that emergency debate the Liberals asked us to accept the same kinds of commitments from the American administration that they now ridicule when those kinds of assurances are given by a Progressive Conservative Government with respect to other transboundary energy and environmental issues.
When we have an opportunity to reflect on that debate and the debate tonight about whether Dome Petroleum would become part of Amoco International, a multinational oil corporation, people will want to know what stand members took on the night that Parliament had an opportunity to oppose what I believe will become the turning point in the history of the Canadian energy policy and a turning point in Canadian history itself.
I believe that this is one in a series of non-decisions the Government has made that is increasingly turning Canada into a banana republic of the north. If the Conservatives are elected for another term, God forbid, it will not be long before this will be a shell of a country with all of the political symbols and democratic paraphernalia but no real ability to make decisions over our economic destiny and control of our country. That which should be under our control will be in the hands of others. That is the issue in the debate tonight. I did not want to miss the opportunity to put on the record my position on this particular issue.


Alex Kindy: Mr. Speaker, it was interesting to listen to the Member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill (Mr. Blaikie). There is no doubt that he espouses a socialist philosophy. He believes that state control is the best way to manage a country.
While they are sincere in their belief, we must look at the world today and ask where there is the highest standard of living and where human rights are respected. Does that exist in countries with socialist or communist regimes or in countries that have free enterprise and believe in individual freedom?
We can also consider how people live in those countries where there is state control. When an oil company is controlled by the state, the flow of money is not necessarily distributed to the people but could be lost in the system.
Today we are debating the issue of a Canadian company that has invested, has borrowed and has overspent. This happened because there was a belief that oil prices would rise indefinitely.
I recall Mr. Lalonde, the then Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, telling us that oil prices would rise to $60 and
$80 a barrel. At that time, the Liberals, with the help of the New Democratic Party, established the National Energy Program.
In 1981, the shares of Dome Petroleum were trading at $25 a share. Only two or three weeks ago those shares were trading at $1.13 each. The shares have lost 94 per cent of their value.
Those who worked at Dome and bought shares at $25 a share invested and believed in the future of that company. They were induced into that investment in error by the grandstanding of some Ministers who envisaged a skyrocketing price.
Today we are faced with a bankrupt company for which there are two offers. One is from an American company that is solid and has made an offer that is $800 million greater than that of TransCanada PipeLines Ltd. Its offer is exactly $5.1 billion. TransCanada PipeLines has offered $4.3 billion.
The American company has a good reputation. It is solid and can develop the resources that it will acquire. The total debt of Dome Petroleum is $6.3 billion. Its oil reserves fell from 516 million barrels in 1981 to 228 million barrels today, and the value of its reserves were cut in half.
We need new exploration and I believe it can be accomplished by a company that has a solid record. As the Hon. Member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor) pointed out, American companies developed the Alberta oil and gas industry. They have a good track record. I believe it is not important who buys the company but who will develop the resources. I suggest that the American company will do a good job.
The Bell system located in Montreal owns 47 per cent of TransCanada PipeLines. It already controls communications and the transport of gas. If it purchases Dome, it will control the development of oil and gas and would become somewhat of a monopoly. Therefore, I have no hesitation in supporting the acquisition of Dome Petroleum by Amoco Canada.


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, as you know, we have heard from two Cabinet Ministers in this debate. If their speeches reflect the Government's appreciation of the implications flowing from the Dome Petroleum deal, I submit to you, Mr. Speaker, that Canada and Canadians are in real trouble. The speeches by the two Ministers have quite clearly revealed, at least to me, that they are blissfully unaware of the long-term implications of this deal. That is the reason the Leader of our Party earlier tonight put forward the Liberal position.
Our Leader made three points; first, that Investment Canada and the Government should insist on substantial Canadian ownership or refuse the deal because we consider Canadian ownership a vital component in the transaction. Second, Canadians are in effect owners of Dome by way of billions of dollars of incentives for exploration, tax benefits, grants and other tax favours. Third, this deal is just another item in the over-all free trade negotiations with the United
April 27, 1987

States and our oil and gas industry is being held hostage in the same way as our lumber industry with the export tax. Those are the three pillars of the Liberal position in this debate as indicated earlier by our Leader.
It is important to focus for a moment on the two main arguments put forward by the two Cabinet Ministers in this debate. First, they repeatedly blamed the intervention policy of the former Liberal Government. The suggestion was that Dome Petroleum finds itself in its present condition because of frequent subsidies and assistance given by the previous Liberal Government under the National Energy Program, for instance, which made it possible for Dome to acquire land and to become the very important corporation it is. For the people at home who may be wondering what we are talking about, I will explain that in terms of oil and gas liquids, this company is the seventh largest in Canada, and in terms of natural gas, it is the second largest in the country.
It is true that the former Liberal Government was an interventionist Government, and we have nothing to apologize for. However, this Tory Government is an interventionist Government as well. It is the short memory of its members which makes this debate so fascinating and, in a way, amusing.
Members of the Tory Party have forgotten that two years ago the Government of Canada gave an interest free loan to Domtar. Would you not call that an interventionist policy, Mr. Speaker? How about the help the Government offered to Cominco and to Cyprus-Anvil to resuscitate an almost dead mining company? How about the assistance it gave to Sysco? What about the interventionist policy of the Conservative Government in the last two years with respect to Algoma Steel, the Northland Bank and the Canadian Commercial Bank, and in more recent months, the understandable assistance which was offered to General Motors? These are all interventionist decisions by the Cabinet and the Government of Canada under the auspices of the Progressive Conservative Party. So much for the interventionist policy of the former Liberal Government as being the main culprit of the present situation.
The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Masse) proclaimed that this must be a free market transaction. That is really something which has puzzled me. I ask you, Mr. Speaker, how can one call the transaction a free market transaction when Dome Petroleum has some $2.5 billion worth of tax losses being carried forward? This company has benefited, as indicated by the Leader of our Party earlier tonight, from a number of tax concessions, incentives, PIPs, you name it. This company is in good part owned by the Canadian people through the income tax system. This is not a free market transaction, for Heaven's sake.
Let us for a moment look quickly at the profile of Dome. In addition to being the seventh largest oil and gas company in Canada and the second largest as far as natural gas is concerned, I learned that, yes, as the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources indicated, it is true that roughly 60 per cent of Dome shares are held outside of Canada. However, the shares
are held widely by a large number of owners abroad. This has enabled Dome to operate as a Canadian run company with a Canadian head office, with Canadian management and mainly Canadian directors making decisions in Canada. Therefore, Dome was not subject to foreign controlling shareholders. In addition, Dome Petroleum is Canada's second highest gas producer. The company also has Canada's largest natural gas reserves. That is why it is so attractive.
Let me give a quick profile of Amoco by contrast. It has never been anything but a branch plant. It is subject to direction from top management of a U.S. parent. Last year, in one year, Amoco Canada paid out some $686 million in dividends to its U.S. parent. It, however, invested just $38 million in exploration for new oil and gas supplies in Canada. It had revenues of $1.3 billion in one year and after taxes its profits amounted to $135 million. I ask you, Mr. Speaker, to remember one figure. In one year, this company was able to send to its shareholders abroad $686 million. That is the company which is the prospective buyer of Dome Petroleum.
What will the merger do? As I understand it, the key decisions on Dome reserves and on frontier technology will be made by the parent company, not here in Canada but abroad. As the Hon. Member for Cape Breton-The Sydneys (Mr. MacLellan) put it so passionately, a number of questions must be asked and answered. What will happen to the jobs of Canadians who are working for Dome Petroleum? Last week I learned from a newspaper that cannot be accused of having a left-wing, socialist leaning, namely, the Financial Times, that:
Dome employees last week were reported to be rooting for TCPL, fearing
layoffs of up to 30 per cent if Amoco or Exxon took control.
That is what the Financial Times reports. Thus questions regarding jobs have to be asked. Questions about the future of Anchor, which is owned by Dome Petroleum, have to be asked. Questions about the petrochemical plant in Sarnia have to be asked. What will happen to these people involved in these operations? As others have already said tonight, whenever there are mergers there are a loss of jobs and a transfer of jobs to the parent company. This would be at the expense, of course, of Canadians who are presently employed.
I suspect that what Dome Petroleum means to many of us in this Chamber is a foretaste, an indicator, of what we can expect in the long term under a Canada-U.S. free trade agreement. Having removed the National Energy Program, having weakened the Foreign Investment Review Agency and having heard today Mr. Smart, the American under-secretary, say in Toronto at the Canadian Club that a free trade agreement which excludes investments will not be acceptable to the United States, we have to conclude that something here is happening that has implications in the long term. Because of the long-term intentions that the Americans have in relation to the possibility of gaining control of Canada's natural resources the Amoco experience right now is an example of what may lay in store for us.

April 27, 1987
With world prices that according to most observers are likely to increase in three or four years this is the worst possible timing for this type of sale. To claim that it should take place without any particular intervention or any particular pre-occupation, as was more than just hinted at by two Cabinet Ministers here tonight, simply defeats my ability to understand.
Mr. Speaker, you come from Edmonton. 1 was astounded to see that The Edmonton Journal, which cannot be accused of being a newspaper of radical leanings, would publish an article entitled: "Sell Dome to highest bidders-taxpayers!". Another article by the same author in the same newspaper a day later was entitled: "Add up the numbers: the Dome deal stinks". These are articles printed in a newspaper from your home town, Mr. Speaker, the capital of Alberta, the province where these oil and gas reserves are mostly stored. These are comments printed in a newspaper that certainly cannot be accused of having Liberal leanings. Yet in both articles of Rod Ziegler you will find, Mr. Speaker, if you care to read them, the main line of questioning and pre-occupation that have been raised on this side of the House here tonight.
I will conclude by asking what the Government should do. The Government should at least insist on a Canadian buyer. It should push to ensure that a Canadian buyer be found. The Government should protect Canadian taxpayers and the investment made by them in Dome through deferred taxes, PIP grants, super depletion, technological assistance and standard incentives provided by the tax system over the years. As I mentioned, there is $2.5 billion worth of tax loss carry forward inside the corporate framework of Dome.
About 1987 we would not want to see historians write that Dome Petroleum became foreign-owned because of a Progressive Conservative Government which decided not to intervene. We would not like to see that happen. We would not like to see Dome Petroleum join other former Canadian companies which are now owned by foreigners such as AES, Hiram Walker, de Havilland, the Bank of British Columbia, the Continental Bank and Husky Oil.
These are the basic questions that are in the minds of many of us here tonight. It is no wonder that at the present time the Government should find itself in third place in the polls. These questions are troubling average Canadians. These questions are being voiced in the House of Commons not by accident and not because we enjoy being up until 12.30 on a Monday evening but because we somehow have to express them because they have been registered with us. The Canadian public is preoccupied. This is an example of a major sense of pre-occupation, namely, that we are on a trend, a slippery road of relinquishing, abandoning or showing a sense of indifference to a trend of losing control of our own economy. It is no wonder that there are Tory back-benchers who are unhappy or who are in a withdrawal mood. It is no wonder that Canadians on the street are telling us that they intend at the next election to give the boot to the Conservative Government at the first and earliest opportunity.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The Hon. Member for Regina East (Mr. de Jong) will be the last speaker. He will have about five minutes.


Simon Leendert de Jong: Mr. Speaker, thank you for allowing me the opportunity of winding up the debate this evening. I will not go into many of the points that have been raised by the various speakers this evening. Indeed, there are many different points that have been raised by the Conservative spokespersons, the New Democratic Party spokespersons and the Liberal spokespersons. The area I wish to touch upon in the few minutes that I have is with respect to the question of foreign ownership.
I think it is an important question for us as Canadians because already so much of our economy is owned by people living outside our borders. Major economic decisions that directly affect the lives of hundreds of thousands of Canadian men and women are made on a daily basis. I refer to decisions to shut down mines, to shut down particular plants or to move a research.facility somewhere else. These are all decisions that are made in corporate boardrooms, whether they are in New York, Chicago, Dallas or Los Angeles. These are decisions which are made without any regard to what is in the interest of the Canadian public or the public good in Canada but decisions that are made on the basis of what is good for that particular corporation. That is why when the recession hit us we had one of the highest rates of unemployment of any other industrialized western country. The reason, Mr. Speaker, is that we did not have the economic ability to be masters in our own house. We did not have the ability to make economic decisions that were good for us.
An example that one can cite is the diversion, during the 1970s energy crisis, of a tanker of Mexican oil destined for a refinery in Canada to a refinery in New Jersey. Again, we had a decision that was made, not in the interests of Canada, but in the interests of Exxon Corporation.
As western Canadians, surely we have seen enough of the boom and bust cycle. Our history is one of boom and bust. We have just gone through a tremendous boom, and now we are into a terrible bust. Land prices are plummeting. Farmers who only a few years ago felt themselves secure are now seeing the equity in their land melting away, as snow in the August sun.
In your city, Mr. Speaker, as is the case in many other cities throughout Alberta and, to a lesser extent, in Saskatchewan, we see house prices falling to a fraction of their acquisition value. Once again, we have the consequences of a boom and bust cycle.
When are we going to wake up and realize that we will be on the boom and bust treadmill until we gain control over our own economic destiny? We need to be able to take the moneys that flow in during the boom periods to develop secondary industry, to develop an economic groundwork such that we will no longer be subject to the boom and bust cycle.
April 27, 1987

As a western Canadian, it is my view that the selling off of our resources to the Americans will continue to keep us captive of the forces that will keep us on the boom and bust treadmill forever and ever. Until we as western Canadians get control over our own destiny, we will never be free of the boom and bust cycle. As a western Canadian, I am opposed to Dome Petroleum being handed over to Amoco Corporation of Chicago.
I thank you, Mr. Speaker, for your indulgence in giving me this opportunity to make a contribution to this debate. I wish
you a good night, and I wish the Canadian people a good night.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: It being past twelve o'clock midnight, pursuant to Standing Order 29(13), I declare the motion carried. The House stands adjourned until later this day, at eleven o'clock a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 3(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 12.35 a.m.


[Stage Direction]
36 Elizabeth II

[Stage Direction]
INDEX ISSUED IN A SEPARATE VOLUME	LIBRARY OF PARLIAMENT CANADA 1988 04 1 3 BBUOTH&ilJE DU PARLEMENT
Published under authority of the Speaker of the House of Commons by the Queen's Printer for Canada
Available from Canadian Government Publishing Centre, Supply and Services Canada, Ottawa, Canada KIA 0S9.
[Stage Direction]
Wednesday, March 11, 1987
[Stage Direction]
Prayers