1987-06-05

Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, following the Meech Lake Accord one begins to wonder whether the distinct society clause could mean that a Canadian moving to Hull, for instance, might become more distinct than one moving to Ottawa. He or she would enjoy lower electricity rates, pay higher taxes, and refer to the Premier as Prime Minister.
Here in the House of Commons some interesting reflections emerge. For instance, would the Hon. Member for Montreal- Sainte-Marie (Mr. Malepart) be more distinguished than the Hon. Member for York South-Weston (Mr. Nunziata)? Or would the Hon. Member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine East (Mr. Allmand) be more distinguished than the Hon. Member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia)?
[DOT] (DOS)
Not to overlook the other place, would we have to conclude that a Senator from Montreal, by virtue of being more distinguished, becomes more honourable than a Senator from Saskatoon?
A new nobility might be created in the country. Before retreating into the greyness of my indistinctiveness, this being World Environment Day, may every Canadian make every day Environment Day.


HISTORIC EVENTS
Mr. Reginald Stackhouse (Scarborough West):: 
REFUGEES
Mr. Dan Heap (Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, thousands of Canadians have petitioned the Government to bring in a fair refugee law. According to The Star poll of June 3, 75 per cent want legitimate political refugees accepted in Canada. Yet the Government has brought in a law which does the very opposite in spite of the Ministers' claims.
Bill C-55, in Clauses 48.1(1 )(b) and 48.1(4), says that a real refugee would not be eligible to have his claim heard if he has come from a third country that Canada considers safe, or if he is fleeing a country that Canada considers would not make him a refugee.
All experienced lawyers in private practice have condemned Bill C-55 through the Canadian Bar Association.
I call upon the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Bouchard) to withdraw this flawed Bill and to introduce one that follows the unanimous advice of the Standing Committee on Labour, Employment and Immigration.


WORLD ENVIRONMENT DAY
[Stage Direction]
June 5, 1987

Mr. Bill Tupper (Nepean-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, today nations throughout the world are celebrating World Environment Day. This coincides with our Environment Week, a week when Canadians are encouraged to become involved in the protection and enhancement of the environment.
A variety of events are taking place, ranging from spring clean-ups in Nova Scotia to clearing landslides which have blocked salmon spawning runs in British Columbia. Businesses and individuals are participating and, on behalf of the Government, I extend my appreciation to all those who have helped make Environment Week a success.
Threats to the environment are not just a Canadian problem; they are global. The micro and macro changes to the earth's support systems are perhaps our greatest global challenges which must be addressed. We have the technology and know-how to address environmental problems. Collectively we must maintain our will.
Canada and Canadians have been in the forefront of environmental preservation and improvement. Much remains to be done, and World Environment Day reminds us of that challenge and responsibility.


THE CONSTITUTION
Mr. Jean-Claude Malepart (Montreal-Sainte-Marie):: Mr. Speaker, some people are wondering about the meaning of Quebec's distinct character vis-a-vis the rest of the country. Distinct character does not imply that the Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie is more worthy than the Member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia). Quebec's distinct character is a collective character in the sense that the majority speaks French, that a significant minority speaks English, and that cultural communities mirror Quebec's life and ethnicity. The majority in Ontario speaks English, the minority is francophone, and there are cultural communities as well.
So the distinct society which has been formally recognized this week reflects our collective differences. On an individual basis, the residents of Quebec, Newfoundland, Alberta, Winnipeg or wherever are all honourable people.


PESTICIDES
Mr. Geoff Wilson (Swift Current-Maple Creek):: Mr. Speaker, subsidies to the farming sectors of the EEC and the United States continue to throttle our agricultural economy. While Canada continues to fight against these subsidies abroad, it is also taking action on behalf of Canadian farmers here at home.
The latest of the Government's ongoing efforts to aid our farming community has come in the form of changes to the product specific registration policy governing patents for pesticides. The changes will provide newly registered pesticides with a 10-year patent protection as opposed to unlimited protection under the old policy. When the 10-year protection runs out on a particular pesticide, other firms will be able to produce comparable generic products. The ensuing competition in the pesticide market should drive the price of pesticides down thereby reducing the over-all costs of farm inputs.
I congratulate the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise) for his actions in this regard. These needed changes to PSR policy are the direct result of the Government's ongoing commitment to Canadian farmers.


ABORIGINAL PEOPLES
Mr. John Parry (Kenora-Rainy River):: Mr. Speaker, I do not think the aboriginal community in Canada really knew what it was in for when the Tory Government took office in September, 1984.
The so-called "Buffalo Jump" report took us all by surprise, virtually rewriting the 1969 White Paper calling for funding cuts, means tests, land claim delays and the transfer of programs through the provinces and territories.
The Nielsen prescription is becoming a reality. We have cutbacks in labour assistance for housing programs, continued delays in the reinstatement of aboriginal people under Bill C-31, and two weeks ago the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. McKnight) announced limits to the entry of young native people into the post-secondary school system, despite the obvious need and proven success of the program.
Last night it was revealed that government mismanagement may result in a freeze on native economic development programs, programs which still only provide the barest impact on unemployment levels, reaching 85 per cent in many communities.
June 5, 1987

Despite three years of significant underexpenditures, the Native Economic Development Program is being treated on the same basis as any other Department of Regional Industrial Expansion program. The Native Economic Development Program cannot enter into any new contracts for this fiscal year and, despite the $76 million approximately, budgeted it has been told that it cannot look at further applications which are being received at the rate of 25 a month. Although there is a review by June 30, it is evident that the commitments made under this program when originally introduced are being broken.


WORLD ENVIRONMENT DAY
Mr. Gabriel Desjardins (Temiscamingue):: Mr. Speaker, today we join people of all nations to mark the World Environment Day. This day gives us an opportunity to urge all Canadians to take constructive measures to protect our natural and cultural heritage.
Mr. Speaker, why not take this special opportunity to highlight and emphasize the leading role played by international organizations in the fight against pollution?
If I may I should like to pay a special tribute to the Rouyn-Noranda environment committee which has been working tirelessly to improve the quality of life in Abitibi-Temis-camingue where pollution has become a serious problem.
Canadians throughout the country are taking part in a variety of projects to mark today's event. Fifty-odd Quebec organizations, groups and agencies have scheduled nearly 150 activities to promote the environment.
I am very pleased with these initiatives which stress the importance of protecting our heritage, not only for ourselves but for future generations as well.


THE CONSTITUTION
[Stage Direction]
1987 CONSTITUTIONAL ACCORD-PARTICIPATION OF QUEBEC
Ms. Sheila Copps (Hamilton East):: Mr. Speaker, this has been an historic week for Canada. The work that was begun by Lester Pearson and followed through by Pierre Elliott Trudeau with the repatriation of the Canadian Constitution has finally been completed with the arrival of Quebec in the Canadian family.
I am extremely proud that as a Liberal it was my Government that began the process and it was my Leader who first launched the request to get Quebec into the Constitution with the January statement in Le Devoir and also with his Liberal convention last November.
We believe as a Liberal Party that the Quebec society should be recognized as distinct. We support the Accord whole-heartedly and the position taken by our Leader. We further believe that any Canadian in the struggle to make a good Constitution will want to ask some hard questions and will want to have a very full, public and open debate.
Certainly as a Liberal I am proud we have launched that debate through Lester Pearson, through Pierre Trudeau, and now John Turner who had the guts to raise this issue first and foremost last year.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that it is always the Liberal Party which is leading the way with respect to the Constitution. We led with Lester B. Pearson and we continued with Pierre Elliott Trudeau. And when the Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Mulroney) remained speechless, it was Mr. Turner who launched the debate, it was the Liberal Party which endorsed Mr. Turner's position at our convention last November.

S)


ENVIRONMENT WEEK
Mr. David Daubney (Ottawa West):: Mr. Speaker, this is Environment Week in Canada but it is not a time for platitudes about the environment. Millions of people in the Third World have already died as a result of natural disasters and diseases related to environmental neglect. We in Canada have been lucky so far but we can see on the horizon the shadows of environmental problems about which we have long known: acid rain, changes in our climate, and the poisoning of our world by toxic chemicals.
The new Environmental Protection Act has the potential to help us, but real progress has real costs. We cannot afford to make environmental protection a white-collar issue of concern only to those who work in secure and non-polluting industries. We will have to pay substantial transition costs for the people in industries that will have to change. This will not be popular, but those who enjoy economic security and now seek environmental security cannot expect blue-collar workers to pay for a clean environment with lost jobs and lost hope.

June 5, 1987
Oral Questions TRADE


SOFTWOOD LUMBER EXPORT CHARGE
Mr. Jim Fulton (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, we learned yesterday that the majority of provinces now feel that the federal Government was wrong to give in to the U.S. on the 15 per cent softwood export tax. However, a little history is in order.
The former B.C. Minister of Forests, Mr. Kempf, has now been revealed as a double-agent, having in fact held private discussions with the U.S. Coalition last fall unknown to the other provinces. B.C. then broke ranks and publicly took the U.S. view that the forest industry is subsidized. In fact, Mr. Kempf stated that the industry was subsidized by $200 million in 1985 and by over $1 billion in 1986.
These Social Credit revelations ruined Canada's case, and the final destruction came from the Minister for International Trade (Miss Carney) who made the famous one-time-only offer of 10 per cent only to offer 50 per cent more than that a few days later. In anger at having been caught at a sellout, the Minister for International Trade described B.C.'s forests as a silvicultural slum.
The Forest Ministers failed this week in Winnipeg to come up with a common package of provincial and royalty measures to replace the 15 per cent export tax on softwood lumber bound for the U.S. No wonder, with some areas of B.C. paying barely $1 per cunit royalty while some maritime areas like New Brunswick are paying over $50 per cunit. Yes, the Premiers have awoken with a $600-million B.C. hangover.


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Mr. Keith Penner (Cochrane-Superior):: Mr. Speaker, there is in existence across Canada a federal-provincial program known as the Native Court Workers' Program. Recently the Conservative Government of Saskatchewan decided to withdraw its share in that program.
I should tell the House that it costs each citizen of Saskatchewan about 40 cents per year to be involved in the Native Court Workers' Program. That is less than the price of a cup of coffee.
The results of this program have been that the native incarceration rate in that province over a four-year period has declined by approximately 4 per cent.
This is an essential program and I therefore call upon the Minister of Justice (Mr. Hnatyshyn) first to use his good offices to sway the Government of Saskatchewan from this short-sighted decision to cancel an important program. Failing
that, I call upon the Government of Canada to assume full responsibility for the Native Court Workers' Program in the Province of Saskatchewan.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Right Hon. John N. Turner (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question to address to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Last night during my televised comments on the constitutional agreement, I welcomed Quebec's joining the Canadian family in very positive and constructive terms. I said also that, despite that achievement, the Government must not neglect other urgent issues facing Canadians.
The Prime Minister will be at the Venice Summit and I would hope that he would tell his colleagues, the leaders of the other six leading industrial nations, that it is imperative to end agricultural subsidies because of the crisis they are causing throughout the world and particularly because of the crisis for the family farm and the grain farmer in western Canada. Will the Prime Minister be addressing that issue, and will he call for an extraordinary meeting of the world's leading grain producers in order to bring an end to the subsidy wars and return some reason to the international trading picture?


Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition for that question because it deals with a problem the resolution of which is essential to the stability and growth of our country. The Prime Minister will certainly be raising the question of agriculture at the Venice Summit. He was the first Prime Minister of any country to put agriculture at the top of the agenda at the Tokyo Economic Summit.
We have had the benefit of direct consultations, most recently at the Carling Building last week, with representatives of farm leaders from across the country, to develop a position that Canada can put forward effectively. The Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition made a suggestion regarding an extraordinary meeting of grain producers. We will consider that option among others. There have already been a number of extraordinary meetings called by Canada or joined by Canada to try to ensure common action against a problem which I think it is generally recognized, because it is based on subsidies, cannot be solved by any one country alone. It requires the concerted action of several countries. That is what we are trying to achieve.
June 5, 1987


SOUTH AFRICA-APARTHEID-VENICE SUMMIT-GOVERNMENT POSITION
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I would like to put a supplementary to the Minister. In the past, both the Minister and the Prime Minister have asked for more stringent sanctions against South Africa to put an end to the apartheid system. Now that the Prime Minister will be meeting Mrs. Thatcher and President Reagan at the summit, does he intend to follow through on his demands? Is he going to urge participants at the Venice Summit to make a concerted effort and apply strict sanctions against the apartheid regime, and to do so within a very specific timeframe?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition knows perfectly well that the Prime Minister of Canada has played a leading role within the Commonwealth and other organizations by encouraging consistent and increasing pressure on apartheid and by trying to persuade the South African Government to change its policy. We intend to continue this campaign in Venice. I may point out, and this will come as no surprise, that there will be some resistance from other countries at the summit, but nevertheless, the Canadian Government intends to raise the issue in strong terms. It is on the agenda of the first meeting of Heads of State or Governments Monday evening in Venice. We hope it will be possible to achieve some kind of concerted action. I am not suggesting there will necessarily be concerted action on the sanctions, but at least some kind of concerted action by the countries meeting in Venice.


THIRD WORLD DEBT
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, my third question relates to the summit. The Minister may perhaps be aware of a draft report prepared by 24 of the developing nations criticizing the International Monetary Fund, to use the words of the report, for strangling the Third World. The Minister is aware of the severe problem of Third World debt, a potential avalanche of $1 trillion, and what it is doing to cause deprivation, social unrest, and even perhaps putting at risk peace and stability in certain parts of the world.
Will the Prime Minister request of his counterparts at the summit a thorough review by the leading industrial powers of the policy toward easing that debt burden and rationalizing the approach of the major industrial nations to it?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, the short answer to that question is yes. In fact Canada will be putting forward some proposals of our own, as will other countries. I think there is some hope for some modest movement on the part of the industrialized countries with regard to the debt question.
Oral Questions
I share fully the concern expressed by the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition about the seriousness of the problem in debtor countries and the ludicrous nature of the situation. Some countries are now paying out more to meet their obligations than they are receiving in international development assistance or from other sources.
That is a complex problem which requires consistent and sophisticated attention. We hope that process will continue in Venice. We will have some proposals to make.


POLICY OF INTERNATIONAL MONETARY FUND
Miss Aideen Nicholson (Trinity):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs and is very similar to that just asked by the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition.
The developing nations are concerned that austerity regimes imposed by the International Monetary Fund have put them on a treadmill of merely servicing their national debts without hope of reducing the principal and without hope of the economic development which would create prosperity for them and markets for us.
In view of this will the Prime Minister point out forcefully at the Venice Summit the risks of this policy to Canada in particular, both as a creditor nation and as a trading nation?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, there will naturally be discussions which touch upon the operations and, undoubtedly, upon the policy of the International Monetary Fund. I would not want to suggest to the House that we expect that there will be any recommendation at this time for a change in practice, but there is certainly no question that if other countries do not raise that matter Canada shall.
There are a range of inconsistencies between some of the hopes expressed by some of the summit countries and the consequences of some of their policies, none, if I may say so, more so than in the field of agriculture. The agricultural subsidy policies of the European Community and the United States and the practices followed by Japan not only impact negatively upon our country but also have very serious and negative effects upon developing countries, many of which have to rely upon agriculture as the basis of their development.


ARMAMENTS EXPENDITURES
Aideen Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, Canada has a longstanding commitment to north-south relations based on our belief that achieving global security is very much dependent on our success in reaching greater economic stability in all the countries of the world.
Will the Prime Minister make it very clear to his counterparts at the Summit that increased arms expenditures in trouble spots in the developing countries of the world is no substitute for intelligent economic planning?

June 5, 1987
Oral Questions


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, we will be raising the question of arms expenditures both generally and specifically-specifically in relation to the Gulf-at the Venice Summit.
If I may take this opportunity to respond to what is perhaps one of the most combustible crises now facing the world in the Gulf, Canada has supported and applauds the efforts of the United Nations Secretary General to mediate. We think it would now be appropriate for the Security Council of the United Nations to mandate a cease-fire and a withdrawal with binding enforcement measures, including an arms embargo.
With that in mind, during my conversations earlier this week with Vice Chairman Yang of China I raised the question of the allegations of export by the PRC to Iran of the Silkworm anti-ship missiles.


REGIONAL INDUSTRIAL EXPANSION
Hon. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. It is pertinent both to the very disturbing things that are taking place in the Department of Regional Industrial Expansion and to the by-election that is coming in St. John's East. Yesterday the Minister made the extraordinary admission that for the first time ever his Department, halfway through the year, has already spent all of its regional development money allocated for the present fiscal year. At the same time, the Minister said that there would be a freeze put on further spending by his Department but "the Government has no intention of reneging on its commitments to regional development".
How can the Minister put a freeze on all spending in his Department on the one hand, but have the Government live up to its commitments on the other?


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Deputy Prime Minister and President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, I think the Minister responded to those questions very clearly yesterday, in spite of what the Leader of the New Democratic Party might want to suggest. He acknowledged that there may be some overspending in the budget for the fiscal year 1986-87 and has taken action to correct that. The situation is quite temporary. However, I simply repeat the statement that he made, that all commitments will be honoured. The Department of Regional Industrial Expansion will be able to continue business as usual. That is being straightened out.
I believe I can say that the Minister will issue a statement, perhaps later today or early next week, clarifying this whole matter.


ATLANTIC OPPORTUNITIES PROGRAM
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, some time next week may be just a little late. The Prime Minister is going to St. John's tomorrow, where it is expected that at long last he will make an announcement on the Atlantic Opportunities Program and announce funding in connection with it. Since the Minister already said in the House yesterday that the budget for regional development is being frozen, what does it mean in terms of the Prime Minister's commitments in Newfoundland?
Will the Government be robbing money from other regional development programs in other parts of Canada, such as the Prairies and British Columbia, to spend for by-election purposes in St. John's? Or does it mean that the promises made in St. John's will not be implemented until a year after the by-election takes place? Is that what it is all about?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, the hon. Leader of the socialist party is more political than usual. He must be believing the polls, because he normally is quite constructive. He has become quite political in that question.
I would remind the Leader of the socialists of the new unemployment rate figures that are out today. I am sure it will be of comfort to the Hon. Member that the unemployment rate has dropped to 9.1 per cent. Some 840,000 new jobs have been created, and 50,000 new jobs have been created in the Atlantic region since we assumed office. The Prime Minister's announcement will be one which will provide the kind of framework for future economic development, growth and security for people in the Atlantic region.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, if the figures given by the Deputy Prime Minister are right-and I have no reason to doubt that-and unemployment is going down, I am very happy that that is taking place. I want to make that clear. However, I also say to the Deputy Prime Minister that he knows that unemployment in Newfoundland is approaching the 20 per cent figure in real terms, any way one looks at it. I am sure that is the case.


PREPARATION OF PROGRAM
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, will the Deputy Prime Minister confirm that senior department officials in DRIE have not been involved in any way in the work that is going into the announcement for the Atlantic Opportunities Program that will be made by the Prime Minister tomorrow and that this omission is extraordinary since it is their area of expertise? Will he confirm that this is an operation conducted by the Prime Minister and that what seems to be involved, in light of what the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion said yesterday and the Prime Minister will be announcing tomorrow, is that they are converting regional development fund money into a personal political slush fund for the Prime Minister?
June 5, 1987


Mr. Crosbie:: You are really desperate, Ed.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the socialists is getting desperate. He should also know that when we assumed office the unemployment rate in the Atlantic region was 17 per cent. Today it is 14.9 per cent and I think that is real progress.
I think the hon. Leader is relying upon the leaked documents he is getting from his colleague, the Member for Yorkton-Melville. All he has to do is be patient and wait for the announcement. Then he will see precisely what will be included in the Atlantic Opportunities Program. Also, if he will be just a little patient, 1 am sure there will be a statement issued with respect to the DRIE issue. Perhaps then that will answer the questions he has on his mind, superficially or otherwise.


THE CONSTITUTION
[Stage Direction]
1987 CONSTITUTIONAL ACCORD-APPLICATION OF NONDEROGATION CLAUSE
B. Keith Penner: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to my hon. friend, the Deputy Prime Minister. The insertion of a so-called non-derogation clause for aboriginal peoples has improved somewhat the Meech Lake Accord. However, aboriginal leaders remain very concerned and very apprehensive because the non-derogation clause applies to only one small part of the Accord. For example, it is not applicable to the spending power provisions.
Why did the Government decide to restrict so narrowly the application of this non-derogation clause? Will the Government consider extending this clause to cover the entire Accord?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, once again I simply want to remind my hon. friend that this was an accord that was struck and agreed to by the eleven First Ministers. There was extensive negotiation and consultation, with much give and take.
The Member puts an interpretation on the particular clause in question. I thought that my colleague, the Minister of Justice, responded to that rather appropriately yesterday.
Let me repeat to all Hon. Members of the House that we intend to pursue this Accord with the fullest possible opportunities for a parliamentary hearing process so that all Members of Parliament and interested parties can come and place their views on the record. As I said yesterday, I will be meeting with my opposition counterparts very soon to lay out the various options of how we might best proceed.
Oral Questions
In fairness, rather than debating the details and the interpretations on specific elements, I think that the committee process might be the best opportunity for the Hon. Member to pursue that.


FUTURE CONSTITUTIONAL TALKS ON FISHERIES
B. Keith Penner: Mr. Speaker, the Accord calls for continuing constitutional talks on certain matters, including Senate reform, as well as the matter of the fisheries. How is it possible to discuss the matter of fisheries in the absence of aboriginal leaders? The Deputy Prime Minister knows that the fishery is a basic and primary aboriginal and treaty right guaranteed in our Constitution. Will he agree to include aboriginal leaders in all constitutional talks that relate to the important matter of the fishery?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: There is a clear provision for future constitutional talks that is enshrined in the Accord. Clearly, there are matters that can be taken up as seen fit by the parties to that agreement. If the Hon. Member is making that recommendation, I am sure it will be taken into consideration.


REGIONAL INDUSTRIAL EXPANSION
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. Yesterday I was able to inform the House of the incredible revelation that the Department of Regional Industrial Expansion does not have sufficient funds to meet its 1987 and 1988 regional development commitments that have already been made. Of course, this was confirmed in the House by the Minister. It affects jobs in the regions.
I was also informed this morning that, in a highly unusual move, the Government has hired the private consultant firm of Price Waterhouse to audit the books of this Department and straighten out this incredible mess. Since this is such an incredible occurrence-this Government cannot even run its Department in a business-like way-can the Deputy Prime Minister tell the House why this occurred and why it was not identified earlier? How can the Minister make a full and complete statement to this House "very soon" when Price Waterhouse, I understand, just yesterday began its work auditing those books?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, it is true that there is an internal investigation going on with respect to this matter. I simply said that I believe the Minister will be making a statement, or issuing a letter correcting some of the issues

June 5, 1987
Oral Questions
referred to by the Hon. Member and outlining in clear terms how this matter will be dealt with. However, I repeat once again that all the commitments and obligations of the Department of Regional Industrial Expansion will be honoured. I can also assure the Hon. Member that the integrity of the Department will be clearly maintained.


FINANCIAL ADMINISTRATION ACT
Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, since this affects many programs such as the Native Economic Program and others, I want to know from the Deputy Prime Minister whether or not he thinks there might have been a breach of the Financial Administration Act in this case. I quote part of Section 25(1): "No contract or other arrangement providing for the payment shall be entered into with respect to any program unless there is a sufficient unencumbered balance available out of the appropriation". I also have the same reference in the Treasury Board guidelines on financial administration. Does the Deputy Prime Minister not think this might be a possible breach of the Financial Administration Act and also of the guidelines of the Treasury Board?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member has just chastised the Minister and me for making a statement without ascertaining all the facts. He is now asking me to comment on something-


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: A breach of the Act.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: -or to express an opinion on something-


John Edward Broadbent: He might have read it yesterday.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: -and the Hon. Member is basing the question on leaked documents-and he has a rather reliable source of leaked documents.


John Edward Broadbent: Very reliable.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Reliable as far as inconsistency, in terms of providing information which is sometimes a little less than accurate.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: The Minister confirmed it.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: As was indicated, this matter is being looked into. I know there have been consultations and discussions with the President of the Treasury Board. I am not in a position to associate myself with the suggestion made by the Hon. Member.


LABOUR CONDITIONS
Reginald Francis Stackhouse: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for Finance. All of us in this House are surely encouraged by the way unemployment has been reduced to 9.1 per cent, but all of us are aware of the need for still greater reduction. What economic initiatives can the Government take to reduce the unemployment rate lower still, especially among two age groups who find it difficult to be hired, those under age 25 and those over age 45?


Hon. Tom Hockin (Minister of State (Finance)):: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my hon. friend for his question, which is an important one. I am glad he asked the question today, of course, because the unemployment rate, as you know, Mr. Speaker, is down from 9.3 per cent to 9.1 per cent and our youth are participating in the over-all decrease in unemployment. There have been 840,000 jobs created in all since the Government was elected.
Turning from the macro side of the answer to specific programs for youth, the tax reform proposals which will be introduced in June will clearly help entrepreneurship by lowering rates. That, of course, will have an immediate effect on young people as well as on all sectors of society. There is also the publication, the "Hot 100", which has all of these programs in it.
The Ministry of Youth has compiled some figures. We have a $10 million youth entrepreneurship program with the YMCA. We have 25 per cent of the innovation program set aside for youth. Finally, approximately one half of the Canadian Job Strategy is allocated to youth, and that is $720 million.


THE CONSTITUTION
[Stage Direction]
1987 CONSTITUTION ACCORD-LANGUAGE MINORITY GROUPS
Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister and concerns the lack of balance in wording in the Constitutional Accord of 1987. On the one hand we find the role of the Legislative Assembly and the Government of Quebec is to conserve and promote the distinct identity of Quebec, and we agree with that. On the other hand we find the role of the Parliament of Canada, and all the provincial Legislatures, is restricted to preserving the fundamental characteristics of Canada, that is, the linguistic duality, of official languages groups both in Quebec and outside Quebec.
I asked the Government yesterday to tell me why the different wording. 1 asked the Minister of Justice why the Parliament and the Government of Canada are not obligated
June 5, 1987

not only to preserve but, more important, to promote these minority language groups. Can the Minister tell the Elouse if the Prime Minister offered to enlarge the role of Parliament and the Legislatures of this country to promote its linguistic duality? And, if so, who opposed it amongst the provincial Premiers? Why is it not in the Accord?
Elon. Don Mazankowski (Deputy Prime Minister and President of the Privy Council): Mr. Speaker, I do not want to slough off a very important and well-intentioned question. I was not at the discussions and negotiations. The Prime Minister and the Minister of Justice were there. I cannot really comment on what went on during the course of those discussions. Suffice it to say I will again draw the Hon. Member's concern to the attention of the Minister of Justice and, hopefully, he will be able to respond in a more fulsome manner next week. I would hope that the Hon. Member would allow that to occur. If he will just be patient, I am sure there is an answer to his question, but I cannot give it to him at this time.


REPRESENTATION OF LANGUAGE MINORITY GROUPS IN PUBLIC SERVICE
Jean-Robert Gauthier: I thank the Minister for that answer. There is more to preserving and promoting the fundamental characteristics of minority groups, it also includes an area of my responsibility as critic, and that is equitable representation in the Public Service of Canada. We all know how difficult it has been for minority groups, both the English-speaking in Quebec and the French-speaking outside Quebec, to reach a demographic balance and obtain equitable representation.
Does the Minister not agree that by making the Parliament and Government of Canada obligated under the Constitution not only to preserve but to promote the linguistic duality of this country, one must ensure that staffing of the federal Public Service represents both the French-speaking minority outside Quebec and the English-speaking minority in Quebec?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member is trying to get into some very pertinent details with respect to the Constitutional Accord. I think what we have is an Accord which embodies a number of principles. We have said we would submit the document to an appropriate parliamentary committee where these things could be explored. I am sure that if the Hon. Member is convincing, as he usually is, there will be some consideration taken. But I repeat, the constitutional process is not completed. The process which is put in place will make it easier to incorporate constitutional changes as deemed necessary. I would hope that these are the kinds of things which could be exposed and discussed during the course of the parliamentary committee hearing.


SITUATION OF ABORIGINAL PEOPLES
Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also directed to the Deputy Prime Minister and is on the
Oral Questions
subject of the Accord. As the Deputy Prime Minister is aware, native people feel ignored, if not betrayed, by what has happened in this Accord. Last night, when the Prime Minister was speaking to the nation, he said that four attempts to bring justice to our aboriginal people have failed, in large part because Quebec was not there to vote on behalf of our native people and perhaps next time, with Quebec's help, we will succeed.
Considering the Prime Minister's statement to the nation, will the Government guarantee there will be a First Ministers' meeting with aboriginal people and with northern representatives to iron out aboriginal rights in our Constitution within one year?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I think this was responded to yesterday by the Minister of Justice. The record of the Government on the entrenchment of aboriginal rights and the issues concerning the aboriginal peoples has been clearly a priority of the Government and several attempts have been made. I think the Prime Minister was quite correct in stating that now that Quebec is part of the Constitution the issues respecting aboriginal peoples will be resolved, hopefully more expeditiously.
As I indicated in answer to the previous question, the constitutional process is a continuing one. I am sure that given the priority that this Government has placed on the issue of aboriginal rights it will be dealt with in an expeditious fashion.


REQUEST FOR MEETING OF FIRST MINISTERS
Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, the native people of Canada want some guarantee that that process will take place. If the Deputy Prime Minister cannot guarantee to Members of the House and to the native people of Canada that there will be a First Ministers' Conference on aboriginal rights within the next year, can he, on behalf of the Government, contact the Province of Quebec which is expected to vote for aboriginal rights, according to the Prime Minister, and the other provinces, and ask them to agree to a meeting on aboriginal rights? Will he at least do that on behalf of native people?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I can assure the Hon. Member, and all Hon. Members, that the priority with respect to aboriginal rights given by this Government has not diminished. As a matter of fact it has been enhanced as a result of the constitutional Accord that has been signed. I can assure the Hon. Member that in the future we will not shy away from dealing with this very important issue.
As to a specific time and a specific request, I am not in a position to give the Hon. Member that. However, I will

June 5, 1987
Oral Questions
certainly take it seriously and perhaps at a later date I might be able to provide a more definitive answer.


THE ADMINISTRATION
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. It pertains to the recent graduates of the Brian Mulroney school of redecorating-


Some Hon. Members:: Order!


Don Boudria: -namely, the Ministers who have spent $1 million to redecorate their departmental offices, not counting their Parliament Hill offices.
How can the Deputy Prime Minister justify to the people of Canada this lavish spending at a time when 3 million Canadians are living below the poverty line?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I hope that the Hon. Member's question is a serious one rather than one asked in his usual muck-raking style.
I think that it is fair to say that many renovations were required and necessary due to the restructuring of the Cabinet in 1984. If the Hon. Member has any evidence of any inappropriate expenditures or unnecessary spending, I would like him to identify them, give them to me and I will look into them.


EXPENDITURES-REQUEST FOR DETAILS
Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I should be delighted to respond to the Deputy Prime Minister's invitation. Perhaps he could explain to the House why his Government, in the answer on the Order Paper, refused to provide details on individual Ministers, and why, especially, it failed to mention in the documents it provided that a Minister had spent SI35,000 on redecorating his office on Parliament Hill and his departmental office? Why? Would he please explain that and inform the House why this kind of wasteful spending is tolerated by the Conservative Government?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, perhaps it was because the question was poorly drafted.


CANADA POST CORPORATION
Mr. Cyril Keeper (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Deputy Prime Minister.
In the Halifax post office today a container fell, a type of container which has a history of breaking open when it falls. This container was labelled "AIDS-Arc Atlantic Reference Laboratory, Department of Microbiology, Division of Chemical Immunology". It was coming from the St. John's Hospital.
I understand that to ship infectious material in the mail is against the law. Yet an official from the Department of Health indicated that there may be some problems here about whether the material was suspected to be infected or whether it was just being sent because someone wanted their blood to be tested.
What I would like the Deputy Prime Minister to assure the House is that the spirit of the law in this situation will be applied, not just the letter of the law, and that these shipments will be stopped until this matter can be thoroughly investigated in order that the safety of the workers involved can be protected.


Hon. Harvie Andre (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, we will certainly look into that situation to ensure that no risk is posed for any people having to handle these materials. The Hon. Member has my assurance and the assurance of the Government in this regard.


Cyril Keeper: Mr. Speaker, I referred my first question to the Deputy Prime Minister because it related to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. I wish that he had taken the opportunity to reply.


USE OF SHIPMENT CONTAINER-REQUEST FOR SUSPENSION
Cyril Keeper: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the Minister responsible for the post office. It is with regard to-


Charles Joseph Clark: You are pompous beyond your height.


Cyril Keeper: Pardon me?
What I would like to know from the Minister responsible for the Post Office is this. The hospital responsible indicated that this material was being shipped through the mail in a container approved for that purpose. That was the hospital's response. What I would like to do is have the Minister indicate to the post office that he would like to see it suspend the approval of this type of container, which has a history of breaking, for AIDS-related material until he has an opportunity to investigate the situation thoroughly so that people's health and safety can be protected.
Hon. Harvie Andre (Minister of Consumer and Corporate
Affairs): Mr. Speaker, without necessarily accepting or
June 5, 1987

rejecting the facts that the Hon. Member has put forward, I will certainly investigate the situation and take the representations, which the Hon. Member makes very seriously, in the seriousness in which they deserve to be taken.


MUNICIPAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine
East): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. Once again I will appeal to the Government's good common sense.
How can the Government refuse to assist municipalities renew their decaying infrastructures for sewer, water, roads and bridges when today the Government will propose billions of dollars for nuclear submarines? Where are the Government's priorities?
Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I think it has been said in the House on many occasions that while we are sympathetic to the problems that our municipalities face I think they would understand the difficulties that we have as a Government, in particular the fact that when we took over the reins of government the cupboard was not only bare, it was in a very serious financial debt position, with a doubling of the nation's debt occurring in the last four years of the administration of which the Hon. Member was a member.
Of course, it was most important and very necessary to reverse that trend, to bring down interest rates and to stimulate economic growth. We are now turning things around. Perhaps in the not too distant future, given the solid economic performance, growth and good job creation activities, we might be in a position at some point down the road to look into the matter.
The fact of the matter is that at the present time, as the Minister of Finance and the Minister of State for Finance have stated, it would be a very difficult time to entertain a program such as the one to which the Hon. Member has referred.


GOVERNMENT EXPENDITURES
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine East):: Mr. Speaker, despite the deficit the Government will propose today billions of dollars for nuclear submarines. It has already found $1 million to renew and paint its offices. If the Government can find money for that, then it can find money to renew decaying infrastructures in the municipalities. Where is the common sense in this Government?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure
Oral Questions
whether the Hon. Member is speaking for his Party in asking us to withdraw from our commitments to NATO and our commitments to defence-


William Warren Allmand: No, no. I never said that.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: That is what he is implying.


William Warren Allmand: That is ridiculous. We have not had nuclear submarines, and we don't need them.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: The Hon. Member cannot have it both ways. He and the members of his Party cannot cry about the need for Arctic sovereignty. They cannot cry about the fact that our Armed Forces are not up to snuff. We have to rebuild our Armed Forces and our defence capabilities because, after 15 years of-


John Carnell Crosbie: Liberal turpitude.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Thank you. Liberal turpitude, was that the word? We now have an opportunity to fulfil our commitment as we said we would do in the campaign of 1984.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Benno Friesen (Surrey-White Rock-North Delta):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs.
Just five weeks ago the Interparliamentary Union held its semi-annual conference in Managua. At that time President Ortega assured us that political pluralism was alive and well there. Right after the conference, the Government put under house arrest the chairman of the Conservative Party in Nicaragua for his attempts to contact delegates. I understand that he has been released but the Party itself has been banned.
[DOT] (OOO)
Will the Secretary of State for External Affairs contact the Nicaraguan Ambassador here, find out the facts of the case, lodge a protest, and see what can be done about this since it is directly involved with the Contadora process?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the Hon. Member not only for his question but for the very detailed report which he provided to me upon his return from Nicaragua with the interparliamentary delegation.
I take seriously the representation he has made to me. Naturally through our Embassy I will want to verify all the facts. If they are as he has told me, I will make that kind of representation to Nicaraguan authorities.

June 5, 1987
Oral Questions
That regime is based upon a stated respect for pluralism. They, as other regimes, must be held to account to ensure that their behaviour bears some resemblance to their undertakings.


ACCESS TO POLITICAL PRISONERS
Benno Friesen: Mr. Speaker, when we were there we learned that they are still maintaining the El Chipote Prison which was begun by Somoza and has probably one of the worst reputations in the world. Along with maintaining that prison, they have prohibited the International Red Cross from visiting political prisoners there.
Would the Secretary of State for External Affairs undertake to make sure that access to that prison is granted to the International Red Cross?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I shall certainly make that representation.


FISHERIES
James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.
Since Confederation every Minister of Fisheries has held firmly to the view that the Fisheries Act is supreme in its powers to regulate water flows for the protection of salmon and other matters.
On May 22 the present Minister broke that tradition in siding with Alcan, the Aluminum Company of Canada, to negotiate water flows on the Nechako River in northern B.C., which will directly affect the Fraser River as well.
Would the Minister explain to the hundreds of thousands of British Columbians who will be hurt by this sell-out why he has chosen to place private corporate rights above the common law and common property rights of all Canadians?


Hon. Thomas Siddon (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the Hon. Member's question and assure him that as Minister of Fisheries and Oceans for Canada I do not intend to sell out the interests of the fishery and its important economic value to all Canadians, particularly those in northwestern British Columbia, for any other interest.
However, in the spirit of the habitat policy which I released last October, we believe it essential that we enter into negotiations and discussions with third party interests on the possible conflict and opportunity to harmonize other types of development with the important responsibility I have to ensure that fish populations are not only maintained-that is, the enshrinement of the no net loss principle-but that in fact we
seek a net gain of habitat and the production of that habitat in the area of the fisheries.


James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, you know full well what the implications of negotiating an out of court agreement on Alcan's 1950 water licence will mean. Thanks to your quick action, Mr. Speaker, the Supreme Court of British Columbia upheld the supremacy of the Fisheries Act in 1980.


MINISTER'S POSITION
James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the Minister of Fisheries. He does not seem to understand the fundamental error of what he has done.
Why has the Minister overturned 120 years of Canadian constitutional and common law rulings and placed corporate rights to a common property resource, which is flowing water and fish, above the rights of the owners of these matters, the people of Canada?


Thomas Edward Siddon: Mr. Speaker, this Minister has not overturned any period of history in the reasonable and balanced approach we are taking to the opportunity or possibility of creating significant employment in the Hon. Member's riding, without doing any damage to the fisheries contained within the area of the Nechako River watershed.
Therefore, I would be more than happy to welcome the Hon. Member and other Members of Parliament from British Columbia who are interested in the issue to sit with me and to receive a full briefing-and we will provide it to all other interested parties-on the options under consideration and the possibility of offsetting remedial measures within the spirit of our habitat policy, which I believe the Member has commended on earlier occasions, in order to achieve an accommodation and to realize additional economic development and jobs in his riding.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Employment and Immigration, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. Hon. Members are aware that thanks to the Official Opposition's House Leader, the Government has agreed to call Bill C-50 for debate next Tuesday so that 35,000 early retirees can get their refunds. My question, unfortunately, concerns 2,500 people in Canada who will be penalized as a result of this Bill. They opted for early retirement before January 5, 1986, but for various reasons had to apply for unemployment insurance benefits after that date. This has cost them about
June 5, 1987

$4.5 million. Could the Deputy Prime Minister explain to these 2,500 Canadians that his Government does not have the $4.5 million, because it spent over one million on redecorating ministers' offices and because the Minister of National Defence is about to announce that he will need billions of dollars to spend on nuclear submarines? How do we explain this wasteful spending to 2,500 Canadians?


Hon. Jean J. Charest (Minister of State (Youth)):: Mr. Speaker, I assume that the Hon. Member for Montreal- Sainte-Marie will also want to explain to the people whose cause he is defending that since we formed the Government, the unemployment rate in Canada has dropped by 2.6 per cent, down to 9.1 per cent today, the lowest rate in five years. We have created more jobs in the last three months, Mr. Speaker, than the previous Liberal Government was able to create in about four and a half years. I am not surprised my colleagues are reacting to this. Especially since we are delighted the Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie has finally managed to persuade his House Leader to let Bill C-50 go through all three stages the same day, so that we can finally reimburse the people he claims to defend.


REQUEST THAT GOVERNMENT REVISE ITS POSITION
Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary for the Minister. I wish he would answer those 2,500 people who are being penalized. What is the Minister going to say to a gentleman who wrote to me that he took early retirement on December 31 ? In case the Minister didn't know, January 1, New Year's Day, is a holiday. And because of all the paper work, he has to go and apply for his benefits on January 10 or 12. Instead of evading the issue, why doesn't the Minister agree to ask the Minister of National Health and Welfare to consider these 2,500 people in Canada as having retired in 1985 and to refund the four million, instead of spending ten or twelve or fifteen billion on nuclear submarines? Why won't the Minister agree to do that?


Jean J. Charest: Mr. Speaker, first of all, I am delighted to see the Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie showing an interest in National Defence, because when the Minister of National Defence announces his policy, the Liberal Party of Canada will have a chance to announce its position if they ever manage to develop one on that or on any subject of concern to Canadians today. As for Bill C-50, the Hon. Member will find out next Tuesday that a Commission will be formed to examine the cases to which he referred. And if the Liberal Party of Canada finally decides to adopt the Bill so that we can finally reimburse these people, that will clear up a lot of problems.
Tabling of Documents



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Thomas Hockin: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 84(1), I have the honour to lay upon the table copies of a Ways and Means motion to amend the Income Tax Act, a related Act, the Canada Pension Plan, and the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971, together with technical notes pertaining thereto.
Pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 84(2), I ask that an Order of the Day be designated for the consideration of the said motion.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Hon. Perrin Beatty (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 67(2), I have the honour to lay upon the table two copies, in both official languages, of the new defence White Paper, Challenge and Commitment, A Defence Policy for Canada.


REGULATIONS AND OTHER STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS
Thomas Edward Siddon: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 99(2), I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the Government's comprehensive response to the second report of the Standing Joint Committee on Regulations and Other Statutory Instruments. That report was made on February 6, 1987, and was entitled "International Pacific Halibut Convention Regulations".


PETITIONS
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,

June 5, 1987
Statements by Ministers
in both official languages, the Government's response to Petition Nos. 332-1981, 332-1982, 332-2006, 332-2036, 3322117, 332-2386 to 332-2421 inclusive, 332-2448, 332-2495 and 332-2574.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, three weeks from now we will celebrate Canada's 120th birthday. But in this spring of 1987 it is fitting for us to remember that 70 years ago Canadians of all regions and of all walks of life forged, at Vimy Ridge, a new sense of nationhood, that was the beginning of modern Canada.
We are not a militaristic people, but we are a nation with a proud and long military history, in two world wars and in Korea we built an honourable reputation for pulling more than our weight when called upon to defend our way of life, our national institutions and our democratic values.
It is perhaps difficult for some to accept that these values remain under threat today. But they are, and these threats are not uniquely ours. We cannot defend this vast country against possible enemies on our own. We must seek our security through collective measures with other nations who face the common threat.

It is 16 years since the last White Paper on Defence was tabled in this House of Commons. Since that time the world has changed in many significant ways which affect Canadian security profoundly.
In the Speech from the Throne opening the first session of this Parliament, the Government promised the Canadian people a thorough review of defence policy. I am here today to honour that commitment.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Henry Perrin Beatty: I present to this House a coherent, made in Canada, defence policy, Mr. Speaker, which, when implemented over the next 15 years, will provide for the continuing security of Canadians in a changing world and will equip the Canadian Forces with the capabilities they need to become and to remain effective into the 21st century.
The defence policy review identified two fundamental deficiencies in current defence policy. The first is the existence of a significant gap between the capabilities required to meet the military commitments accepted by successive Governments on behalf of the Canadian people and the capabilities possessed by the Canadian Forces. This gap is widening as ships, aircraft, vehicles and equipment become obsolete before they
can be replaced. If this trend were allowed to continue, the Canadian Forces would simply rust out.
The second deficiency in current defence policy is its failure to take into account the significant geopolitical and geostrategic changes affecting Canadian security since the last White Paper was tabled in 1971. These changes include Canada's emergence as a Pacific nation with increasingly important economic, cultural and strategic interests in the Pacific area; the growing strategic importance of the Arctic Ocean as an operating area for foreign submarines, raising both security and sovereignty concerns for Canada; the emergence of Soviet air-launched and submarine launched Cruise missiles, and Canada's vulnerability to attack by these weapon systems from our three ocean approaches; and finally, the requirement for sustainable supportable ground and air forces in Europe. This requirement will become even more pressing with any agreement to eliminate or significantly reduce intermediate nuclear forces in Europe where the Warsaw Pact has a preponderance of the conventional forces.
This White Paper, Challenge and Commitment, provides the Government's response to these deficiencies and lays out the future course of defence policy. The main thrusts are, first, that Canada will continue to base its security policy on three pillars: the maintenance of an adequate defence; the pursuit of equitable and verifiable arms control and disarmament measures; and participation in peace-keeping operations and negotiations to achieve peaceful settlements of international disputes; second, that Canada will remain a committed member of NATO-


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Henry Perrin Beatty: -and will continue to contribute land, sea and air forces to the integrated military structure of the North Atlantic Alliance; third, that within this framework we will remain an active partner in continental defence arrangements with the United States and contribute forces to the joint North American Aerospace Defence Command; and fourth, that to meet the changing alliance needs and national requirements, the force structure of the Canadian forces will be modified over time to meet the requirement for a well balanced three ocean Navy, including the acquisition of nuclear powered submarines and a second batch of Canadian patrol frigates; to consolidate in NATO's central front our major land and Air Force commitments in Europe; and to revitalize the reserve forces to make them capable of supporting and sustaining our military commitments both at home and abroad.
I should like to say a few words about each of these initiatives which, together with our contributions to North American air defence, lie at the core of new defence policy.
The first key element in our new defence strategy is the creation of a three ocean navy to protect our three ocean country. The deplorable state of the navy is well known. We have not a single minesweeper in the Canadian navy and the youngest ship in our fleet was being built at the time of the last White Paper in 1971. The oldest ships are more than 30 years
June 5, 1987

old. The problem is so serious that we must either engage in a major rebuilding of our navy or give up even the pretence of being able to protect our waters. We have decided to introduce ship, submarine and helicopter replacement programs to build a modern and effective three ocean navy.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Henry Perrin Beatty: The navy vessels which we are planning to acquire, Mr. Speaker, will be delivered through the next decade and beyond and will last, and represent Canada's naval capability, well into the next century. Our studies have shown us that in that time frame the most effective way of conducting anti-submarine warfare operations in the Pacific and Atlantic Oceans would be with a balanced Maritime force comprising surface vessels with helicopters, nuclear-powered submarines and Maritime patrol aircraft. This balance is now lacking.
Such a balanced fleet mix will also offer Canada the option of submarine operations under the ice of her northern waters.
Some have suggested that the proposed nuclear submarine program is driving the costs of the White Paper. Such a suggestion is untrue. The sort of submarine that we are contemplating will cost approximately the same amount of money as a modern air defence frigate.
The issue is not the cost of a particular type of vessel but rather the cost of replacing a navy on the verge of rust-out. The real question is whether Canada can afford to have a modern navy or, perhaps more accurately, whether a three ocean nation as dependent on trade as Canada is, can afford not to have a navy. The Government's response is clear.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Henry Perrin Beatty: Some people would suggest that we contract out the defence of Canada's waters to others. The Government is prepared to discuss co-operation in all aspects of the defence of North America, but we will not allow Canada's sovereignty to be compromised. We will be a partner with our allies and we will not be a dependent.

Mr. Speaker I will now turn to Consolidation in Europe.
To be credible, Canadian contributions to conventional deterrent forces in Europe, whether stationed in Europe or held in Canada as expeditionary forces, must be and be seen to be effective, available, supportable in action and sustainable over time.
Both our major land force and air force commitments to Europe-our stationed Mechanized Brigade Group, and our stationed Air Group on the Central Front in West Germany- and our Canada-based CAST Brigade group and Rapid Reinforcement Air Squadrons earmarked for deployment to North Norway-are currently unsupportable in action and unsustainable once committed.
Statements by Ministers
The Government has concluded that the solution to these problems is consolidation into effective, supportable, sustainable land and air formations at divisional strength. The most careful consideration has been given to the political, military and economic implications of the choices open to us.
Once we had taken a decision to consolidate our efforts in a more effective and more focused way, we had essentially two choices: to concentrate on the northern theatre or on the central front. While consolidation in the North was appealing for many reasons, it was complicated by the fact that for reasons which we fully understand, Norwegian policy forbids the peacetime stationing of foreign troops in that country. Consequently, to focus on Norway would have required that we abandon the costly infrastructure that we had built in Germany, withdraw our troops from Europe altogether and try to develop workable arrangements to get troops to Norway if they became needed. This option simply would not have been sensible.
The best course for Canada in our view is to withdraw from our current commitment to send a CAST Brigade and two rapid reinforcement squadrons of fighter aircraft to northern Norway and to consolidate these forces if required in an emergency on our stationed land and air commitments in West Germany. We will continue, however, to provide a battalion group dedicated to deployment in the Northern European Command area as a contribution to the Multinational Allied Mobile Force, Land. The equipment for this battalion group will remain prepositioned in northern Norway and we will continue to exercise this and other forces with our Norwegian allies.
The Government has conducted intensive consultations in our consolidation proposals both within NATO and bilaterally with those of our allies that will be most affected by these adjustments. In general, the responses we have received are both sympathetic and supportive.
This change in the role of the 5th Brigade Group will require that it be newly equipped with main battle tanks and with other heavy equipment to fit it for operations on the Central Front. A large proportion of this equipment will need to be prepositioned in West Germany. It will also be necessary to re-equip the 4th Brigade Group which will remain on station in South Western Germany with new tanks in order to maintain its effectiveness throughout the period of the White Paper.
Consolidation into land and air divisions and the addition of divisional elements will provide larger, more effective and more visible Canadian contributions to the conventional deterrent and defence needs of the Alliance in Europe. Most importantly, the fact that our commitments will be both honest and doable will send the message both to our friends and to the Warsaw Pact that Canada will be there if we are needed.

June 5, 1987
Statements by Ministers
Although I will deal with them separately later, it is important to recognize the role that a revitalized reserve force will be called upon to play in the sustainment of consolidated forces in Central Europe. Our maritime forces will also continue to play a critical role in contributing to the security of sea lines of communication between North America and Europe and both the support and the sustainment of land and air forces in the European theatre.
Let me offer a few comments now about the reserves. The sustainability in support of our stationed and expeditionary forces in Europe would in hostilities be critically dependent on the size and capability of the reserve forces. There are also national roles such as mine countermeasures, the naval control shipping, the protection of vital points and home defence which are well suited to the reserve forces. We intend to introduce a total force concept which will reduce the distinction between the regular and the reserve forces. The quality and quantity of training and equipment will be improved and the strength of the primary reserves will be increased to about 65,000 from the current level of 25,000.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Henry Perrin Beatty: This will achieve an over-all reserve level of 90,000 in the 15-year planning period.
Other initiatives will be launched to pursue effective university officer training programs and to improve the pay and the benefits of reserve personnel. The reserve forces can play a vital and cost-effective role in the defence of Canada but they have been gravely neglected in recent years. We intend to see that these citizens, soldiers, sailors and aviators, receive the recognition which they deserve and we will give them a priority that they have not had for several decades.
1 would also like to inform the House of a number of other elements of our new policy. First, the Government intends to continue to support our NORAD commitment of three squadrons of tactical fighters. This commitment will be reinforced through our participation in components of the North American Aerospace Defence Modernization Project such as the North Warning System through continued comanning of the United States airborne warning and control aircraft flying in support of NORAD commitments and comanning of operational support centres for the over-the-horizon backscatter radar stations.
We will pursue new initiatives which might lead to an enhanced capability to conduct surveillance of our northern areas from space over the next 15 years. During this period, we will also closely monitor the United States initiatives in space and other programs aimed at improving the aerospace defence of North America. I would stress that our policy will continue to be that all activities in space must respect international treaty obligations and must contribute to the pursuit of peace.
In addition to these initiatives in support of military commitments, the Government intends to pursue measures aimed at broadening and strengthening the base on which
future defence policy is to be built. These measures include an increased emphasis on the provision of equal opportunities in the Canadian forces for members of both official language groups, expanding the role of women in the Canadian forces, ensuring that Canada's regular and reserve forces fully reflect the ethnic diversity of Canadian society, the strengthening of defence industrial preparedness and, perhaps one of the most important initiatives, the scrapping of the Emergency Planning Order and the replacing of the War Measures Act with the new emergencies legislation.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, this has been a commitment of the federal Government since 1970 and we will act on that commitment. We will replace the War Measures Act with new emergencies legislation which will both better protect civil liberties and provide greater flexibility in dealing with emergencies.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Henry Perrin Beatty: The Government will also introduce legislation to establish Emergency Preparedness Canada, the agency responsible for co-ordinating the civil aspects of mobilization planning.
This White Paper is the blueprint which will guide the rebuilding of the Canadian Forces. As Hon. Members know, major Crown projects such as the Canadian Patrol Frigate Program or the Low Level Air Defence Program take many years to complete and must be planned many years before production starts. For this reason, defence planning is long term and the horizon of the White Paper is the next 15 years.
To provide a fair balance between the need for certainty that resources for defence will be available in the long term and the degree of fiscal flexibility that is prudent for the Government to retain, a new planning and funding process has been developed for programs which will flow from the policies laid out in the White Paper. During the 15-year planning framework of the White Paper, the Government is committed to annual real growth in defence spending which, except in fiscal emergencies, will not fall below 2 per cent. Increased resources over those generated by this planned funding floor will be provided as major projects forecast in the White Paper are introduced and implemented.
In order to assess the level of incremental resources required in any given year, Cabinet will conduct an annual review of proposed defence spending for the following five-year period. A rolling five-year funding plan has been adopted and will form part of the defence estimates process. The first annual review will be held in September of this year. At that time, the second phase of the Ship Replacement Program will be examined to determine the annual level of incremental funding required over the 2 per cent base line for the next five years.
Since he was first elected to Parliament, the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) has made clear his commitment to a strong
June 5, 1987

and sovereign Canada. The Government he leads is determined to provide members of the Canadian Forces with a clear mandate and with the resources necessary to do their job.
Since coming to office, we have reintroduced distinctive environmental uniforms. We have opened up the Canadian Forces to increased opportunities for women, we have pursued initiatives to improve opportunity for members of both official language groups and we have started to narrow the capabilities gap. We have continued to pursue workable and meaningful arms control agreements and we have increased our troop strength in Europe by over 25 per cent.
As I conclude, perhaps I would be permitted by the House a personal note about the men and women who serve in the Canadian forces. The last 11 months have been among the most exciting and rewarding of my life because of the opportunity I have had to meet many of the dedicated men and women who daily lay their lives on the line in the defence of Canada. They live by a code of honour and duty and serve their country proudly. These dedicated Canadians deserve our thanks and support in their important work. On behalf of the Government of Canada I want to express our deep gratitude and pride to each and every one of them.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Henry Perrin Beatty: The White Paper I have tabled today will provide a much needed sense of purpose, direction, pride and identity for the Canadian Forces. When implemented it will enhance the security of Canadians and help to re-establish Canada as a responsible and reliable defence partner. We must do our fair share in carrying the burden of collective defence if our views are to be respected and our independence preserved. We are a proud people and we will honour our commitments.
It has been a long and hard journey to get this far. The way ahead will not be any easier. We now have a coherent, comprehensive defence policy framework, a road-map to guide us into the 21st century.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hon. Douglas C. Frith (Sudbury):: Mr. Speaker, I hope the Members who have just finished applauding that address by the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Beatty) will wait around to listen to at least some of the arguments the Opposition will be making with respect to the White Paper.
Before I get into the substance of the White Paper I want to review some of what I believe are the myths that the Conservative Government is attempting to create about what Liberal defence policy stood for. The implication is that the Liberal Party stands for weak defence.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: You have a proven record on that.
Statements by Ministers


Douglas Cockburn Frith: The implication is that the Liberal Party decreases defence spending while it is in power but a Conservative Government increases defence spending. I want to review the track record of the Conservative Party since it came to power in September of 1984 and compare it with the Liberal Party policy from 1979 through to 1984.


Mr. Dick:: Why don't you do it before 1979?


Douglas Cockburn Frith: The Associate Minister of National Defence (Mr. Dick) can have his say in a moment.
In 1979, the Liberal Government made a commitment to its NATO partners to increase defence spending by 3 per cent in real terms. Our track record from 1979 to 1984 indicates that we actually exceeded the 3 per cent goal.


Mr. Hopkins:: By far.


Douglas Cockburn Frith: By far. It was 4 per cent in 1980-81, to as high as 8.9 per cent in 1984-85.
Let us compare that with the Conservative track record. Never mind the Tory campaign promise of the summer of 1984 that they would increase defence spending by 6 per cent in real terms. My understanding, and correct me if I am wrong, is that all of the spending projections in the White Paper are based on the assumption that defence spending over the next 15 years will increase by only 2 per cent in real terms. That is not the 6 per cent they promised during the election. It is significantly lower than the 3 per cent during the Liberal Government years of 1979-1984. I just want to make sure that at least that myth is dispelled.
In addition, during the Minister's speech he indicated what the capital acquisition program would be. So that the record is clear, I want it understood that it was a Liberal Government that made the decision to upgrade the North Warning System which was completed in the first few years of the Conservative Government. It was a Liberal Government that purchased the 138 CF-18 fighters to upgrade our Air Force. It was a Liberal Government that decided to build new frigates for the Canadian Navy. I might point out as well that we were committed to a three-phase program. As a result of today's White Paper the third phase of that frigate program is going to be scrapped. I will come to the specifics in a moment.
The point I am making is that I will not allow the Conservative Government to promulgate the myth that the Liberal Party was never committed to the defence of this nation and the western alliance, because nothing is further from the truth. Our track record speaks for itself. I want the Canadian public to understand that the track record of the Conservative Party is one of lower growth rates in defence spending than occurred in the previous seven years of Liberal Government.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Allmand says we are spending too much.


William Warren Allmand: On submarines.

June 5, 1987
Statements by Ministers


Douglas Cockburn Frith: I now want to get to the specifics of the Liberal Party's defence policy. It is very important to understand the three premises upon which that policy is based and maintained.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Is this Axworthy's policy?


Douglas Cockburn Frith: The first is that defence policy should be part of a wider security policy. By that I mean defence policy must be cognizant of both our foreign policy needs. In other words, no decision should be made on defence policy which would detract from this nation's foreign policy goals.
As to Canada's long-term security, that will best be served by the pursuit of global security. That requires international co-operation. In pursuit of that, the Liberal Party remains committed to all of the multilateral institutions of the world, things like the United Nations. More importantly, we believe in our participation in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization so that we share with our partners in the defence of the western alliance. In addition, the Liberal Party, in pursuit of global security, recognizes that we have a responsibility to the defence of the North American continent and therefore believes very strongly in our participation in NORAD.
There are three primary functions that the military is being asked to undertake under a Liberal defence policy. I have already mentioned the first, a military contribution to the collective defence of the western alliance. There is one important proviso. We must maintain our participation in the defence of the western alliance but with the goal of always maintaining and enhancing stable deterrence. In other words, no defence or foreign policy initiative should be taken which would detract from stable deterrence in the western world.
The second is the protection of Canada's sovereignty through the effective control of Canadian territory to the extent that this is consistent with the wider goals of global security. In other words, when I talk about stable deterrence it is important that any acquisition of a weapon's system does not throw an unknown factor into the equation of stable deterrence. I submit to you, and I will go into some detail, that the acquisition of nuclear-powered submarines will lead to destabilization.
Last but not least, something which I think all of us in this House will agree on, is the tremendous international reputation Canada has in peace-keeping operations throughout the world. We have contributed to international organizations in an attempt to limit the outbreak of conflicts in various parts of the world. Canada's track record from the days of Lester B. Pearson is something of which this nation can be very proud.
I admit that the Minister of National Defence, in his previous roles as Solicitor General and Minister of National Revenue, has a reputation of never making a mistake. However, I say to the House today that the Minister has made a mistake in his decision to acquire nuclear-powered submarines. In this case he is dead wrong and to the tune of $7.5 billion.


Mr. Blackburn (Brant):: At least.


Douglas Cockburn Frith: Let me explain why the Liberal Party opposes the Conservative Government's decision to acquire a fleet of nuclear-powered submarines.
The rationale, at least as I gather it from the speech of the Minister, for the decision to acquire nuclear-powered submarines is to protect Canada's sovereignty and security in the Arctic. That is the basis of the Government's decision.


Paul Wyatt Dick: Wrong.


Douglas Cockburn Frith: Let us separate the two issues because too often we confuse the sovereignty issue with the security issue. As a result Canadians become confused as to what exactly government policy is with respect to both.
The Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) has indicated that in his view, the issue of sovereignty in the Arctic is a legal issue which must be clarified by legal recourse, either through multilateral agreements or a redress to the World Court in The Hague. If the sovereignty issue is a legal issue, why are we applying a military solution to a legal problem?
The Government says that the only option available to Canadians to pursue the objectives of security and sovereignty are nuclear powered hunter-killer submarines. I reject the assertion that the only method of addressing the security issue in the Arctic is the acquisition of nuclear powered submarines and I will elaborate on that in a moment.
The Liberal Party has maintained that the pursuit of national security can only be successful if it is synonymous with the pursuit of international security. It has been a Canadian tradition never to attempt to enhance security through a unilateral, military measure. I view the acquisition of nuclear powered submarines as a unilateral, military approach to a sovereignty and security issue. I think there are better and more sane ways of approaching the problem.
It is our view that a combination of detection devices with increased air patrols and surface ships, such as the icebreaker and frigates, can provide a visible security presence in Canada's Arctic. I believe that in the long run a combination of conventionally powered submarines, frigates and air patrols will be a much more cost-effective way of dealing with the security problem which exists in the Arctic than the acquisition of 10 to 12 nuclear submarines.
I listened to the Minister indicate that in his opinion there is a growing threat of sea-launched and air-launched cruise missiles by the Soviet Union toward North America. Through questions which I have asked in the Standing Committee on National Defence I have learned that it is our best friend and ally, the United States, which has admitted to using our Arctic waters, not the Soviets. There is no proof yet that the Soviets have used their nuclear powered submarines under the Canadian ice cap.
However, let us assume that the Conservatives are correct, that there is an increased security threat as a result of sea-
June 5, 1987

launched cruise missiles from Soviet submarines under Canada's Arctic ice cap. I said at the beginning of my remarks that it is important that our defence policy go hand in glove with our foreign policy. Our foreign policy is to have an effective Canadian role and voice in arms control. Yet, if the Secretary of State for External Affairs is convinced that the sea-launched cruise missile threat exists under the ice cap, why has he not asked that the super powers put on the agenda at Geneva sea-launched cruise missiles as part of the arsenal facing the western world?
It seems to me that there is a gap between the defence policy which the Minister is advocating and the one taken by his own foreign minister. I submit to the House that it is very important that the Conservatives understand that defence policy, foreign policy and domestic policy must always go in the same direction. I submit that that is not now the case.
Some people put the cost of these nuclear-powered submarines at $5 billion but it is well known that $5 billion does not include the costs of refitting, refueling, or the training of the crews. The purchase, which will be the largest single expenditure in Canada's defence history, will be at least 50 per cent higher after the infrastructure has been built for it.
I have nothing against the enhancement of the Navy's capabilities. The Navy will have acquired 12 nuclear powered submarines for deterrence of threats to our Arctic security. That begs the question of what the nuclear powered submarines will do when they meet an American or Russian submarine under our Arctic ice cap. Would it not be simpler to use our conventional weaponry systems, including the frigates, anti-submarine air patrols and conventionally powered submarines, to deal with the submarines when they exit from the choke points in Canada's Arctic?
I suggest that this is a very expensive, unilateral, military response. There are other methods of addressing the same problem which have far less implications for Canada's defence and foreign policy. I do agree that as Canada is a maritime nation we will have to enhance Canada's Navy to ensure that we can control the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans and ensure that Canada's security and sovereign interests are looked after.
The Liberal Party has a major disagreement with the White Paper with regard to the Conservative Government's decision to withdraw its CAST commitment to Norway. I believe that is a mistake in the premise of Liberal defence policy. Defence policy must dovetail with foreign policy. The Conservative Government itself developed the northern foreign policy approach. I agree that in terms of long-term geopolitical interests Canada will be best served by having alliances and associations with other Nordic countries such as Norway, Finland and Denmark which share Canada's geopolitical concerns. As a result of the withdrawal of our CAST commitment to Norway we will lose one of the major political IOUs which we have in the NATO Alliance since the Norwegians will view this withdrawal as a determination by Canada to withdraw its interest from other Nordic countries.
Statements by Ministers
A good example of this was the Government's reversal of its decision to close the embassy in Helsinki. That was a clear signal to the Nordic countries that we were beginning to place less emphasis on our natural economic, cultural and political alliances with our Nordic neighbours. The Government quickly realized its mistake and announced that it would maintain the embassy in Helsinki. I believe that the decision to withdraw our CAST commitment to NATO will be viewed in a similar manner by our Norwegian friends. Canada will lose influence which it has had until now with our Nordic neighbours who share similar geopolitical interests.
I am going to ask the Standing Committee on National Defence to try to determine to what extent Canada's resources can be redeployed in Europe. Particularly in the light of recent arms control talks it is important that Canada maintain a physical presence of troops on European soil in Germany. We should pursue an option which would allow us to maintain our CAST commitment for the various reasons I have indicated, of a geopolitical nature, including redeploying our forces in Europe.
I agree with the Minister's statement that at the present time our CAST commitment militarily is not viable. However, I do not accept that because it is not viable in today's methodology we should scrap our commitment to Norway in the event of the outbreak of hostilities.
Aside from the geopolitical reasons, it is important that Canada maintain its commitment to Norway because, first, Canadian troops are among the few troop allotments in the western alliance which have been specifically trained for winter war conditions. Second, if we end up with a nuclear-free Europe, Norway will strategically and militarily take on a more important role. I believe that if there is a reduction in nuclear forces in Europe, Norway's role as a defence partner in the NATO Alliance will become more important vis-a-vis the Russian submarine fleet that is presently off the Kola Peninsula. Norway would be first under seige with the outbreak of war and it is important that the NATO Alliance recognize the strategic importance of Norway and that Canada recognize the role it can play because we have been trained for winter war conditions.
In conclusion, I believe the primary debate will be about nuclear powered submarines. The Liberal Party is opposed to the acquisition of nuclear powered submarines for all of the reasons I have outlined in my speech.
The Government has yet to answer whether the acquisition of nuclear powered submarines will ultimately mean that at some point in the future Canada will be drawn into the U.S. maritime strategy which many military analysts believe will lead to a destabilization of the existing superpower standoff. The Soviet Union is afraid that an aggressive attack on their submarine fleet off the Kola Peninsula will mean that the Russians will be forced into first use of their nuclear weaponry.

June 5, 1987
Statements by Ministers
I do not believe that Canadians want there to be any possibility of Canada's military establishment being drawn into the U.S. maritime strategy in dealing with the Soviet nuclear capabilities. That is one of the most important reasons why the Liberal Party wants to remain committed strongly to the defence of North America, to the defence of the western alliance, but we must remember that our long-term global defence security is best enhanced by the pursuit of international peace and international security.


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: Mr. Speaker, I too am happy to rise today to respond to the Minister's speech on the Government's White Paper on defence. I want to congratulate the Minister for finally delivering the Conservative Government's White Paper. It has been promised for three years by three Ministers. However, after hearing his statement, I must ask what has really changed, apart from the proposed purchase of the nuclear submarines.
This country waited through 16 years of Liberal neglect for this White Paper. During that time, the Liberals let our equipment degenerate. The Navy virtually rusted away. When the Tories took office they promised to address this problem. But they have not dealt candidly with the obvious problems on which all Canadians agree, that our Armed Forces are under equipped, will remain under equipped, and we believe over committed.
Instead of getting on with the job of modernizing our Armed Forces and giving them a realistic job, the Minister has leapt into a grand scheme for multi-billion dollar nuclear submarines. That does not address the commitment capability gap. Neither has the Minister recognized that the potential threat to Canada has changed substantially since the last White Paper. Canada's defence policy must change to deal with the new strategic environment.
Canada has become a very strategic piece of real estate. We are sandwiched between two superpowers who see the world engaged in a struggle between their two ideologies. Canada could become a theatre of superpower conflict.
Canadians have to face the reality that this superpower struggle forces on us. We are threatened by a nuclear war that would certainly involve Canadian territory, Canadian waters, and Canadian air space. Canada's goal is straightforward. We must use our strategic geography to prevent nuclear war. Canada's Armed Forces should first, protect Canadian territory and sovereignty, second, contribute to world peace and disarmament, and third, remain totally non-nuclear.
If we look at the contemporary situation and keep these principles in mind, a new role for the Armed Forces emerges. For example, Canada is potentially threatened by ICBMs based on Soviet territory and in Soviet submarines. They must be reduced by arms negotiations. Canada can support those negotiations in two ways. First, we must urge both superpowers to make deep cuts in their arsenals, and second, Canada should take no part in Star Wars.
The development of ballistic missile defences undermines the ABM Treaty and undermines the confidence we need to negotiate new missile reductions, especially in cruise missiles. I wish to remind the Minister that the ABM Treaty is the only international document extant that puts a cap on further development of nuclear weapons and nuclear weapons systems.
As Canada works for the reduction of nuclear missiles, we must make sure that other types of weapons do not proliferate. Again, there are two actions Canada should take. We should not test the American cruise missile or help develop any other nuclear weapon. Second, we should make certain that the Soviets could not launch a first strike with their cruise missiles across Canadian territory.
Canada can and should provide surveillance, warning, and interception of bombers in the northern half of North America, excluding Alaska. Fifty-two radar sites are being constructed across the North to provide detection and early warning of Soviet bombers armed with cruise missiles. The stations on Canadian territory should be staffed and controlled exclusively by Canadians, and Canada should have its own AWACS under Canadian command and control.
Canada also has enough CF-18s to provide a visible, credible deterrent to a bomber attack on North America. The CF-18 should be phased back to Canada and sent to air strips in the Arctic if the danger of an attack increases. Moreover, these forward-operating locations should also be selected, constructed, maintained and paid for exclusively by Canadians.
Instead of developing a sovereign defence for Canada, the Government has chosen to get more deeply involved in the American strategy through the Air Defence Initiative. This could tie Canada to Star Wars.
The build-up of the Soviet northern fleet also potentially threatens Canada with nuclear war. If the Soviet Navy cuts the supply lines to Europe, a conflict on that continent would quickly escalate to nuclear war. We must enhance that protection of those sea lines of communication to our friends in Europe. We would never abandon our friends in Europe.
The American response to this potential threat also threatens Canada. The U.S. Navy wants to engage the Soviets in their home waters. Their submarines may try to pass through the Canadian Arctic, undermining our claim to sovereignty. As the Minister knows, this is often referred to as horizontal escalation. It is the new maritime defence strategy of carrying the potential for nuclear war into the other side's territory.
Canada needs a balanced naval fleet to counter these threats. Our aging destroyers should be replaced with new patrol frigates. They must not fall victim to the Minister's mindless lust for nuclear submarines. Canada should also replace the Sea King helicopter so that the frigates can detect submarines. I and my colleagues in the Liberal Party are afraid that these nuclear subs could become part of that forward advanced U.S. fleet participating in what is called horizontal escalation, taking defence into offence in Soviet
June 5, 1987

waters. Surely that is not our responsibility or task. We are not a superpower and should not have any delusions about that.
The surface fleet must be complemented by long-range patrol aircraft. The Conservatives piled new northern flights on the existing Auroras after the Polar Sea incident. New patrol aircraft should be ordered so that the Armed Forces can do this job properly. I commend the Government for recognizing its error. However, Canada should not purchase nuclear submarines because it would cost $10 billion. The Minister is dreaming in Technicolor if he thinks he can buy nuclear submarines for the cost of frigates. In fact, this purchase has cancelled the third batch of frigates. The second batch is subject to a Cabinet review in September. Fewer helicopters will be purchased and, of course, there will be no conventional submarines. Why? We have no evidence of Soviet submarines in the Canadian Arctic. American submarines might be present in the Arctic but Canada surely would not sink such an intruder. The political and environmental consequences would be disastrous.

What is the Minister proposing? He is proposing we spend up to $10 billion to protect our sovereignty against our closest ally. That is how it appears from this side of the House.
There are better ways to protect our sovereignty. We should put fixed sensors off our three coasts. They can monitor submarines without risking human life and the delicate Arctic environment. Icebreakers can provide a much more visible physical presence than nuclear submarines. We should build up our conventional submarine fleet. A combination of fixed sensors, air patrols, surface ships and conventional submarines can then track intruders as they pass through choke points and head for open waters. This balanced fleet-and I stress that it is a balanced fleet-would also greatly enhance the security of the waters off our east and west coasts.
The Americans have legitimate interest in knowing if we discover any Soviet activity in Canadian waters or air space. We should keep them informed so that the United States will not collect this information without regard for Canadian sovereignty, but we should not be drawn into an undersea NORAD.
No where is the commitment capability gap more evident than in mobile command. It is spread half way around the world by our commitment to reinforce Europe and our peacekeeping in Cyprus and the Middle East. But Canada cannot live up to this commitment. Just last week two experts told Canadians that our troops would not last two weeks in a war and that our presence in Germany is purely symbolic. It costs $1 billion a year to keep one brigade and some CF-18s in Germany for purely symbolic reasons. This is not to denigrate the men and women who are there in the Canadian Armed Forces. It is simply, however, political symbolism which does not make any military sense.
Statements by Ministers
The Government could not bring itself to adjust our commitments to meet our capabilities. Instead, it cut a commitment, which existed only on paper, to send a brigade to Norway. It has now ordered a small increase to our symbolic commitment to Germany. Canada is now making one hollow promise instead of two.
I wish, Mr. Speaker, we could all be a little more honest. Canada should bring its commitments in line with its capabilities. We are not a major military power. We are a North American country with world-wide commitments in peacekeeping, disaster relief and rapid reinforcement to deter aggression. The predecessor of the New Democratic Party, the CCF, strongly supported the formation of NATO during those dark days in the late 1940s when the major potential fear was in the central flank. My present party, the New Democratic Party, also supported NATO strongly until the end of the 1960s. But in the 1940s and 1950s, Europe was in shambles. Its economies destroyed by war. It had virtually no capability to defend itself. We as a political movement and Party were prepared to share in the defence of western Europe.
Today, however, with nearly three hundred million people in western Europe and with countries reborn and remilitarized like the Federal Republic of Germany, France, the United Kingdom-and the latter two have their own nuclear arsenals-I ask if it makes any sense to over-commit our forces and keep them symbolically present in Europe at a time when the whole strategic architecture in terms of potential thrust has changed from the central flank in Europe to the Kola Peninsula, to the northern fleet of the Soviet Union, to the Barents Sea, the Norwegian Sea, the North Atlantic and the Canadian Arctic?
We are not the Federal Republic of Germany. We are not the United Kingdom and we are certainly not the United States. We can make our greatest commitment to defence here in the northern half of North America and in the protection of the sea lines of communication to re-supply our friends, our fellow democracies in western Europe, should we go to high alert or, heaven forbid, a shooting war.
Let there be no mistake, we have gone through the NATO commitment and we have come to the conclusion that where we belong today is not in a military alliance in Europe. We should be devoting all our resources to the northern half of North America under Canadian sovereignty and sovereign territory and in the north Atlantic.
In terms of mobile command, this will require a light transportable army. Canada should base its troops in Canada and upgrade our equipment, response time and effectiveness, starting with air transport. This would give Canada the real capability to reinforce another democracy faced with aggression. The Armed Forces would also be better equipped for peace-keeping.
A rapid response army would require rapid reinforcement from an upgraded reserve. We welcome the Minister's statement on reserves. The side and character of the reserve

June 5, 1987
Committee Reports
would be determined by the deployment plans, however, of the regular forces. But the reserves must become more than a job creation project or a mailing list, which is what it basically is presently.
The Canadian Armed Forces would assume a much more effective role under such a policy as I have outlined briefly this afternoon. They would protect Canadian sovereignty and territory. They would help reduce the threat of nuclear war. They would have a clear mandate that supports peace and disarmament. They would have realistic commitments and the capability to carry them out, and in performing these tasks the Armed Forces would give Canada greater sovereignty and security.
We are all hoping, as we have always hoped, and we are all praying, as we have always prayed, for peace. That must always be a primary goal.



REGIONAL INDUSTRIAL EXPANSION


Mr. Lawrence I. O'Neil (Cape Breton Highlands-Canso):: Mr. Speaker, I have the pleasure to present the first report of the Standing Committee on Regional Industrial Expansion which relates to the sub-agreements on tourism of the Economic and Regional Development agreements of the Department of Regional Industrial Expansion.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I would ask that all the questions on the Order Paper be allowed to stand.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Shall all the questions be allowed to stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Tuesday, April 28, 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 a 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".
and on the amendment of Mr. Robinson (p. 5331).
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Before I recognize the Hon. Member for Trinity (Miss Nicholson) I wish to inform
June 5, 1987

the House that because of the ministerial statement Government Orders will be extended by 56 minutes beginning at 1 p.m.


Mr. Fennell:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I understand that the last speaker on the debate on April 28 was the Hon. Member for Saint-Leonard-Anjou (Mr. Gagliano), a member of the Liberal Party. If the Chair recognizes the Hon. Member for Trinity (Miss Nicholson) then that means there will be two Liberals in a row.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: My records show that the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Cassidy) was the last speaker in the debate. However, I will confirm that.
Yes, it was the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre who had the floor last. He spoke for 22 minutes. He was the last Member to speak, and he is a member of the New Democratic Party. Therefore I feel that it is only fair that I should recognize the Hon. Member for Trinity.


Thomas Scott Fennell: Mr. Speaker-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Before I recognize the Hon. Member for Ontario (Mr. Fennell) again I would like to say that prior to the speech made by the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre the Hon. Member for St. Catharines (Mr. Reid) had the floor. Prior to him it was the Hon. Member for Saint-Leonard-Anjou (Mr. Gagliano) who spoke.


Thomas Scott Fennell: Mr. Speaker, with most Bills and with the numbers we have in the House I think it is only fair that the speaking order should be a government Member followed by a member of the Opposition, and then a member of the Government and then a member of the Opposition. That is normally the way we have conducted debate in matters such as this. I feel that with the numbers we have in the House it is only just and fair that we proceed in the manner which I have outlined.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: We have had this problem before. There are times when the Chair cannot see a Member from another Party rising and therefore recognizes the Member who does rise. In this case I have recognized the Hon. Member for Trinity.
As debate goes on I will try to balance the numbers accordingly. The Chair will recognize those Members as the Chair sees them.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. May I remind the House that in this debate we are in a situation which is not at all comparable to a government Bill. What is before us is a motion put forward by the Government for the House to debate and on which a free vote will be held. I take it that we are not working on the basis of a government spokesman followed by a member of the opposition followed by a government spokesman but rather first come first served. If an Hon. Member happens to be standing in his place and no one else is standing then the Chair will recognize that Hon.
Capital Punishment
Member on the basis of equity and on the basis of the free expression of thoughts on the matter.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I am not about to start to balance off who is speaking for or against the Bill.


Philip Derek Lewis: We are not asking that.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: If the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Lewis) has anything to say in this regard then he can meet me in the room behind the chair at a later time and we can talk. I think we should carry on with debate.


Thomas Scott Fennell: I would just like to thank you, Mr. Speaker. I wanted to bring this matter to your attention, and I did. Your Honour has certainly satisfied my needs. I know that the Chair will treat the matter equitably. With respect to what was said by the Whip of the Official Opposition, I had in mind numbers in the House and that the order should be equitable in that respect.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The Chair always has a difficult time trying to facilitate everyone in the Chamber. I will do everything possible to try to keep everyone happy. The Chair recognizes the Hon. Member for Trinity on debate.


Aideen Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, this really is a strange motion that we have before us. Indeed, as my Party Whip has just pointed out, it is a very unusual procedure with which we are faced. We have before us a motion standing in the name of the Government yet it is not to be treated as a government motion.
Essentially, the motion is to establish a committee which will hold public hearings based on the assumption that capital punishment is to be reintroduced, asking for suggestions about the best way to kill people. That sounds to me a gruesome topic for a parliamentary committee. We then learn that the report of this committee is to be voted upon somehow, that it is not a government motion, but that there will be a free vote held. It is indeed a strange proceeding.
Perhaps it is strange because it is indicative of just how very difficult this issue is. Capital punishment is an emotional issue. The Government was not prepared to take a position itself one way or the other but chose this rather extraordinary procedure as a way of meeting the wishes of those of its members who do want capital punishment reinstated.
I would like to say at the outset that the current debate about capital punishment is really a debate about how best to protect ourselves from violent crime. Canadians want and deserve protection for themselves, their families and their communities. I am not convinced that capital punishment is the answer. I think that there are many other methods that would be much more effective.
First, the vast majority of murders committed in Canada are domestic murders. They are committed by people who are related to each other or who know each other very well and

June 5, 1987
Capital Punishment
who have some type of an emotional bond with each other. Many of these murders take place in association with alcohol intoxication or intoxication by other drugs. These domestic murders tend to be committed impulsively. In those circumstances there is no stopping to consider the consequences. Even those who say that the death penalty is a deterrent, which is questionable, would surely not say that it can be a deterrent if a person is intoxicated and/or enraged and not carrying on in a logical fashion.
To counter this tragic situation of domestic violence and domestic murder there are many measures that can be taken. For instance, there can be more prompt police response, which means being willing to spend a little more money on policing. There can be tighter controls instituted to minimize spur-of-the-moment purchase of firearms. Basically, something can be done with the whole social services infrastructure such as jobs and service to help remove the basic social problems that put families and individuals into stress and conflict.
A small number of murders in Canada are committed by mentally ill people who are not in touch with reality and who certainly would not be deterred by the prospect of capital punishment.
Then we come to murders committed under orders. Perhaps when people think of capital punishment they tend to think in terms of contract killings or armed robberies planned by criminals. These are the minority of murders, but these are the murders which perhaps represent the real risk to all of us.
The person who orders a murder often escapes punishment. It is true that we have laws that deal with conspiracy, but in the case of contract killings the paid killer does not usually reveal the name of his employer. All of us in the House have received information from time to time about persons who have ordered killings from their desk, in some cases from penitentiary, and have been able to go scot-free. Changes are needed to ensure prompt and effective apprehension and punishment of those who issue orders to kill.
I think we must look again at our rules of evidence. Our whole legal procedure was put in place when the death penalty was in place. All kinds of procedures were built in to avoid the awesome responsibility of an innocent person being put to death. This means that while it is reasonable that the onus of proof should be on the accuser, that the person should be presumed innocent until proven guilty, our procedures have gone so far that many people are saying that the procedures really favour the guilty, especially the guilty who have a lot of money and can afford to pay high priced legal help. I think there is a very good case to be made for reviewing all our legal procedures and the rules of evidence. In fact, I understand the Law Reform Commission has recently made some recommendations along those lines.
There are other matters which I think should be looked at, such as guidelines in respect of compensation for police
informants and police protection of witnesses. Again I am speaking in the context of murders committed by criminals in the course of their criminal activities, where there is profit motive or a motive of vengeance and where paid killers are used.
I also happen to think that the Government should at this point institute a royal commission into organized crime which would recommend ways of eliminating violent crime from this source. I have a Private Member's Motion on this topic which has thus far had two hours of debate in the House. If we can ensure that the proceeds of organized crime are not used to infiltrate and influence our institutions, if we can prohibit the laundering of proceeds of organized crime through legitimate Canadian businesses, if we can remove some of the profit motive from organized crime, and if we can remove their trafficking in drugs, I think we will also be taking a major step forward in reducing murders.
I would like to see this kind of concentrated attempt to protect Canadians from violent crime. I think this would do very much more for Canadians than reinstating the death penalty and killing a few people after the event.
The last time we had a debate on capital punishment in the House was in May 1976. I took part in that debate, and at that time I reviewed the history of capital punishment in Canada. It is quite interesting to see some of the changes which have come about since then, but also to see what happens when we had capital punishment on the books.
Members will know that in 1967 the Government of the day, headed by Prime Minister Pearson, introduced and Parliament enacted a Bill to abolish the death penalty for a five-year trial period. In 1972 Parliament was faced with the option of extending that Bill or returning to the death penalty. The decision in early 1973 was to introduce a Bill for a further five-year extension, and this occurred. However, prior to that 1973 extension, and in fact prior to the 1967 Bill, there had been no executions in Canada since 1962, the reason being that most executions were commuted by the Governor General by Order in Council. Indeed, there is a very long tradition in Canada of commuting sentences.
The authority to commute sentences, including sentences of death, has existed since Confederation, in two ways; first, the ancient right of the Crown to grant mercy, a right which was transferred to the Governor General by letters patent in 1947 and, second, the statutory power of the Government of Canada. Even as far back as 1869 one finds mention in the statutes of Her Majesty's royal prerogative of mercy.
These powers, both the royal prerogative of mercy and the statutory power of the Government of Canada, were used extensively and, as I said, from 1962 there have been no executions in Canada.
As one looks at the history of capital punishment in Canada and in all civilized countries of the world, one is impressed by the procedural safeguards which exist all through the process of charging an individual with murder, the hearings, and the
June 5, 1987

appeal system before the final sentence is passed. The meticulous carefulness of the procedures together with the use of commutation make it clear that from the time of Confederation onward Canadians have regarded the taking of life, even the life of a criminal and a murderer, as a serious and awesome responsibility; certainly not as a sentence or sanction to be applied routinely.
A professor of jurisprudence at Yale, Professor Black, wrote in his book Capital Punishment: The Inevitability of Caprice and Mistake:
The Law of Moses is full of the death penalty. But as time went on the Court in ancient Jerusalem, without of course touching one syllable of this law, devised procedural safeguards so refined, so difficult of satisfying, that the penalty of death could only very rarely be exacted.
This is the point I am making; when we have capital punishment on the books, the state in a civilized country will have such procedural safeguards and extensive appeal procedures, and in the case of Canada, the right of commutation, all built in to protect against the risk of putting an innocent person to death. That is the case because, as somebody has aptly said, though the justice of God may indeed ordain that some should die, the justice of man is altogether and always insufficient for saying who those may be.
Capital punishment was considered as a last resort in the defence of society before we had statistical evidence to show that it is not a deterrent. The evidence seems to be, in all the countries that have abolished capital punishment, that murders do not increase. Of course talking about murders in the plural is always unsatisfactory because even if one person is killed that is one person too many. If I had any evidence to show that capital punishment would stop one person from murdering, then we would have to look at the debate again.
Self-defence has been an acceptable defence in our society for a long time, but to say that killing one person who has murdered will protect or prevent further murders is not held up by the evidence. By the same token, I do think that life sentences should mean a very long sentence and that our parole procedures need to be tightened. Parole should only be granted when there is clear and incontrovertible evidence that this person will not kill again. Prediction studies are not well developed. A lot of available information is not being used. That situation certainly has to improve. Again, I repeat, that I cannot see capital punishment as offering better protection to our society in any way.
A former commissioner of the Metropolitan Police in London, Sir Robert Mark, has made the argument that I made at the outset, which essentially is in three parts. To prevent what he called the "awful possibility'' of putting an innocent person to death, procedural rules of interrogation and trial require an exceptionally high standard of proof of guilt and it naturally makes the task of prosecution difficult. People who have been involved in murder trials have also pointed out that juries are most reluctant to convict when the conviction will be
Capital Punishment
followed by capital punishment and, in fact, there is more likelihood of a murderer walking away for this reason.
Sir Robert Mark's three points are:
1.	To prevent the "awful possibility" of putting an innocent man to death, procedural rules of interrogation and trial require an exceptionally high standard of proof of guilt and it naturally makes the task of prosecution difficult;
2.	One cannot have two systems of investigation and trial, one for the handful of capital murders, and another for the other two million offences recorded in England and Wales each year, and
3.	Accordingly, the practical effect is inevitably to lessen extensively the effectiveness of the criminal law as a deterrent to crime or as a means of catching and, most important of all, convicting criminals.
In my view the most important deterrent is the certainty of capture and conviction, a certainty which I think is interfered with rather than aided by the existence of capital punishment.


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the Hon. Member for Trinity (Miss Nicholson). Is she aware that if this House were to vote for this motion and restore the death penalty in Canada, Canada would be the only country in the western world, including Australia and New Zealand, to have the death penalty?
It is true that in the United States the decision of whether to have the death penalty is a state matter. Since the U.S. Supreme Court reversed its decision and permitted the death penalty in 1976, executions have been carried out in only 12 states. If we were to pass this motion, we would be the only country in the entire western world, including Australia and New Zealand, to have the death penalty.
Has the Hon. Member considered that fact, and does she think it is appropriate that in Canada where we pretend to be a civilized country that we should go in the opposite direction, in the direction of South Africa, Iran and some other countries, rather than following the principle set forth in those countries with which we have most in common, namely, western Europe and Australasia?


Aideen Nicholson: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I am aware of the information which the Hon. Member has adduced. I do not particularly wish to see Canada in company with countries like South Africa and Russia which have kept capital punishment. Indeed, as the Hon. Member points out, the countries with which we feel we have common ground on matters of public morality and public principle have long since abolished capital punishment.


Mrs. Finestone:: Mr. Speaker, I always listen to my colleague with a great deal of interest and that situation has not changed. I listened to her concern about the criminal element, what is happening and how perhaps we might change the end result with other policies. Does the Hon. Member have some observations with respect to family violence and the number of murders that occur in family situations?


Aideen Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, 1 thank the Hon. Member for Mount Royal (Mrs. Finestone) for her question.

June 5, 1987
Capital Punishment
As I said at the outset, the vast majority of murders in Canada are family murders. They very often arise in connection with alcohol or drug abuse. They are impulsive murders done at a time of stress.
Basically what we need to do is provide more services to assist families. Certainly unemployment puts a lot of stress on families. While the Government appears to be very content with a 9 per cent unemployment rate even now five years after the recession, I certainly am not and the unemployed are not. There are other stresses on families too, including housing. All these matters should be addressed. Probably there should be much more concentration. Although we are a prosperous country, we do have families who are finding life very difficult economically and otherwise. We need to look at all our policies that are designed to reduce sources of stress and strain for families.
A faster response and better service in case of domestic quarrels is very important. We have all heard from police that they consider themselves more at risk going into a family quarrel situation than in many other situations. As a civilized country, we have to be prepared to put some money into training and resources in view of the fact that the vast majority of murders are family murders. As well, where the link comes in with organized crime is that so often these family murders are associated with drug abuse. We know who the people are who have a vested interest in encouraging drug abuse because there is a large profit motive for them, even if they are destroying families in the process.


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, is the Elon. Member aware of a recent study completed in the month of April by Professor Kenneth Avio of the University of Victoria? The study found that when a Government resolves to execute its criminals, those who die come disproportionately from the ranks of the poor, the minorities and the powerless. After studying 440 capital murder cases which occurred in Canada between 1926 and 1957, he came to the conclusion that even if capital punishment were justified in principle, something which it is not, he says, the spectre of its uneven application would haunt all of us. I wonder if the Hon. Member would comment on the findings of Professor Avio.


Aideen Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of that particular study, but I am aware of other studies which have reached the same conclusion. For instance, there was one edited by Thorsten Sellin and published by Harper & Rowe in 1966 which showed that capital punishment was disproportionately inflicted on black offenders during the period 1930 to 1965. There was another study done by Wolfgang, a comparison of the executed and the commuted among admissions to death row. This New York study done in 1962 showed that blacks convicted of murder were three times less likely to have death sentences commuted than white offenders convicted of the same offence.
I would suggest that this is not simply because of racism but because of low educational levels and poverty. These are the people who cannot afford to buy high-priced legal help or, as someone has said, to pay for the very high-priced legal fictions that enable the rich and in some cases the crime bosses to walk away from crime.


Benno Friesen: M. Speaker, in her previous response to another Hon. Member, the Hon. Member for Trinity (Miss Nicholson) said that the Government was content with the 9 per cent unemployment rate. When has the Government ever expressed that?


Aideen Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, it was as late as this morning in question time when the Minister of State for Finance (Mr. Hockin) was congratulating himself on the Government's performance. I have yet to hear any Minister, when mentioning the unemployment rate in the House, express any conviction on the need to bring it down further. If the Hon. Member has heard such statements and I have missed them, I would be very pleased to have him tell me.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Questions and comments are now terminated but I will allow a short question to be put by the Hon. Member for Surrey-White Rock- North Delta (Mr. Friesen).


Benno Friesen: Mr. Speaker, was that not an expression of pleasure in the improvement it brought to those who are now employed rather than unemployed as a result of the economic policies of the previous Government?


Aideen Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, under other circumstances, I have great regard for the Hon. Member. However, for him to try to introduce this kind of thing into a debate of this kind is regrettable.
I repeat that we are into the fifth year of recovery and I do not think that a 9 per cent unemployment rate in the fifth year of recovery is anything of which to be proud.


Mr. W. R. Bud Jardine (Northumberland-Miramichi):: Mr. Speaker, 1 present my views on this motion with some mixed emotions. While I feel it is important to speak out, I find it unfortunate that it has become necessary to do so.
I begin by saying that I am a very proud Canadian. It has been my privilege along with my family to have lived in five of our provinces, to have travelled the length and breadth of our country, visiting each and every one of our provinces and the Northwest Territories and Yukon.
As well, I have lived in three other countries and I have lived in three of the southern States of the United States. I lived there in the late 1950s when the black citizens of that country could not sit on the park benches, could not use public water fountains and could not sit at the front of the bus. It was indeed a sad time in the history of that great nation. I personally felt offended by that visible slight to others, by man's inhumanity to man, and I felt proud to be a Canadian. I was
June 5, 1987

proud of what our country represented and what our people represented in that this sad state of affairs was not representative of my country.
I have lived as well along with my family in Syria and Israel. We witnessed strife and war and hatred. As we travelled in these two countries and throughout western and a part of eastern Europe, we were always pleased to be recognized as Canadians because Canada represents something to free people and those people who are less than free throughout the world.
I now ask myself, what league is it that Canada wants to join, what strange, unique club among the civilized nations of the world that condone capital punishment, that say it is all right for the state to take a life because it does not respect the dignity of life or the dignity of man? Is this what we have now evolved to as Canadians? Is this the legacy that I will be passing on to my children and my children's children? Is this what I was elected for, to tell the state that it can take a life, it can kill, because I do not respect the dignity of man? I say no, not now, not ever.
I have not come by this decision easily or lightly. I have worn the uniform of our country for over 30 years. I have served at sea, on land and in the air. I was prepared to take life because I was trained to do just that, and I would like to think that if it had become necessary, I was prepared to give my life because I feel that anyone who wears the uniform of his country must in fact be prepared to do just that.
Last summer the good people of my riding, which is small in population, were horrified and frightened by four separate incidents of assault, rape and murder. On a per capita basis, it was comparable to anything happening in any of our major centres. It was easy to think of revenge, it was easy to think of vengeance, and it was easy to want to lash out and strike back. I knew that given these incidents, the majority of the people would support me if I voted in favour of capital punishment.
Although we have been touched by violence, we are not a violent society. As I studied this issue, as I listened to parents who lost loved ones, who wrote to ask me not to vote in favour of reinstatement, as I looked at the statistics, I realized that capital punishment was no deterrence to murder.
Since 1962, the year of the last execution in Canada, there has been no increase in first degree murder. Indeed, with the introduction of capital punishment there is a great danger, a great fear that criminals could be found guilty of a lesser crime and be out on the streets much earlier.
On that last point, a report by the research and statistics group of the secretariat of the Solicitor General dealt with this question in a report prepared in October, 1985, called "Questions and Answers on Capital Punishment". The question asked therein was, does the death penalty lead to a higher proportion of acquittals for murder because juries are reluctant to sentence a person to death? The report concluded there
Capital Punishment
is evidence to suggest that the death penalty exercises an inhibitory effect on judges and juries. It cites, for example, a study by the British Home Office which found that jurors were reluctant to convict in capital cases and that findings of guilt would have been entered in some cases in the absence of the death penalty.
An American study dating from 1909, which compared conviction rates in states having capital punishment and states which did not, found conviction rates higher in the latter. In 1968 an Australian study made similar findings. It also makes reference to Canadian research which found that between 1881 and 1967 the conviction rate for murder was the lowest for all crimes of violence.
The report makes the following tentative conclusions. Although other theories might explain this phenomena, it is possible that juries were reluctant to convict on a charge of murder when it was a capital offence. It is possible that jurors are more willing to convict for murder since the abolition of the death penalty.
Finally, I have to advise that in my heart and soul I cannot, from a moral standpoint, in a planned and premeditated manner, vote to take a person's life. We cannot hide behind the mask of the executioner. To my mind the executioner will now be the man or woman who votes in favour of taking a life. It will be his or her hand on the lever, his or her finger on the button, his or her hand holding the needle. If this goes through we can never say, forgive them, Father, for they know not what they do. We do know what we are doing. We cannot and must not place ourselves in that minority league of nations who still carry out this barbaric act. We cannot and must not leave the good company of those civilized countries such as Britain, France, Denmark, Norway, Portugal, Sweden and Italy, the list goes on, who have abolished state killing.
In the words of Arthur Maloney, the death penalty is not the answer to the problem of crime and of criminals. Crime has its cause and crime has its cure. Its causes are clear. They can be stated like a litany. They are poverty, slums, broken homes, drunkenness, divorce, lack of opportunity and lack of education. Those are the causes of crime.
In a booklet produced by The Criminal Lawyers Association of Ontario it is noted that psychiatrists tell us that those who were abused as children are more likely to become child abusers themselves when they become parents. When they were children our hearts went out to them for the trauma they suffered and for what such abuse must have done to their minds. Yet when they become what we knew they had a good chance of becoming, child abusers or even child killers, we want their death. We were not prepared to give them the time, the attention, the resources or help when they needed it. We want to wait and with vengeance repay the death to society.
Of the many letters I received on this matter I do not believe any touched me deeper than the one I received from Lesley Parrott, the mother of 11-year old Alison who was abducted and murdered last July. She said the death of her daughter

June 5, 1987
Capital Punishment
more than ever convinced her that as a society we cannot ever and must not ever condone killing, whether by state or individual, in any shape or form. Let the message be clear and unconditional: Human life is sacred and killing is always wrong.
We know capital punishment is not a deterrence. We know there has been a decrease in homicides and first degree murder charges. We have to ask ourselves why, why, why are we going through with this absurdity? Is it vengeance? Is that what is in our hearts? Can you imagine what kind of world we would be living in today if we had bowed to that most vulgar of passions, vengeance, after World War II? Where would we be today if everyone who lost a father, an uncle or a brother cried out for vengeance in the hour of victory? There would have been no Marshall plan, no reconstruction of Europe, no transformation in Asia. We would have lost our sense of humanity and our reason for living.
In dealing with this question we must understand and appreciate the underlying fears of Canadians, the concern that our justice system is too lenient, the concern that our parole system is too lax, the fear that those convicted of brutal crimes will all too soon be back on the streets, neither repentant nor rehabilitated. These concerns have to be addressed. The fears must be allayed.
When I say we are not a violent society, we must not then permit ourselves to become a violent society. In my own riding after the horrible experience of last summer good people who would never have thought of it before, never considered it before, were out buying hand-guns. These people are not vigilantes. The gun is no doubt more dangerous to them than to would-be intruders or assailants. But they were fearful. Fearful that they were no longer protected, that our judicial system, our penal system had failed them and let them down.
There are over 70 million hand-guns in the U.S., more than one for every family living there. This figure is expected to grow to over 100 million by the end of this century. There is only one kind of animal you hunt with a hand-gun, the twolegged kind. Violence begets violence.
What is the solution? We can begin with the Archambault commission. Is it fair to society when those who have offended society, who have forfeited every right to the freedoms and privileges which law-abiding citizens should enjoy are all too soon back on the streets? Does a life sentence mean behind bars for 10 or 15 years? I think not. Society thinks not.
I began by saying that I was a proud Canadian. We are proud Canadians. The countries of the world do look to our just and rational society. They want to follow our moral compass. We are not the greatest country in the world, only the best. Laurence Grafstein in one of his articles spoke of Canada's tolerant tradition and humane values. Patrick O'Callaghan has said that a country must be seen by reason and logic, not by age and artificially nurtured passion. That is
true. That is the tradition of Canada, to follow the path of logic and reason.
Let us put this sad motion behind us, Mr. Speaker. Let us bury it in the past once and for all. Let us get on with the affairs of state that have made and will continue to make our country, Canada, the best place on earth to live.


Mr. McKenzie:: Mr. Speaker, I continually hear the statistics from abolitionists that murders are down. I find it strange that they do not mention the Air India disaster in which 329 people were murdered. If a person or persons are cold-blooded enough to put a bomb on an aircraft their plan is to murder everyone aboard that aircraft. I would have no hesitation to execute a person or persons who would do such a cruel thing as that.
Statistics also show that attempted murders are up 939 per cent. Those are tremendous figures. The reason that there are not more deaths as a result of attempted murders is because of advanced medical technology, paramedics, use of protective clothing, et cetera. Rather than the murder rate being down, there has been a tremendous increase.
I find that abolitionists have no sympathy for and make no comment about prison guards. Prison guards have been murdered in my province by convicted murderers. Since 1977 at least 20 people have been murdered inside federal prison walls by convicted murderers. I would not want to be guarding a person who would put a bomb aboard a plane to murder 329 people. I would not want to turn my back on such a person or be near them for a second. Prison guards are being put in an awful position.
In July, 1982, three prison guards were murdered-one by hanging-by men who were convicted of first degree murder in killings of policemen. In July, 1985, Celia Ruygrok was murdered in Ottawa by a convicted rapist and killer on parole. In October, 1986, Linda Ray was murdered in Belleville by a convicted murderer on parole. How does my hon. friend justify to his constituents murderers who murder a second time? That fact must be considered, as must prison guards.


W.R. (Bud) Jardine: Mr. Speaker, I think we must differentiate between a murderer and an act of terrorism. It is a sad commentary that the small country of Ireland still has terrorism taking place on a daily, weekly and monthly basis. Capital punishment is on the books of that country but I believe, and I stand to be corrected, that the last time anyone was executed in Ireland was in 1954.
We are all concerned about the role that prison guards and policemen have to protect society. However, the fact is that the number of killings of police and prison guards has declined while the number of prison guards and police has increased. When prison guards and policemen accept their vocation they do so knowing that they could very well be faced with violence. It is interesting to note that their on-the-job death rate is much lower than that of many other vocations such as military pilots,
June 5, 1987

miners, construction workers, et cetera. Therefore, I do not think that is a fair statistic.


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, 1 would like to put a question to my colleague, the Member for Northumberland-Miramichi (Mr. Jardine). I would like to preface my remarks by saying that I very much appreciated the thoughtful and reasoned arguments which he put forward. With respect, 1 come to a different conclusion.
I would like to question my colleague on one of the points which he used to buttress his argument in favour of the abolitionist position, that being his reference to certain other countries which we should either imitate or emulate. Amnesty International has put out information which indicates that there are presently 28 countries in the world that do not provide the death penalty for any crime whatsoever. There are another 18 countries in which the death penalty has been abolished for ordinary crimes, but has been retained for certain circumstances such as war time and military law. There are another 129 countries, including Belgium, the United States, China and Japan in which the death penalty is available for ordinary crimes.
My hon. friend and the preceding speaker made reference to certain other supposedly civilized countries in the western world that have done away with the death penalty, and said that Canada should do so as well. I must say that I am somewhat confused by this. I note that among the 28 countries whose laws do not provide the death penalty for any crime whatsoever are Costa Rica, the Dominican Republic, Honduras and Nicaragua. In putting this position forward is the Hon. Member suggesting that Canada's system of justice should lean more towards that of Nicaragua and the Dominican Republic or, having regard to that which has taken place over the centuries, in countries such as the United States, China and Japan?
I would very much appreciate it if the Hon. Member would explain to me why we in Canada should feel obliged to emulate those few countries with less than 10 per cent of the population in the world which do not choose to have capital punishment.


W.R. (Bud) Jardine: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his kind remarks. I know that he includes Belgium as one of the countries that has capital punishment on the books. While 1 may have the year incorrect, I believe the last time an execution actually took place in Belgium was either in 1954 or 1945.
The Hon. Member who spoke previously pointed out that capital punishment in the United States is a state responsibility and, unfortunately, the southern states tend to carry out capital punishment on those in a minority.
There are some 129 countries that still have capital punishment on the books, but I would have to ask my hon. friend how many of those countries have democratically elected governments? How many of those countries are civilized, as we
Capital Punishment
recognize civility? How many of those countries would we actually want to emulate and compare with our society? I suggest that there are very few.


Mr. Jim Manly (Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, in speaking to this ill-timed government motion in favour of bringing back the death penalty, I want to say I oppose it for the same basic reasons that other Hon. Members who have spoken on this side of the debate have opposed it.
First, capital punishment does not serve as an effective deterrent against murder. It tends to be administered selectively so that a disproportionate number of poor people or members of visible minorities are executed. Third, there is always the possibility of executing someone unjustly convicted of murder. Fourth, there is a documented tendency for juries to acquit a much higher percentage of accused murderers when the death penalty is present. Thus, society has less protection when the death penalty is in place than when it is abolished and juries convict a higher percentage of accused murderers. Taken together, I believe these four reasons provide a solid, pragmatic foundation for voting against the death penalty.
However, I think our opposition to the death penalty has to move beyond pragmatism, to ask what kind of society we want and how we can help to build it. In the debate so far there has been a great deal of reference to scripture. I want to begin with some reflections on a very interesting passage of scripture, the One Hundred and Thirty-Seventh Psalm, which begins as an expression of homesick longing by a Jew who is in exile in Babylon:
By the rivers of Babylon, there we sat down, yea, we wept, when we
remembered Zion.
The Psalm goes on to consider how his own people had been destroyed and devastated and how his city had been destroyed. It reads:
Remember, O Lord, the children of Edom in the day of Jerusalem; who said,
Rase it, rase it, even to the foundation thereof.
The Psalm goes on:
Oh daughter of Babylon, you devastator! Happy shall he be who requites you
with what you have done to us!
What follows is perhaps the most terrible verse in all of scripture:
Happy shall he be who takes your little ones and dashes them against the rock!
We have heard a fair amount of talk about the Judaeo Christian ethic, but I am sure that these verses coming from the scriptures of both Jews and Christians shock the sensibilities of every one of us. They testify to the anguish, the despair, the deadening of mercy that wanton violence can bring about in the life of a person who is otherwise sensitive and caring.
This kind of violence and therefore this kind of vengeance is far removed from the daily experience of most people in Canada. Perhaps it might make more immediate sense in Lebanon, Kampuchea, Afghanistan, Central America or Northern Ireland. We cannot imagine the kind of inner anguish that would lead an otherwise sensitive person to say,

June 5, 1987
Capital Punishment
"Blessed is the man who takes your babies and beats their brains out against a rock". Yet, as I read these verses, I am convinced not only that they are diametrically opposed to everything that is best about Judaism and Christianity, even though they are in our Holy Scripture, but also that these verses are pathetically honest and even understandable in the context of a violent world.
What do these words have to do with the return of the death penalty to Canada in 1987? The connection lies in the sense of anguish and outrage that people feel at the time of some particularly vicious murder, especially one involving the sexual assault of children. Murders like that leave us feeling somehow unclean, as though our own humanity were under attack, just from hearing or reading about them. We want to assert our own humanity by denying any connection with the murderer. How can we possibly share any sense of humanity with a diseased creature who perpetrates that kind of an act? It raises the question, what must it be like for the immediate family of the victims?
Looking at these words from the One Hundred and Thirty-Seventh Psalm, 2,500 years after they were written, and living in the relative security of a country like Canada, we know that these words fall tragically short of what is required to put an end to the cycle of violence and hatred which destroys the lives of helpless children. We can understand the desire for vengeance but we cannot agree that it represents justice.
In a literal sense, these verses from Psalm One Hundred and Thirty-seven are simply an extension of the lex talionis from the twenty-fourth chapter of Leviticus which says:
He who kills a man shall be put to death. He who kills a beast shall make it good, life for life. When a man causes a disfigurement in his neighbour, as he has done it shall be done to him, fracture for fracture, eye for eye, tooth for tooth; as he has disfigured a man, he shall be disfigured. He who kills a beast shall make it good and he who kills a man shall be put to death.
These words represent a surrender, rather than a solution to evil and violence.
The depth of suffering on the part of victims should warn us that we have no right to extend easy forgiveness to murderers. That adds insult to injury as far as the victims are concerned. Perhaps the families of murder victims can find it in their hearts to forgive the murderer, and I hope that they can, but that is their business, not ours. It is not something that society can do on behalf of the families.
We need to find another approach, somewhere between this false desire for vengeance and the equally false idea that society can forgive. Perhaps we should begin with our concept of justice. How do we achieve justice in a world where murder, assault and violence shatter innocent lives and communities?
We sometimes picture justice as a blindfolded woman holding balance scales in her hand on which the merits of each case are to be weighed in an impartial way. This concept of blind justice operates without fear or favour on the basis of an impartial standard determined by law. In the administration of law, this impartiality has some very obvious merits. But we all
know that it falls woefully short of providing full justice in many cases.
All of us as Members of Parliament have been involved in tax cases or immigration cases where a strict application of the law or regulation would lead to greater injustice. All of us have intervened with Ministers, asking them to get involved in specific cases so that justice would not be blind but would be wise and compassionate.
The biblical understanding of justice involves much more than blind impartiality. Rather, the spirit of God intervenes for good in human affairs and human beings are invited to share in that work. Sometimes the most unlikely human beings play the greatest role in bringing about justice. We should remember that Moses began his career by murdering an Egyptian foreman who had been beating an Israelite slave. Later Moses was a fugitive slave, running because he feared the death penalty. But then he became the person who freed the people of Israel from slavery in Egypt.
Certainly, the Bible speaks of retribution and there are many situations in addition to murder where the Bible calls for the death penalty. Blasphemy (Leviticus 24:16) requires death by stoning. The daughter of a priest who played the harlot was to be burned according to Leviticus 21.:9. Sorcery, bestiality and false worship (Exodus 22:18) and contempt of court (Deuteronomy 17: 8-12) all called for the supreme penalty, as did selling a fellow Israelite into slavery (Deuteronomy 24:7). Being a stubborn and rebellious son or a non-virgin bride (Deuteronomy 21:18 and Deuteronomy 22) called for the death penalty. Deuteronomy, Chapter 20 called for the death penalty for the male inhabitants of any fortified city who had the temerity to resist invasion by the Israelites.
These examples come from a very early and primitive stage of Israel's development and its understanding of God. While the great ethical and spiritual prophets of Israel and Judah still believed in retribution, their vision of God's spirit and justice went far beyond retribution. They saw God as patient and long suffering with human evil and shortcomings, moving beyond retribution and punishment to restoration, new life and a new society.
Jesus radicalized the law by pushing it to its logical extreme. Jesus said that looking at a person with lust was committing adultery in the heart. He condemned not just murder but the contempt which destroyed another person's self-image by calling them a fool. Which of us has not been guilty of that kind of contempt of other people, particularly in this House of Commons?
In doing this, Jesus was really underlining the human solidarity we all share, even with those who commit murder. He said the way in which we treat one another with contempt, robbing another person of his or her sense of themselves as an important human being, is really equivalent to murder. So we all share a certain solidarity even with those who commit
June 5, 1987

murder. This should lead us away from a situation where we judge and condemn our brothers and sisters but remain blind to our own involvement in evil.
Jesus explicitly rejected the lex talionis by saying:
You have heard that it was said: "An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth" but I say onto you, do not resist one who is evil.
Jesus urged us to imitate the goodness of God who makes the "sun to rise on the evil and the good and sends rain on the just and the unjust". All of this suggests to me a biblical understanding of the justice which moves far beyond retribution. The biblical concept of justice depends on an understanding of God's spirit working in and through human lives in spite of their grievous imperfections to create a better society. If this spirit does not give up working with us, then we are not to give up working with others.
Justice, then, is not an abstract impartiality but a living, dynamic spirit which seeks to operate in all of our lives for the creation of a new society. In varying ways we co-operate with that spirit or we impede it.
We need to bring our treatment of crime and wrongdoing and criminals into line with our understanding of the way that spirit works. Wherever possible, there should be rehabilitation of the criminal, bringing him or her back into a positive relationship with society. In minor crimes we note the positive attempts of some diversion programs. I have seen situations where people convicted of very serious crimes have had the opportunity to work with children with special needs and have been able to accomplish some very important things. In a very real sense they were able to pay their debt to society.
In conclusion I want to speak about the situation of criminals who cannot be rehabilitated and cannot be returned to a positive role in society. These people are beyond our best efforts and intentions. I think particularly of those diseased human beings who become sex criminals, those who have murdered while assaulting or molesting another person. In many cases, the roots of their disease go too deep to allow us any hope of rehabilitation, certainly at the present time. People can ask would it not be expedient to at least allow the death penalty for these people? The answer must be continue to be no. The death penalty evades the problem rather than deals with it. It camouflages our failure to find a constructive way to deal with these tragic and diseased human beings. All the arguments I mentioned at the beginning of my remarks also apply here. For that reason, I support the present law, imperfect as it is, which says that these people should be imprisoned for 25 years without the possibility of release.
We admit a sense of failure with these people but we at least keep the options open. We are continuing to testify to the fact that human life is valuable and I urge Hon. Members to consider the total picture of the kind of society we want to build, how we are going to build it, and to remember that violence itself, the taking the life of another person, cannot build that kind of society.
Capital Punishment


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Questions and comments? Debate. The Hon. Member for Ottawa West (Mr. Daubney).


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: May I ask a question?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I will go back to questions and comments. I asked for questions and comments and I did not see anyone rising. I would hope Hon. Members would rise a little faster. The Hon. Member for Spadina (Mr. Heap) on a question or comment.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, I was rising right when you spoke but you were looking the other way. I simply want to ask the Hon. Member if he would deal with the question which was raised a few moments ago by another Hon. Member with respect to the situation in a prison in which there are convicted murderers. There have been indications where they have murdered a second time, that is, by murdering a prison guard. I do not know if there is any significance in statistics as to the danger rate for prison guards as compared to police or other people in dangerous occupations, but my concern is for the remedial approach the Hon. Member has very powerfully advocated. Has he any comment as to how he can pursue that remedial approach with the least possible danger to the people whom we employ and empower to be directly and physically responsible for the care or custody of those people?
I know it is a very large question because it involves the question of our whole prison and reform system. However, could the Hon. Member comment on the immediate sort of question which was raised about a half hour ago?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Before I recognize the Hon. Member for Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands (Mr. Manly), I would like to say to the Hon. Member for Spadina that the Chair can only see when it sees someone rise. I noticed very carefully that you were sitting right next to the Hon. Member for Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands and you were not rising. I do not wish to disagree or argue with the Hon. Member, but I would hope that he would let the Chair decide who is going to ask questions and who is not, and not argue with the Chair because there was no necessity for that.


James Douglas Manly: Mr. Speaker, I think we are dealing here with a very important and sensitive question. The murder of a policeman or prison guard, particularly a prison guard, by someone who is already serving a sentence for murder, is something which has to be of concern to all of us.
At the same time, once we put it into context, we see that there are other occupations in Canada which have a much higher incidence of death than the occupation of prison guard. However, that does not relieve us from dealing with this very serious problem.
I think what we need are better standards of diagnosis so that when people are serving time for murder they should be

June 5, 1987
Capital Punishment
available for study, for testing and diagnosis, not simply when they come into the prison system but on a regular basis. In this way if they are dangerous then that can be pinpointed and extra-special precautions can be taken.
In the interests of society as a whole, in the interests of creating a society in which people can feel free to walk the streets, we need to continue the effort in our prisons to rehabilitate people. In fact, we have to increase our efforts in that direction. Rehabilitation cannot simply take a second place to our fear of certain criminals. When there are criminals who have very clear dangerous tendencies then protection has to take first place. But we cannot as a blanket policy say that rehabilitation should take second place. I think that we have always to keep rehabilitation at the forefront of our criminology procedures. Where there is very clear evidence that someone is dangerous, then extra protection has to be called for.


Reginald Francis Stackhouse: Mr. Speaker, I wish to say how much I appreciated some of the remarks made by the Hon. Member for Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands (Mr. Manly) in his address, particularly those with respect to reminding other Hon. Members of how scripture can be used and misused. He rightly quoted passages that would not be welcome by everyone in the House, whether they support capital punishment or decry it. I hope that his message will also be taken to heart by those who oppose capital punishment, by those who have their favourite text to quote, including, "Father, forgive them for they know not what they do", which is a particular favourite. They might fully comprehend the wisdom of his remarks and understand scripture not in terms of citing this verse or quoting that text but in dealing with larger themes.
In that connection I was also impressed by the way in which the Hon. Member dwelt upon the whole subject of deterrence and the difficulty with which society has been able to deter murder, regardless of what penalty has been invoked. The point which needs considerable emphasis is that, yes, societies that have had capital punishment have not eliminated murder. That is true. Societies that have not had it have not eliminated murder, which is true as well. Societies that have been rich have not eliminated murder. Indeed, societies with socialist governments have not eliminated murder either. It is possible that there is no deterrent that any Parliament or Government can devise that will eliminate murder. What we have to do is focus on the real nub of the issue, I submit, which is whether or not capital punishment is just or unjust.


James Douglas Manly: Mr. Speaker, I agree with the Hon. Member when he says that scripture has to be taken into its total context and one cannot pick out proof text to prove one thing or another. We must look at the total thrust of where scripture is going and what the biblical concept of justice is. I think that it is leading us toward trying to build a non-violent society. So the concept of justice that we are working for is a concept of justice that works for non-violence.
When we look at the statistics in the short run there can be debate; one can look at one state or one country and say that in this place they had capital punishment and the murder rate went up. It can be said that in other places capital punishment was abolished and murder rates went down, or vice versa. In the long run I think the Member opposite would agree with me that violence begets violence. Those who take the sword will perish by the sword. I do not say that as a proof text but rather as illustrative of a general truth that violence does indeed beget violence.
How can we create a non-violent society? How can we create a peaceful society when we feel that we have the right to take the lives of certain people because they have violated the norms of society? I think that if we have as a concept of justice not an impartial weighing of offences but, rather, the concept of a dynamic movement toward the kind of society that we all want, then the kind of justice we want will see the death penalty as being unjust.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The time allotted for questions and comments has now terminated. The Chair recognizes the Hon. Member for Ottawa West (Mr. Daubney) on debate.


David Bruce Daubney: Mr. Speaker, I was one of those people who went into the last election campaign torn between the desire to protect the innocent victims of crime and my very real concerns over the effect I felt executions would have on the heart, the soul and the spirit of our country. During the last election campaign I said that I was not in favour of general reinstatement of the death penalty but that I wanted to know whether the death penalty would deter the killings of police officers and prison guards. I believe that these men and women taking special risks to defend the rest of us against violent crime and violent criminals deserve in return whatever protection and assistance we can give them and their families, the families they may leave behind when they die in our service. If it could be determined that the death penalty deterred killings of law enforcement officers and prison guards, I pledged to support its reinstatement in those limited circumstances.
Since then I have spent many long days and nights thinking about this, thinking about my feelings, my conscience, my attempts to grasp the nature of the problem, batting it back and forth by reading news reports about public opinion, the rising numbers of homicides and the falling murder rates. I have seen the conflicting claims on deterrence, the reports about the death rows of convicted criminals executed in the United States and the horrifying, enraging stories of innocent people dying at the hands of murderers in Canada.
I resolved some time ago that I owed my constituents, my colleagues in this House and my conscience more than a superficial review of press reports, more than a reading of public opinion polls or a response to organized letter-writing campaigns. I resolved to go beyond these reports, to go directly to the very large number of detailed studies by criminologists,
June 5, 1987

sociologists and economists, which have dealt with the relationship between the death penalty and murder.
I believe that in dealing with an issue of such profound importance we have an obligation as parliamentarians to look past the necessary superficiality of reports in the popular news media. I spent the last several weeks carefully seeking out and reviewing studies on both sides of the question. I cannot claim or pretend to have reviewed everything that has been published on this topic. However, I have examined more than two dozen serious studies representing both the abolitionists and the retentionists points of view, following the trail of research references from article to the next.
If you will excuse the presumption, Mr. Speaker, I believe the material I have reviewed is highly representative of the existing studies available on this subject. All of the references to research studies to which I will be referring can be found in a document entitled: "The Death Penalty, Deterrence and Retribution: An Annotated Bibliography", which I have prepared and deposited in the Library of Parliament.
The primary arguments in favour of execution are three- deterrence, incapacitation, and retribution. It is, I might say in passing, a macabre fact that rehabilitation does not enter into this debate.
If I could be convinced of the unique deterrent effect of executions, I would be inclined to support their reinstatement. If executions were the only means to incapacitate criminals, I would be inclined to support their reinstatement. If I could be sure that vengeance would affect only the guilty and no one else, I might be inclined to support reinstatement of the death penalty.
There are six issues which will affect my vote on this issue: the efficacy of the death penalty as a deterrent, the possibility of direct and immediate risks posed to society through the demonstration effect of executions, the effect which the death penalty has on juries, risks to the innocent, the issue of retribution, and finally the availability of alternative courses of action.
The issue of deterrence is the most important one I think we have to address. If in fact it could be demonstrated that execution was a unique deterrent, that it provided a deterrent effect which other punishments such as imprisonment did not present, that innocent lives would be saved by executing people convicted of murder, then the issue would be clear, and some other risks judged acceptable.
Superficial common sense tells us that the possibility of execution should deter murderers. The deterrence theory assumes that people rationally calculate the benefits and the risks of their actions, carefully weighing the net gain or loss. However, common sense also tells us that most murderers are not rational when they commit their crimes. If they were afraid of death, they would be more worried about their much
Capital Punishment
greater chance of being killed by police or the civilian population during the course of their crime than about execution.
Clinton Duffy, a former warden of San Quentin prison, is reported to have asked thousands of prisoners convicted of murder, or armed robbery, whether they had ever thought about the death penalty before committing their offence. No one had done so. However, I think it is fair to say that this type of anecdotal evidence is not convincing. Anecdotes and raw, unanalysed data can be twisted to support any argument.
It is for this reason that criminologists, sociologists, and economists have turned to more sophisticated statistical analysis to isolate the effects which executions have on murder rates. Their attempt has been to provide empirical, verifiable evidence about whether and how executions affect murder; what happens in fact, not in theory. Any of us who are genuinely interested in the effects of the death penalty on murder and are not simply going through the motions in this debate should pay attention to this research. It may be dry, but I would submit that it is useful and important.
Economists in particular, beginning in 1975, have had a profound effect on modern thinking about deterrence and on the decisions of several of the United States to resume executions. These researchers have turned to what they call multivariate statistical analysis, which is the use of economic models, and regression analysis, to determine how a host of different variables-the age and ethnic composition of the population, poverty and unemployment rates, seasonal variation in weather, general crime and execution rates, and a number of other factors-interact with each other to affect murder.
The most famous of these studies, and by far the most controversial, was a study published by Isaac Ehrlich in the American Economic Review in 1975. This study, entitled "The Deterrent Effect of Capital Punishment: A Question of Life and Death", examined murder rates in the United States between 1933 and 1969.
Ehrlich used an economic model for behaviour of murderers, suggesting that they did balance advantages and disadvantages of their actions. He came to the conclusion that what he called the "pure deterrent effect" of executions on murders was in the range of one execution deterring seven or eight murders.
These results were literally sensational, and his study was cited in attempts to have the United States Supreme Court reinstate the death penalty in the United States. It is a study which still has an effect on the thinking of some people, including perhaps some of my colleagues in the House.
I will not go into detail on the debate which followed publication of the study, but there have been several dozen subsequent econometric analyses of murder rates in the last 12 years. Anyone in this Chamber who is planning to use the Ehrlich results, or who believes that deterrence is a demonstrated fact, should know that only a handful of studies support his findings.

June 5, 1987
Capital Punishment
In fact, the Ehrlich study was severely criticized by other researchers who claimed that his statistical methods were simplistic and inadequate for the complex series of relationships involved.
A large number of other researchers attempted to replicate and verify Ehrlich's findings, some using the same data he used, others using new and more extensive information on murder rates, and almost all using more sophisticated models and statistical methods. In fact, the issue was so controversial that the American National Academy of Sciences created a special panel on research on deterrent and incapacitative effects of punishment to review the different studies. The panel's conclusions supported the overwhelming body of research which has appeared since 1975. There is no evidence to support the contention that executions deter murder.
Representative of the many, many studies which have found no deterrent effect, in fact about 90 per cent of all research done, are the comments of Dane Archer, Rosemary Gartner, and Marc Beittel, writing in the Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology in 1983. They conducted an analysis of murder and executions in 14 countries including Canada. They came to the following conclusion:
Other justifications for the death penalty can and presumably will be debated,
but the deterrence hypothesis must be regarded at this time as scientifically
insupportable-
William C. Bailey's statistical investigation of the relationship between killings of police officers and executions in the United States between 1961 and 1971 concluded that the death penalty offered no protection to police officers.
Ezzat A. Fattah, writing in the Canadian Journal of Criminology, reviewed a large number of deterrence studies, including 10 which dealt specifically with the effect of executions on murders of law enforcement officers. He also came to the conclusion that there was no evidence that the death penalty protected law enforcement officers.
These studies also indicate that the abolition of the death penalty does not result in an increase of violence within penitentiaries where convicted murderers are sent to serve their sentences.
As Members of Parliament we cannot rely on intuition for our judgment on this issue. We cannot afford to ignore the empirical evidence available to us. Deterrence is a utilitarian argument, one which must have demonstrable effects to be valid. Such an argument, as opposed to, say, the argument for revenge, demands evidence, and that evidence is not there.
I think we have as well an obligation to use the research resources available to us as Members of Parliament to test our preconceptions against reality, to bring our own intelligence and capacity for critical judgment into play, to inform our constituents, and not to just respond to them.
Let me move to the second issue which has affected my vote, that is, the question of the risks posed to society by the death penalty. Not only is there no demonstrated deterrent effect for the death penalty, there is good evidence to suggest that
executions actually provoke murders which would not otherwise have occurred. This ominous possibility must be of concern to even the strongest proponents of the death penalty.
Several reputable studies, investigating the short-term deterrent effects of execution on murder rates, have found that the murder rate actually rose significantly in the weeks and months immediately following an execution. Among the chilling results of this research it was found that in several states where data was analyzed, such execution appeared to account for between one and two additional murders in the weeks following.
In South Carolina, an estimated 24 murders were directly tied to executions over a 10 year period. In New York State, one investigation of murder rates between 1907 to 1963 found that on average each execution accounted for an additional two murders in the month after the execution, which were definitely tied to the execution. Another study in Chicago also found a significant increase over a five year period in both first degree murders and general homicides following each execution.
This has come to be called the brutalization effect. Far from deterring murders, executions appear to legitimize the idea that death is justified for people who have gravely offended us.
Executions provide a savage example of how the state, with all of its resources, feels it must solve its problems. If some murderers are people who feel humiliated, betrayed or dishonoured, is it any wonder that they borrow the state's methods to solve their problems? But whatever the psychology behind the effect may be, the effects are nonetheless established, executions increase the risk to innocent people by provoking murders.
I would like my colleagues to consider this evidence carefully. It is possible, of course, to ignore this, just as it is possible to ignore the evidence on deterrence. But those who do so will bear a terrible responsibility for the effects of their judgment on the innocents who may die as a result of it. The dangers to innocent people do not end with the brutalization effect.
My third concern lies in the effect of the death penalty on juries. Several reputable studies, some already cited in this debate, have indicated that juries are reluctant to convict when the death penalty is in effect. A recent study in Ontario indicated that members of juries in 29 of 32 cases where defendants were convicted of murder, have said they would have been reluctant to convict if the death penalty had been in effect. At least some of the people convicted, incarcerated and, therefore, incapacitated right now, would be on the streets if the death penalty had been in effect in Ontario over the last five years.
My fourth concern, and in many ways I think the most important, lies with the threat to innocent life inherent in an imperfect judicial system. We all know, at least every single
June 5, 1987

one of us in this House who has had direct experience with the judicial system, that executing an innocent person is a real possibility. Yet some Hon. Members have said they doubt that anyone innocent has ever been executed. I think we have to look at the evidence, Mr. Speaker. Any Member might debate parts of it, but in the aggregate it makes a case that any reasonable individual must acknowledge.
In the United Kingdom, there is strong evidence that three people have been unjustly executed since 1945. In the United States, one study indicates that 12 per cent of people executed over a 40 year period may have been innocent. Another study indicates that 100 innocent people may have been executed in the U.S. since 1900. In Canada we have had two suspected, albeit unproven cases, of unjust execution, in 1956 and in 1960, in the cases of Wilbert Coffin and Raymond Cook respectively. We have had three certain cases of wrongful conviction for murder in Canada in the last 16 years. We have executed 710 people in Canada since Confederation. If our error rate was only half as high as the rate for errors in the American study, we may have executed 40 innocent people in Canada.
My fifth concern lies with retribution as a justification for the death penalty. At the heart of the retribution argument is the raw and honest demand for revenge. Retributionists, from Immanuel Kant to the present, have insisted that retribution need not be tied to deterrence, that it stands on its own as justification for execution. This is an argument, an appeal I can understand.
Faced with the horror of particularly brutal, cold-blooded or serial murders, our first reaction is that the murderer deserves to die, that no other justification is required. Kant and others have elaborated this argument, saying that we are reinforcing the value we place on life by demanding for murder the greatest of all payments, the forfeit of the murderer's own life. I will not deal with the paradox implicit in this logic. I will accept it as a natural, visceral first reaction to murder.
Let us clearly understand, however, that the basis for this moral argument is that those people who die are those who deserve to die-only the guilty, not the innocent. But if the net result of restoration of the death penalty is the possibility of executing innocent people, provoking new murders and releasing potential killers onto the streets because of reduced conviction rates, where is the justice in retribution?
We have in the last analysis, Mr. Speaker, other alternatives. We are not a poor society, and we must determine how highly we value the lives of innocent people. We must decide, as a society, just how highly we value revenge.
I know very well what public opinion has to say on the death penalty. I have no reason to believe that the views of my constituents in Ottawa West are any different than any others. I believe, however, that the public desire for the return of the death penalty is based on the mistaken belief that it deters murder. It is rooted in a legitimate fear of violent crime and violent criminals. It reflects a justifiable frustration with a
Capital Punishment
criminal justice system which sometimes appears unable to keep dangerous offenders from repeating their crimes.
We have the resources to strengthen and increase policing, to reform our sentencing and parole procedures, to keep convicted murderers off our streets. The costs are not high, $5,500 a year, according to the Solicitor General (Mr. Kelleher) for each prisoner we add to the prison population. Even if the death penalty does not deter murders, deterrence research has shown us what factors do affect murder rates. Poverty and unemployment are at the heart of all detected rises in murder rates. We have to decide what we really want to come out of this debate. Do we genuinely want to reduce murder rates? Or do we simply want the atavistic satisfaction of killing those who offend us, whatever the risk to innocent lives?
Are we prepared as Members of Parliament to make the hard choices implicit in a policy which would reduce poverty and unemployment, improve policing and strengthen parole regulations? Or would we prefer the notion of a quick fix, which all available evidence tells us may please the public, but which will do nothing at all to reduce murder rates?
What this motion tells us is that we can be seen as champions of law and order without taking the trouble to deal with the real and complicated issues we know are at the heart of crime. We have the resources as a civilized society to solve our problems without killing people. If we decide that our desire for revenge is stronger than our taste for justice, then we will deserve the moral agony we will surely face on the day we learn that we, as Canadians, have executed an innocent person.
I believe that on the day we vote as a House for restoration of the death penalty by supporting this motion, we will inflict a dark scar on the soul of our nation. We will announce to the world that knowing all the risks to innocent lives we still demand the sweet satisfaction of revenge.
It is because I know we need not resort to this needless savagery, Mr. Speaker, that I will vote against the restoration of the death penalty.


Mr. Ferland:: Mr. Speaker, I would like to start by congratulating the Hon. Member for Ottawa West (Mr. Daub-ney) on his excellent expose of this question, and I must say I share his views. However, perhaps he would care to look at the problem from another angle, especially considering that since the beginning of this debate on capital punishment, there has been no attempt to look at the problem as a personal responsibility. Let me explain, Mr. Speaker. As Members elected to the Parliament of Canada, we share the power in this country and I would even go so far as to say we share the power over life and death of all Canadians, but we share this power among 282 Members, including yourself, Mr. Speaker. This means that the Hon. Member and myself each share one two hundred and eight-second of the power in this country. And perhaps he would care to comment on the following. If the Parliament of Canada adopts a Bill to reinstate capital punishment in

June 5, 1987
Capital Punishment
Canada, would the Hon. Member have the impression he would be an accessory to a premeditated crime? We must not forget, Mr. Speaker, that if the Canadian Government decides to reinstate capital punishment, certainly it would be a kind of retribution, as the Hon. Member said, but on the other hand, it would be premeditated retribution through the judicial process, and in the final instance people would say, it is because the Government passed the Bill. But as an individual taking part in this decision, one of 282, would he personally feel to some extent guilty of being an accessory to a premeditated crime?


David Bruce Daubney: Mr. Speaker, I would like to start by thanking the Hon. Member for his comments.
The question he poses is a more difficult one to answer, but if I understood the question correctly, I think the answer is yes.
I have certainly gone through the moral agony of this debate myself. I realized that there was the possibility that I as a single Member of Parliament could, if this motion were to be defeated by one vote, make the difference because of the points I made in my speech about whether or not an innocent person might die or whether or not we may see more murderers loose on the streets as well as all the other arguments I made. 1 realized that I had to vote with my conscience on this issue and that if I had an opportunity to make a difference in this debate, I had to exercise that opportunity despite the views, many of them strongly held, of my constituents. It is a debate we have all had to go through.


William Tupper: Mr. Speaker, through you, I would like to compliment my colleague, the Hon. Member for Ottawa West (Mr. Daubney), for his presentation this afternoon, particularly because it was so well researched. I felt that our hon. colleague had given a great deal of thought to his presentation and that he had looked at many very fundamental data relative to deterrence in particular but to other aspects of the criminal justice system as well.
1 would like to compliment the Hon. Member as well on the sincerity with which he presented his thoughts on a very, very difficult subject. Recognizing his legal background and the fact that he made a substantive point of his feeling that Canada could still afford to maintain within our prison system criminals who were found guilty of the utmost crime, he has undoubtedly spent a great deal of time thinking about how the criminal system and the parole system could be improved to protect Canadians. I would like to ask the Hon. Member if he could share with the House his thoughts on penal reform.


David Bruce Daubney: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his kind comments and his very pertinent question. As he knows, I am Chairman of the Standing Committee on Justice and the Solicitor General. The points he made have been of concern to me and my committee colleagues from all Parties for some period of time. In fact, yesterday at a meeting of the committee, we decided that two areas which we would investigate in
the fall and start to research now would relate to the very question he asked.
We have not yet had a review of the corrections system in Parliament. Members like our distinguished Speaker who have been here for a while will recall the MacGuigan report of about 10 years ago. I think it is the view of the committee that, in any event, it is time for parliamentarians to take another look at the corrections system, particularly with a view to what can be done to improve rehabilitation.
Related to that is the whole question of parole. This is a matter which has been of particular concern to me as an Ottawa Member. Here in Ottawa, we have experienced a dreadful case about which I cannot speak in detail because it is still sub judice, that is, the Ruygrok case. I might add in parenthesis that I had the opportunity of meeting with Mr. Ruygrok, the father of the social worker in a halfway house who was murdered. It was a very touching meeting. He told me early on in this debate that he was against the death penalty. Despite what had happened to his daughter, he knew capital punishment would not have kept her alive.
Going back to my main point, the committee decided to look at the parole system beginning in the fall with a view to ensuring that tragedies like the Ruygrok case and others which happen all too frequently in Canada will not happen again. We intend to see that procedures are put in place that, to the extent humanly possible, would not allow such dreadful things to happen.
There is a lot of room for improvement in the parole and corrections systems. I would also suggest that there is room for improvement in sentencing and 1 welcome the recent developments initiated by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Hnatyshyn) in that regard. I can assure the House that the Justice Committee will be giving a great deal of attention to all of these important issues.
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine
East): Mr. Speaker, while I am strongly opposed to the reinstatement of the death penalty in Canada, I want to start by making it absolutely clear that I believe murder to be a most serious and heinous crime and that we in government at all levels must do everything in our power to reduce and prevent murder. The fact that I and others in this House are opposed to capital punishment does not mean that we are soft on murder, nor does it mean that we care more for the criminal than for the victim. That allegation is pure rhetoric, hokum and a red herring in a debate like this.
I believe very strongly that we should act to prevent murder but we should do something that is effective and meaningful and not something like the death penalty which is simply an illusion of action. Many of those who favour the death penalty say it is necessary to protect the public, to protect the police, to protect corner-store owners and to protect old people and children who walk the streets. Once again, I agree that we must protect those people, but there is absolutely no evidence showing that the death penalty offers this protection.
June 5, 1987

The death penalty certainly has not protected policemen. The year when the greatest number of policemen were killed on duty in Canada was 1962 when 11 policemen were killed on the job. In that year, there were two hangings in Canada, one for killing a policeman.
Since 1962, there has been an average of four policemen killed on duty per year while there is now a much greater number of policemen than there were in 1962 and a larger population. Of course, four per year is four too many, but the point is that when the death penalty was in force in 1962, it did not protect those 11 policemen who were killed while on duty. Nor does the death penalty protect the public generally. In 1976, the year we totally abolished capital punishment in Canada, there were 668 murders, a rate of 2.9 per 100,000 population. Ten years later, in 1986, we had 561 murders, a rate of 2.2 per 100,000. That is the lowest rate in 15 years.
Let us compare that with those states in the U.S. which have brought back capital punishment. So it is absolutely clear I must point out, that in the U.S., unlike Canada, capital punishment and criminal law is not a national matter. It is under the jurisdiction of the individual states. Every state has its own criminal law and every state decides whether or not it will have capital punishment and how it will be carried out. The U.S. Supreme Court decided in 1976 that the states could reintroduce capital punishment and some states did. In 1985 the rate of murder in the U.S. as a whole was 7.9 per 100,000 population. That compares with 2.2 in Canada.
There are two states which have reintroduced capital punishment and have the most executions, Texas with 18 and Florida with 16. The rate of murder in Texas in 1985 was 14 per 100,000, and in Florida 11.6. Not only is the rate of murder in those two states with capital punishment higher than in Canada, it is higher than the U.S. average. The death penalty is not protecting the citizens of Florida and Texas.
In the debate in this House on this issue in 1976 many Hon. Members rose in their place and said that if we removed the death penalty people will feel free to kill. Murderers will run amok in the streets. That did not happen. As a matter of fact, the rate declined, as I pointed out. I have here a clipping from the Montreal Gazette dated February 14, 1987. The headline reads: "Shot Montreal man in cold blood, Miami killer laughs at crime". This is a story about a Montreal businessman who flew to Florida, rented a car at the airport and drove away looking for the interstate highway. He did not know where it was so he stopped his car on the side of the street and asked a citizen where the interstate highway was. This citizen, as I call him, pulled out a gun and shot him in the head because he wanted the car. They caught that man later the same day and he was quoted in this article as saying:
"I just shot him," shrugged the man who confessed yesterday to murdering a
Montreal millionaire who asked him the way to Interstate 85, and then he
laughed.
Capital Punishment
The fact Florida has the death penalty and has had 16 executions did not protect this Montreal businessman in that state.
When we compare rates of murder in those states with the death penalty and those states without the death penalty there is a clear pattern of lower murder rates in the non-death penalty states. In recent months the United Kingdom voted against the reinstatement of the death penalty. That is the third time the British Parliament has turned down an attempt to bring back the death penalty in that country. There the rate of murder is 1.1 per 100,000, much less than in Canada. In Belgium it is 1.3. In New Zealand it is 1.6. In France it is 3.3. All are much lower than the U.S. where 12 states have brought back executions and carried out executions since the U.S. Supreme Court permitted them to do so.
I have had several occasions to debate this issue with the Hon. Member for Peterborough. He has said that the U.S. reinstated capital punishment and the murder rate came down. Before 1976 he says the rate was over 10 per 100,000 and it has come down to 7.9. It is still very high but it has come down. Let us make absolutely clear that the U.S. did not reinstate capital punishment. In the U.S. it is a state matter. Thirty-seven states voted to bring back capital punishment, but executions have been carried out in only 12 of those states. There have been 66 executions in the U.S. since 1976 and more than half took place in Florida and Texas. Capital punishment is not protecting people in those states where it exists. Capital punishment does not protect, and that is our first argument against it.
Second, it is against most of our moral codes. The commandment is, thou shalt not kill. Before World War II and back into the last century capital punishment was justified as a self-defence mechanism. There was the exception to the commandment that in self-defence you could protect yourself and your loved ones. If someone came in to kill you or your loved ones, as a last resort you could kill him and that was justifiable. The justification was self-defence. It was thought that capital punishment was a legitimate self-defence mechanism. However, as statistics-gathering bureaus in many countries in the western world became more sophisticated it was soon learned that the death penalty was not acting as a self-defence mechanism. If it did not do that, it had no moral justification.
That is why we have seen in this debate that every mainline church in Canada has come out against the death penalty. The Catholic Bishops, the Anglican Bishops, the United Church, the Presbyterian Church, the Lutheran Church, the Baptist Church, the Salvation Army and synagogues have come out against it. It is true that some of the evangelical churches have come out in favour, but the great majority of our principal Christian churches have been opposed.
I have already said that in the so-called western world the death penalty does not exist in one entire country. It is still on

June 5, 1987
Capital Punishment
the books in Belgium and Ireland, but it has not been carried out since 1945 in Belgium, and 1954 in Ireland. In effect, in all of western Europe, Canada, and most states in the U.S., as well as New Zealand and Australia, the death penalty is not in force. If Canada were to vote for this resolution and bring back the death penalty, we would be the only entire country in the western world to go in that direction.
As I said a minute ago, the British Parliament turned down an attempt recently to bring back the death penalty because they believe it is inappropriate in a civilized society. The death penalty does not protect. It is against our moral codes. It is not appropriate in a civilized society.
Fourth, it is irreversible if you make a mistake. There have been people mistakenly convicted of murder in recent years. Thank God we did not have the death penalty. Donald Marshall, a young Micmac Indian from Nova Scotia, was convicted of murder and served 11 years before they found out that he did not commit the crime. He was released from prison and has been compensated. If he had been convicted prior to 1962 he would have been hanged. John Wildman of Ontario was convicted of murder and served seven years before they found out he did not commit the crime and he was released from prison.
Professor Bedau in the United States recently wrote a book on the subject documenting 349 cases of people being mistakenly convicted of murder. Of those, 23 were executed. Capital punishment does not protect, it is morally wrong, it is not appropriate in a civilized society, and it is irreversible if you make a mistake.
Fifth, it is selectively inequitable. When it exists it is applied unevenly against the poor, minorities and immigrants. It is applied in that way because these people do not have the money to hire the best attorneys or to pursue the long process through the appeal courts, which sometimes takes years and is extremely expensive. Even if you are convicted in the last court of appeal you can go on and apply for commutation to the Governor in Council or, in the United States, to the Governor of the State. That is a very expensive process in which much discretion is exercised at every level.
Discretion is used at the very beginning of the system in determining whether a charge of first degree murder is laid, the punishment for which is death, or a charge of second degree murder, the punishment for which is life imprisonment, or a charge of manslaughter, the punishment for which is lesser again. The exercise of discretion at the beginning of the process by the Crown can mean life or death and depends to a great extent on the bargaining which takes place between the attorneys and on how good your attorney is.
Some people have described the death penalty as a lottery in which the odds are loaded against the poor. In the years in which we had executions in Canada there were a very small number of executions compared to the number of murders.
The highest number of executions in Canada in any one year was in 1931 when there were 22 hangings. It is interesting to note that that was in the pit of the Depression when people were out of work and desperate. There were 172 murders in that year and only 22 hangings. The average rate in the 1950s, which is the last decade in which we had the death penalty, was five executions and 140 murders per year. In the 1940s there was an average of 10 executions and 120 murders per year. One might ask what happened to the other murderers during the 1950s and who the five were who were executed. More often than not they were the poor, the minorities and the immigrants.
Those are the main arguments against the death penalty. It does not protect, it is morally wrong, it is not appropriate in a civilized society, it is irreversible if you make a mistake, and it is applied inequitably to the poor and the minorities.
The principal argument we hear these days in favour of the death penalty is that it is the only appropriate form of justice. Where does that standard of moral justice come from? It certainly does not come from the western countries or the churches. 1 have pointed out that the churches do not accept that as a standard of justice nor do the western countries. Who accepts it? Who has that type of justice?
The country recorded as having the greatest number of executions last year is Iran where there were 450 executions. Is that our model of justice? In South Africa there were 125 executions. Is that our model of justice? In Communist China there were 105 executions. Is that our model?
People who argue that capital punishment is the only appropriate form of justice for murder are proposing an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth type of justice. They are proposing a system based on revenge, and that is not our concept of justice.
There is a lot to be said on the subject and I will not have time to cover it all. If we are really serious about reducing and preventing murder we will do things to prevent the act from taking place in the first place. We will deal with the causes of violent crime and murder, we will do things which are proactive rather than reactive. That is what has brought down the murder rate in those states which have very low rates of murder. In the State of Minnesota the rate of murder is 1.7 per 100,000. Compare that with Texas or Florida. Minnesota abolished capital punishment a long time ago and has had much better social and public education programs. They were involved in the communities in a way not seen in the southern states.
We must concentrate on the causes, prevention, security, rehabilitation, assistance to victims, more resources and training for the police, better family crisis intervention, better drug and alcohol rehabilitation, more effective gun control, less violence on TV, better juvenile corrections, education and recreation, and more support for the home and school.
It is my belief that the motion before the House is biased and indeed foolish. When the Government introduced it it said
June 5, 1987

it wanted to remain neutral. However, the motion says that this House supports the reinstatement of capital punishment and sets up a committee to decide for what kinds of murder and by what method. If the Government was really neutral it would have introduced a motion saying that the House should re-examine the penalty for murder and make recommendations as to what that penalty should be. This motion is unfortunate.
In conclusion, if we in Canada believe that the supreme value is human life, then society should never repeat the act of the criminal. A criminal justice system based on revenge is not appropriate to a civilized society. We must do everything in our power to combat murder and other violent crime. We must look for solutions which are humane and civilized but also effective and ones which will provide security. Capital punishment is not humane, it is not civilized, it is not effective, and it does not provide security. As a result, under no circumstances should capital punishment be reinstated in Canada as a response to murder.


James Douglas Manly: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the Hon. Member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine East (Mr. Allmand) for his speech and also for the leadership which he has given on this issue, not only in the present debate but in years past. I can remember writing to him when he was the Solicitor General and trying to give him some encouragement.
I am sure he does not remember that letter because he was getting thousands of them from people all over Canada who were very concerned at that time that we should abolish the death penalty.
The Member may have mentioned this before I came in, but it seems to me that one of the major concerns which Canadians should have in re-examining the question of the death penalty is that juries have a much greater tendency to acquit those accused of murder if there is a possibility that a conviction will be followed by the death sentence. I saw one study which indicated that prior to the abolition of the death sentence there was a 10 per cent rate of conviction for those who had been accused of murder. Following the abolition of the death sentence, the rate of conviction went up to 20 per cent. It seems rather conclusive proof that having the death penalty in place means that a much higher percentage of those who are acquitted could be guilty. Could the Hon. Member comment on the safety aspect of this to Canadians on the streets, when there is a higher rate of acquittal when the death penalty is in place?


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, in the middle of the debate on the abolition of the death penalty in 1976, the head of Scotland Yard in England made a statement that he was opposed to the death penalty precisely because too many juries were acquitting too many people who were actually guilty of murder and should have been convicted because they were afraid of convicting someone by mistake. The head of Scotland Yard said that, for that reason alone, he was opposed to the
Capital Punishment
death penalty. He would prefer a system in which there is no death penalty in which at least those people who were guilty of murder would be behind bars until they were rehabilitated. He felt there was a more dangerous situation to have murderers acquitted because of a fear of the death penalty.
Several studies have been done in Canada, including one by Ezzat Fattah, of Simon Fraser University, who did a study that supports that theory, and a study by Jonathan Friedman of the University of Toronto, who conducted studies with jurors who served in murder trials. They said that if the death penalty had been in effect they would not have convicted some of the people they did.
There is also a report by Crown prosecutors in Ontario which states the same thing. There is much evidence to the effect that with the death penalty we often end up with a much more dangerous situation than without it. Of course, I am convinced of the argument for other reasons as well.


Sheila Finestone: Mr. Speaker, first I want to say that I am proud to be a member of a Party which has a member who so strongly speaks in defence of all aspects of our society, particularly in this debate. I enjoyed the Hon. Member's speech and listened to him with great care.
Will he comment further on the social impact of the television medium in which we try very hard to imitate many American programs? The program Night Heat is the Canadian version of Miami Vice. The Hon. Member talked about the violence that we see on television. Can we do something about that?


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, studies have been conducted on this subject as well. The American Senate conducted a study under the chairmanship of the Senator from Rhode Island. It was a study on the relationship between violence on television and violent crime. His findings were to the effect that while violence on television would not prompt people who basically were not violent in the first place to commit a crime, it would prompt those who were basically violent to act out their violence in the way they see it portrayed on television.
That U.S. Senate committee made strong recommendations to limit the violence to hours that were late in the evening so that it would not be seen by the younger segment of their population. That was never legislated in the United States, but was put into effect loosely by some of the networks. I personally believe that there is too much violence on television and films that are available to minors.
We talked about limiting films in which there is pornography but we do not sufficiently consider the effect of violence on their development.
If we are serious about combatting violent crime and murder, there are many things we can do that are preventive, including this.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I will recognize the Hon. Member for Cape Breton Highlands-Canso (Mr. COMMONS DEBATES
June 5, 1987
Capital Punishment
O'Neil), the Member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom) and the Hon. Member for Swift Current-Maple Creek (Mr. Wilson) in the next five minutes. Therefore, let the Hon. Members govern themselves accordingly.


Lawrence I. O'Neil: Mr. Speaker, if it could be clearly established that capital punishment is a form of self-defence, would the Hon. Member be prepared to accept capital punishment? I understood him to say in his comments about self-defence that there was no proof that capital punishment was a deterrent. Is he opposed because there is no proof of its deterrence or because it is unacceptable?


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, I was saying that in the past, books on ethics and morality more or less justified capital punishment as a kind of self-defence mechanism, in which selfdefence justifies killing someone. That kind of argument was used to justify capital punishment.
However, at that time our statistical information was very weak and it was hard to tell whether or not that was correct. Now we know that it is not correct.
The Hon. Member's question is hypothetical. I am convinced by the evidence that capital punishment does not effectively protect. However, that is only one argument that I gave against capital punishment. The Hon. Member will know that I gave five or six arguments, including mistake, morality, non-protection, inequitable application and so on.
If there could be proof to the contrary, that would prompt considerable re-examination on that one point. However, there are still many other arguments that would lead one to oppose capital punishment.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, I want to commend the Hon. Member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine East (Mr. Allmand) for the leadership he has provided on this issue over the years. I am proud of his leadership on this particular issue.
I also want to commend the Hon. Member for Ottawa West (Mr. Daubney) who I believe delivered a very thoughtful speech today. My question relates to the speech given by the Hon. Member for Ottawa West. The Hon. Member for Ottawa West referred to the brutalization effect. He said studies have shown that executions evoke more murders within the state where the person is executed. He gave examples of South Carolina, New York, and Chicago, where executions took place and seemed to provoke even more murders.
Does the Hon. Member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace- Lachine East believe there might be some validity to that theory?
Furthermore, I am reminded of the incident which took place in the House of Commons a few days ago, when someone rushed in and grabbed the Mace. I wonder if that might have been provoked because of the films of Corporal Lortie in the Quebec National Assembly which had been released for massive television use in this country a few weeks ago. One
sometimes wonders whether that might give an idea to a person like the one who came here.
Should we be concerned about the brutalization effect? I am concerned about it, and the Hon. Member for Ottawa West has done a great service in bringing it to our attention.


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, it is very difficult to prove that one is the cause of the other. However, I am convinced from the evidence I have seen, without being able to prove it scientifically, that there is a relationship between violence that is carried out by the state and the growth of violence in society. If the state condones violence by bringing back the death penalty, whether by hanging, firing squad or the electric chair, it says something about the value it puts on human life. When it carries out executions in these very horrible, violent ways, it is also setting an example for society.
During this debate and similar debates, Hon. Members will bring forward for our consideration some horrible crimes, describing crimes in which some innocent child is brutally murdered by a criminal. Of course when we read about these crimes we are all incensed. I myself feel at the time, even though I am opposed to capital punishment, that if I had that person in front of me I would beat him to death with a baseball bat or something. That is how I feel. However, when we sit down to develop a criminal justice system, we do not base it on the emotions we have when we consider some violent crime. We use our heads. We ask what is going to be effective against this kind of thing. We do not really think about revenge.
If the state says, as a collectivity, that it approves of the death penalty, which is a type of violence, it gives a horrible example to the entire society and one which I think in the long run provokes more violence rather than less.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The Hon. Member for Swift Current-Maple Creek (Mr. Wilson) for a very short question, please. We are running over the time now.


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I noticed that the Hon. Member raised the old argument about miscarriage of justice as one of his points. It is the classic argument that the death penalty must be abolished because there might be the possibility of executing an innocent person. He quoted Adam Bedau who, of course, is one of the most resolute and implacable opponents of capital punishment in the United States. Interestingly enough, Mr. Bedau cited a study of some 7,000 executions in the United States and concluded that the record failed to show that such cases occur. He also said, and I would like to quote from one of his articles:
It is a false sentimentality to argue that the death penalty should be abolished
because of the abstract possibility that an innocent person might be executed.
The main point, I think is that if governments were to function only when there was no possibility of error, how on earth could government function at all?
June 5, 1987


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, I do not know what book or article of Professor Bedau's the Hon. Member was reading, but he is out of date. The professor has written a more recent book. I spoke to Professor Bedau three weeks ago in Boston. I met with him at a conference. He has just published a book in which he documents 349 cases, 23 of which were executed by mistake. I would say to the Hon. Member that if the state wants to take a life, the burden of proof is on those people who want to take that life through capital punishment to prove it will have a positive effect on society. The burden is not on us who are opposed to the death penalty. If the state wants to take a life by bringing back the death penalty, or several lives by execution, it is up to it to demonstrate the need for it. It is doing a very serious thing by taking a life. It is up to the state to demonstrate that by taking those lives through execution, it will protect society and bring about a better society. If it cannot prove that, then it fails and we should not have a death penalty.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Questions and comments are now terminated. Debate.


A. Daniel McKenzie: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to enter into the capital punishment debate. I would just like to read the results of a recent survey taken in my riding of Winnipeg-Assiniboine. It is the largest return I have ever received on any questionnaire in my 15 years in Ottawa. I received some 7,000 responses to a detailed questionnaire. The return of capital punishment was requested by 78.7 per cent of the respondents. Legal injection over hanging, gas or electrocution was preferred by 85.8 per cent of the respondents. One question asked was: "If you favour capital punishment, what crime should be capital crimes?" The response came in to "all premeditated first degree murder" at 93.8 per cent. For the murder of police and prison guards the response was 94.2 per cent and for murder involving another serious crime it was 75.8 per cent, so there is strong support for the return of capital punishment in Winnipeg-Assiniboine and also in Manitoba. A capital punishment survey taken in Manitoba indicated, and I quote:
82.5 per cent of the Manitoba population favour the death penalty for the killing of either police officers or prison guards;
I think we are also going to have to add security guards, uniformed and plainclothes. There are uniformed guards in this building and their lives are at risk just the same as the policeman on the beat. So I believe we have to include these guards and others in the House of Commons and provincial legislatures, and also include private security people.
We have heard a lot of quotes from the Bible, different church organizations and different religious groups. I received a letter today from the Toronto Free Presbyterian Church. I would like to read part of its statement into the record:
Please do not let yourself be overly swayed by those Church leaders who call
loudly for the abolition of the death penalty. Is it not strange that many of
Capital Punishment
them who regard capital punishment as barbaric are, at the same time, through the World Council of Churches, sending financial aid to terrorist groups, whose stock in trade is murder?
It is obvious these Church leaders have lost touch with their people when the overwhelming desire on the part of Canadians is for the return of the death penalty for first degree murder. These are not "revenge-seekers" and "barbaric". Canadians generally are hard-working, loyal and law-abiding citizens, and their voice must be heard. It is our hope when the vote is taken you will faithfully represent the views of your constituents.
I will be voting on behalf of my constituents when we vote, Mr. Speaker. Members of Parliament have received a document from the Reverend E. Stevens of the St. Paul's Presbyterian Church here in Ottawa. It is entitled "Capital Punishment Again? A Christian perspective". Mr. Stevens stated:
Capital Punishment is a subject which, in my view, needs a major "rethink" in Christian circles, because for almost 50 years now the official thinking of the major denominations has been dominated by a liberal-humanitarian philosophy which needs to be challenged. Finally, the subject is important because it involves other important Christian beliefs, notably three: the nature of God, the authority and responsibilities of the state and the nature of punishment.
We have all heard statistics, and I guess we could all stand up here for a couple of hours quoting every statistic under the sun, but the Citizens United For Safety & Justice in North Vancouver, British Columbia, have compiled some very interesting statistics which show that attempted murders have increased by 939 per cent over the last few years. The reason we have not had another 939 murders on our hands is due to advancement in medical technology, paramedics, use of protective clothing, and so on. Many victims' lives have been saved which otherwise would have been lost. How many listed as attempted murder would otherwise have been listed as murder?
As I mentioned earlier today, we have to take the Air India disaster into consideration. That was premeditated, cold blooded murder. A person who would plant a bomb on a aircraft containing 329 people is not a person we would want to have on this earth. I do not want to have to ask any prison guard to guard a person or persons who would do such a cruel act. These types of persons have to receive the death penalty.
Other statistics are coming in my office daily. I hope they are all accurate. I checked a number of them out and have not found any which are totally wrong. I think it has to go into the record that since 1977 at least 20 people have been murdered inside federal prison walls by convicted murderers. We have had prison guards murdered in my province, and I have a lot of sympathy for prison guards. I think we have to do something to protect them. In July, 1982 three prison guards were murdered, one by hanging, by men who had been convicted of the first-degree murder of policemen. I can recall that a couple of years ago a guard in the Archambault Prison in Quebec, one hour before he was to retire was murdered by a murderer. He was knifed to death. So there you are. In October of 1986 a young girl was murdered in Belleville by a convicted murderer on parole. I certainly do not know how he got out on parole.

June 5, 1987
Capital Punishment
There is another issue which we have to consider under the capital punishment umbrella, that is, the issue of drug dealers. In the United States there is a debate going on with respect to this subject. The U.S. House of Representatives passed a sweeping anti-drug Bill on Wednesday which includes a death penalty for drug dealers in drug-related murder cases. I would have no opposition to such a provision being included in the final drafting of our death penalty Bill, if it goes through.
There is only one country at the present time which has the death penalty for drug traffickers. That country is Malaysia. I just discussed this issue with a couple of Malaysian politicians recently. They would like to have some further conferences within the Commonwealth in regard to the drug problem. I hope that the Commonwealth countries can get together to deal with the issue in the near future.
I would now like to quote from an article published in The Globe and Mail recently, an article written by Mr. Les Bewley, a retired Vancouver criminal court judge. He is a columnist for Canadian Lawyer magazine. He states:
Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being. The murderer has preferred no lawful charge against his victim; given him no right to counsel, no right to cross-examine or make full answer and defence; denied him the right to be tried before an independent, impartial, public tribunal; denied him any appeal. The murderer is prosecutor, judge and jury, all without lawful authority. Only such killing can be called murder.
I have heard it stated repeatedly that we should not have capital punishment in a civilized society. I am not so sure we have a civilized society when someone will plant a bomb aboard a 747, crush the skulls of young girls, break their necks, abduct them, and all the other horrible things they do. I do not consider that civilized. So we are not actually living in a civilized society when things of that sort are happening.
The Hon. Member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine East says that we will be reading some terrible and bizarre cases into the record. I think we should. I think they should be discussed because we have had some terrible cases in Winnipeg in which children have been abducted. As I mentioned, their heads have been crushed like eggs, their necks broken, and all the rest of it. Young girls have been abducted, molested, bound hand and foot, thrown in a shed and left to freeze to death. I would have absolutely no hesitation in calling for the execution of persons who conduct themselves in that manner.
The following is one of the most bizarre cases I have ever read about. It happened in London, England recently. A young girl was burned on her chest, tummy and bottom. The article states:
TRAGIC toddler Kimberly was branded on her chest, stomach and bottom before she was battered to death-
The burn marks on her bruised and emaciated body were in the shape of an "L" or a "7"-
All the branding scars were caused "by the application of a hot instrument," . . . Other injuries found on four-year-old Kim's body indicated she had been:
TORTURED with a lighted cigarette-at least 15 burn marks were found running the length of her spine and on her pelvis.
BATTERED about the face, groin, legs and arms, and picked up bodily by her ears.
The 24-year-old man who tortured this girl for weeks got life, real life, in Britain. But he will not be able to be put in a section of the prison where other prisoners are. He will have to be kept in solitary confinement for the rest of his life, as the other inmates would deal with him in short order. The mother of the child received a 12-year sentence.
At the present time I would like to move, pursuant to Standing Order 9(4)(a):
That the House continue to sit beyond the daily hour of adjournment for the purpose of-


John Edmund Parry: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: On a point of order, the Hon. Member for Kenora-Rainy River.


John Edmund Parry: I am raising a point of order that there is not a quorum in the House and that therefore the motion of the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Assiniboine (Mr. McKenzie) is out of order.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I regret but there is a quorum in the House. The Hon. Member can move his motion.


A. Daniel McKenzie: Before I was so rudely interrupted, Mr. Speaker, I will move the complete motion again. I move, pursuant to Standing Order 9(4)(a):
That the House continue to sit beyond the daily hour of adjournment for the purpose of completing consideration of the motion standing in the name of the President of the Privy Council concerning capital punishment and amendments thereto.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The only motion with which I can concur is one which does not state "completing". It can state "continuing". The Hon. Member will have to change that, and then we can continue.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Yes, I will recognize the Hon. Member for Yorkton-Melville, but first the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Assiniboine.


A. Daniel McKenzie: I can do as you suggest, Mr. Speaker.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I think if you take a look at the motion as proposed by my friend from Winnipeg Your Honour will notice that he is asking the House to consider extending the hours to complete the debate on the motion that is before the House at this particular time. At this time we are debating not the motion itself but an amendment to the motion.
What we are talking about here in the Hon. Member's motion is dealing with the entire motion. What is before the House is an amendment-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Assiniboine moves:
June 5, 1987

That the House continue to sit beyond the daily hour of adjournment for the purpose of continuing consideration of the motion standing in the name of the President of the Privy Council concerning capital punishment and amendments thereto.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, a point of order-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Will those Members objecting to the motion please rise in their places-


John Edmund Parry: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I have already recognized the Elon. Member on a point of order.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order-


Philip Derek Lewis: They do not have 25 Members in the Elouse to block it, Mr. Speaker.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: On a point of order-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Before I recognize another Member on a point of order I have to see if there are 25 Members in the Chamber-


Some Hon. Members:: No, no!


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: A point of order with respect to the motion, Mr. Speaker-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: First, I must count to see if there are 25 Members in the House. I will then recognize the Hon. Member.


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, my point of order is on the wording of the motion-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: There is nothing wrong with the wording of the motion. I have just read it.


Sheila Finestone: Did you correct it?


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: A point of order, a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You have to get that motion in writing.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I have it in writing. I will now count to see how many Members are in the House.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: You have to get that in writing. He changed it verbally from his seat.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: All those-


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: He has to have it in writing. Mr. Speaker, a point of order-


James Douglas Manly: It is after four o'clock.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Would those Members who object to the motion please rise in their places.


James Douglas Manly: It is after four o'clock.
Capital Punishment


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: A point of order, Mr. Speaker, a point of order-


William Warren Allmand: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.
And fewer than 25 Members having risen:


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: A point of order, Mr. Speaker-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Fewer than 25 Members have risen. Pursuant to Standing Order 9(4)(b), the motion is deemed to have been adopted.
Motion (Mr. McKenzie) agreed to.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: On a point of order, the Hon. Member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine East (Mr. Allmand).


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, when the motion was read by the Hon. Member, it said precisely that the hours be extended to deal with the motion of the Hon. House Leader.
We are not dealing with the motion but with the motion and the amendment thereon. That was not the motion that he made, and I believe that the whole matter is out of order.
What we are debating now is the amendment to the motion. His resolution to extend the hours was wrongly drafted in that he said extend the hours on the motion but not on the amendment. I think it was wrong to permit the matter to be put to the House in that way, and I think it was wrong to take the count, the way the motion was worded, because we were not debating the motion but the amendment.


Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I think I can assist the House on this matter. If you check in Hansard, you will find that this happened on February 3 when the motion for second reading of Bill C-18 was before the House.
At the time that the motion to extend the hours was put, you will find, Mr. Speaker, there was an amendment by the Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin) to take the substance of the Bill and refer it to committee.
The motion to extend hours was accepted even though the motion under debate was amended. A motion was put not only for the main motion but for the amendment, and that precedent on February 3 should be followed here. It is exactly the same. The motion for second reading, as amended by the Hon. Member for Regina West, was before the House. The Chair accepted the motion to extend the hours. It was at about 4.50 p.m.
Debate continued on the amendment, debate collapsed on the amendment, Private Members' Hour took place, and then after Private Members' Hour the debate was extended until the motion on the main question was decided. This is exactly the same question, the main question amended. It is exactly on point.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: On a point of order, the Hon. Member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom).

June 5, 1987
Gun Control


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, I wish to make two points, and I make them very seriously. When you did the count to see how many Members were in the House opposing the extension of hours, it was one minute after four o'clock, and the Hon. Member for Malahat-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Manly) had been calling it four o'clock. According to our Standing Orders, at four o'clock we go into Private Members' Hour and there cannot be a motion put at that time because we are no longer in the regular business on the capital punishment debate. It is four o'clock, a Member of this House called it four o'clock, and you are not allowed, in my opinion, to put the motion at that particular time.
Second, Mr. Speaker, you were sent in writing a copy of a motion to extend the hours by the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Assiniboine (Mr. McKenzie), saying that he wanted the hours extended on the motion before the House. Now, Mr. Speaker, that was clearly out of order. He sent that to you in writing, and he got up and verbally tried to change it from the word "motion" to the word "amendment".
The practice in this House is that if one moves an amendment in this House or a motion in this House, one sends it to the Speaker in writing.
First, Mr. Speaker, you counted the Members, who opposed extending the hours after four o'clock and, second, the motion was changed when the Speaker was already up in the chair considering the original written motion.
In both cases I think we have here a procedural irregularity.


James Ross Fulton: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Before I recognize any more points of order, let me indicate that we are looking for a precedent right now. Before I recognize the Hon. Member, and if he would bide his time for a few minutes, then I could just get the official transcript of what I am looking for at this time.
Order, please. The Chair has looked at this motion. It finds the motion in order. We will now go into Private Members' Hour and then continue, at ten minutes after five o'clock, with the debate as we had it this afternoon.


Rodney Edward Murphy: You guys just killed the weekend.


An Hon. Member:: Is this new co-operative federalism?


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I want to ask the Deputy House Leader-and here we have before the House an extremely serious motion as to whether or not we bring back the death penalty in this country-whether he considers this the way we should deal with the motion, that is, late on a Friday afternoon, without consultation with the opposition Parties, and on a matter which could bring back the death penalty in this country. Is this the official policy of the Conservative Party on how we deal with a serious matter like this one in this country?
A vote could take place this evening on this without two-thirds of the Members-


Mr. King:: No, it can't.


Philip Derek Lewis: No.


William Warren Allmand: Debate could end. The Hon. Member is right. The vote could not take place, but the debate could end and the vote would be on Monday before a lot of Members could speak on this matter.
I am asking him if that is the policy of the Government in dealing with this extremely important matter. If it is, he won't get any co-operation from me this week or any other week.


James Douglas Manly: It is shameful.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: That is not a point of order. It being 4.10 o'clock, the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business-


Mr. Prud'homme:: Mr. Speaker, on the same point of order-


Mr. Malone:: It cannot be the same point of order because there was no point of order.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I am now entertaining Private Members' Business. Private Members' Business is in the next hour. If the Hon. Member wishes to raise any more points of order with regard to the motion, he may do it after Private Members' Hour. I do not want to disturb Private Members' Hour.
It being 4.10 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.


PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS-PUBLIC BILLS   CRIMINAL CODE MEASURE TO AMEND
James Ross Fulton: that Bill C-213, an Act to amend the Criminal Code (gun control), be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.
He said: Mr. Speaker, it is a disturbing moment to start debate on Bill C-213 which I think is a fundamentally important Bill to many Canadians. It includes two particular sections. One, the removal of search and seizure powers of a dwelling house without warrant. This Bill flowed from amendments to the Canadian Criminal Code in 1977. Since that time, as we know with the adoption of the Charter in 1982, many people view with repugnance the section that was brought in with those amendments to the Criminal Code which allowed for powers for the search and seizure of a dwelling
June 5, 1987

house without warrant. As you know, in the Charter, protections against unreasonable search and seizure are no longer possible. I think many Members of this House would like to support that particular section of my Bill.
The second section of the Bill will eliminate the requirement for firearm acquisition certificates in northern and remote regions of Canada. That requirement in relation to FACs is in relation to rifles and shotguns. I know there are many who shoot targets. Many hunters, trappers and northerners would like to see the firearm acquisition requirements removed because they have turned out to be a bureaucratic nightmare for most Canadians living in northern rural and remote areas.
I want to make it clear at the beginning that I wholly support the extension of safe handling and use of firearm courses. I think the RCMP and municipal police forces, boy scout operations, rod and gun clubs and whatever else, should all be involved with the assistance of the federal and provincial Governments in putting forward those kinds of courses. As all Members will know, seven out of ten firearm deaths in Canada are self-inflicted and it is very important that proper training and handling courses be made available.
Old Bill C-51 which brought in these two wrongful laws, as I describe them also included some good things. Bill C-51 increased the severity of criminal sanctions for misuse of firearms. I support the new indictable offence, Section 83, which incurs a minimum jail sentence of one year and mandatory firearm prohibition orders for those who have been involved in firearm offences.
There has been abuse of the legislation, Mr. Speaker. The requirement that a return to a magistrate be made subsequent to Section 101 search and seizure has seldom been met as we found in the final report of the evaluation of Canadian gun control legislation. There are several rather important quotations I want to take from that final document produced for the Solicitor General (Mr. Kelleher) in relation to these two provisions of Bill C-51.
First, in relation to search and seizure of a dwelling house without warrant, I quote:
To safeguard against abuse, the legislation requires that following any Section 101 search, with or without a warrant, a report or return shall be made forthwith to the magistrate. However, we have found that in most jurisdictions, returns are made only if a seizure has occurred and a request for forfeiture is intended. Since returns are made only in those instances where the evidence is strong enough to support a forfeiture application, any protection afforded by having a magistrate review all Section 101 searches, is nonexistent.
I stress those last words because this was from a study. Most of this legislation came into effect in 1979. In the years since, we have found that where police and peace officers have made use without warrant of the search and seizure provisions of a dwelling house, the proper returns to a magistrate have simply not been made.
Another quote reads:
-lack of returns on all searches means that we cannot completely endorse the opinion that Section 101(2) is not abused-
Gun Control
-we have found that the return procedure is not followed, except in cases of forfeiture applications. This defeats the purpose of having a judicial review of the circumstances of all searches and seizures and leaves this section open to possible abuse in the future.
On the question of search and seizure of a dwelling house without warrant, I think it is abundantly clear that the Government's own data and research on this matter makes it perfectly clear that that section of the existing Criminal Code must be removed. I hope to hear the support of government and Liberal Members in relation to this.
For many years there has been a long and strong debate in northern, rural and remote Canada about problems related to this particular power. We should keep in mind that peace officers have always had-and I support their continuing to have-the powers of hot pursuit. I support their having the powers that they have in relation to search and seizure where they have gone to a magistrate-and, in a day and an age of high technology peace officers can always set up systems where they can be in touch with magistrates-to obtain the necessary warrants. I think the protection of the rule of law and the protection of civil liberties of Canadians requires that this Draconian measure be eliminated from Canada's Criminal Code.
On the matter of firearm acquisition certificates, I have a number of quotations that I want to put on the record. They are also taken from the final report provided to the Solicitor General's Department concerning FACs:
-subtle pressures are used to eliminate potentially unsuccessful candidates. Firearms officers frequently claimed they could 'sense' poor candidates. They will usually attempt to dissuade them from making formal application. One jurisdiction estimates that informal refusals were approximately 150 times greater than formal ones.
When I appeared before the legislative committee, in determining whether or not this would be a one hour or a five hour debate, I pointed out a number of jurisdictions, confirmed with statistics from the RCMP, from the Solicitor General's Department, that there are some jurisdictions where people apply for FACs and no one is turned down. We have to ask ourselves what kind of a system has been set up where people come in and firearms officers can say yes or no without any kind of judicial review. In my constituency many times people require six days to go and get an FAC. They have to drive hundreds of miles to get to an RCMP station to apply. Then they have to wait 24 hours, and if that firearm acquisition officer is not there, for example, he is in Atlin, Cassiar, Prince Rupert, the Queen Charlottes or anywhere across the North, if the officer is not there, they simply cannot apply. I think as you know, Mr. Speaker, you cannot even lend to your own brother, father or son one of your own firearms under the existing legislation unless they go and get a FAC, even if it is to run a fox out of the chicken house.
The second quote I have is also from the final study. It reads:
Due to a general lack of data, it is difficult to assess the effectiveness of the FAC system in reducing firearm incidents.

June 5, 1987
Gun Control
An analysis of the number of firearm incidents involving individuals with
FACs would probably provide an indication of the influence of the system.
However, none of our data sources, including police occurrence reports from
the local jurisdictions, record whether involved individuals have a FAC.
That makes it clear that the whole premise on which FACs were brought in, which was to provide information to the courts and the police departments in relation to firearm incidents, has been demonstrated not to be operating at all in any jurisdiction in Canada.
The third quote reads:
We cannot make a direct causal connection between these provisions and any
reduction in the number of firearm incidents.
1 do not think any stronger statement can be made about firearm acquisition certificates than that in the final study. There is no direct relation in terms of the reduction of firearm incidents. Clearly that system, particularly in northern, rural and remote Canada, is an absolute failure.
With regard to the situation in Canada in terms of the search and seizure of a dwelling house without a warrant, peace officers have all of the powers which they require to do everything surrounding those kinds of incidents by involving a magistrate on the one hand or being involved in hot pursuit. This section in my own constituency has been abused. In light of the provisions in our Charter of 1982, this section should be struck down both on constitutional grounds and on the grounds that I have laid out in terms of the study that has been carried out over the last six years.
Concerning the elimination of firearm acquisition certificates, I think the information is overwhelming that this has turned into nothing more than bureaucratic regulation that is harmful to safe, honest gun handling Canadians who shoot a little trap, a little target, or carry a firearm on a trap line or go hunting from time to time.
In the next 45 minutes I would encourage someone on the government side to speak in support of this Bill, because when I appeared before the legislative committee the government Members who did speak spoke very much in favour of it. I thought perhaps today the Hon. Member for Mission-Port Moody (Mr. St. Germain) would be here because he said:
-Mr. Chairman, that I am in agreement with the Hon. Member from
Skeena.
And the Chair was clearly very supportive in his remarks.
I would hope that over the next 45 minutes we will hear from the Government because I have suggested to my colleagues in the Opposition that we would like to hear from government Members why they support or do not support Bill C-213. I know that I have received letters from people from every province and from both territories in support of this Bill. Many government Members, before being elected, said that they were very much in support of this Bill, so I would hope that we will hear from them their support for it.


Mr. Nic Leblanc (Longueuil):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity today to speak to Bill C-213, which concerns gun control.
The Bill raises a number of concerns that are felt not only in my riding but across this country. Gun control relates to the very nature of our individual freedoms in a free and democratic society. This question also relates to public safety, and is thus of interest to all Canadians. That is one of the reasons why the very issue of gun control is so controversial and why opinions on gun control are so diametrically opposed.
The use of firearms in sports, for recreation and for survival has been part of our Canadian heritage for over four centuries, and the tradition continues today. In fact, since its introduction at the beginning of Confederation, gun control has been an important part of Canada's social policy. Today, it is not the principle of gun control itself that is being challenged, because measures that prevent the criminal and irresponsible use of firearms deserve our support. However, I believe the Government should try and strike a sensible balance between the need for protecting the public and the legitimate interests of owners and users of firearms. To achieve this balance, it is important that the House consider all those who are affected before amending the existing legislation. And this brings me, Mr. Speaker, to the proposal made by the Hon. Member for Skeena.
The Hon. Member would like to see abolished the right to search and seize, without a warrant, firearms, ammunition and other explosive substances in a dwelling house. Mr. Speaker, in my view, this provision is in the sections of the Criminal Code dealing with firearms for a very good reason. As the House is aware, many crimes, especially murders, are committed in the course of family or neighbourhood fights. Firearms are involved in most cases.
By adopting subsection 101(2) which allows search and seizure without a warrant, Parliament wanted the police to be able to seize firearms and ammunition and explosive substances in family fights, to prevent a tragedy. Whether a firearm is seized or not, the police officer must subsequently report to the court to justify the action taken, this to prevent arbitrary seizures and the harassment of innocent people.
Family quarrels break out suddenly and police are quickly called on the scene. Apparently the Hon. Member would seek to make it more difficult for police to take effective action in such cases, and to prevent them from conducting searches and seize firearms to avoid the possibility of a quarrel ending in a fatal accident. He would rather have police wait patiently for a provincial court magistrate to complete the search warrant application forms while their services may be urgently required elsewhere.
Mr. Speaker, I have always been concerned over human rights violations and police power abuses. Still, in cases such as I described which may lead to death or serious injuries, I
June 5, 1987

admit that exceptional and constraining circumstances may indeed justify searches and seizures without a warrant.
In the case of Hunter et. al C. Southam Inc., the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that, in certain cases, searches without warrants do not constitute a breach of the Charter. The same rationale applies to urgent situations where police must intervene quickly.
For my own benefit and on behalf of my constituents, I have been trying to follow the evolution of the situation with respect to firearms control. I have yet to hear of a case where someone allegedly abused Criminal Code section 101(2). If ever this provision were to be the source of many instances of human rights abuses I would be the first one to advocate the necessary amendments.
Under the second amendment proposed by the Hon. Member for Skeena (Mr. Fulton), firearms acquisition certificates would no longer be required for people living in the federal electoral ridings listed in Schedule III of the Canada Elections Act. These include Kenora-Rainy River, Thunder Bay-Nipigon, Yellowhead, Prince George-Peace River and the riding of the Hon. Member.
To my mind this is a discriminatory provision. Firearms acquisition certificates should be mandatory for all persons seeking to acquire a firearm, no matter how. The Hon. Member would extend special privileges to those whom he refers to as the "residents of the more northerly and remote regions of Canada".
In my opinion, such cities as Prince George, Thunder Bay or Gander cannot qualify as remote regions.
Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to support this Bill. One of its provisions could result in needless injury or loss of life, while the other is clearly discriminatory on the basis of the area where one chooses to live.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in this debate this afternoon. It is somewhat ironic that we are discussing this particular issue at this time today. A while ago, we ended temporarily a discussion on the death penalty, knowing of course that a large proportion of murders are directly related to firearms, and we began to discuss a private Member's Bill on firearms. We will then return a little later to the debate on the death penalty.
I should begin my remarks by saying that I am one of those individuals who does his absolute best to stay as far away from firearms as possible on every possible occasion. I am one of those people who has never owned a firearm and I believe I have only shot a firearm two or three times in my life.
I do not have much use for them personally, but I recognize that some people use firearms for sports and for hunting and, as my hon. friend from Skeena pointed out very appropriately,
Gun Control
some actually require them for their protection if they live in very remote areas. As well, some who hunt for a living require firearms for their livelihood.
Having recognized the need for firearms as expressed by the Hon. Member for Skeena (Mr. Fulton), I nevertheless have two particular concerns that I must raise with him and the House. First, it is a fact that the number of firearms in existence and their availability is unfortunately very closely linked with the murder and crime rates.
I will digress for a moment to point out that it is well known that a number of U.S. Presidents have been assaulted with firearms over the years. I believe three were killed while in office, all of them by firearms. Not too long ago I read a newspaper article which referred to the fact that it cannot just be a coincidence that every one of those assaults on a President involved the use of a firearm. No President was ever choked, stabbed or anything else. They were all shot or shot at. I think there is a frightening message in that, which leads me to believe that firearms should not be as available as they generally are in this country.
I know the Hon. Member is very well intentioned with his Bill. I support him in his good intentions. I do not support his Bill but I certainly commend him for bringing before this House an issue which is obviously important to people in his constituency. However, that does not mean this is a good Bill for Canada as a whole. Nor is it a good Bill for those constituencies listed in Schedule 3 of the Canada Elections Act.

Mr. Speaker, I see that some ridings are listed in Schedule III to the Canada Elections Act. Let me give you an example. There is for instance the federal constituency of Thunder Bay-Nipigon. What our colleague is saying is that in the heart of the city of Thunder Bay, there would be exemptions which the Hon. Member for Skeena (Mr. Fulton) may feel are necessary in remote areas of his own riding, but which are not required in the downtown Thunder Bay.
Here are other examples. Among the other constituencies which the Hon. Member for Skeena (Mr. Fulton) feels should be exempted from this section of the Criminal Code, I see the riding represented by the Hon. Member for Cochrane- Superior (Mr. Penner); I know that there are areas in that riding which are quite distant from major urban centres. However, we should not overlook the fact that it includes cities such as Timmins and communities such as Cochrane, even if they are located in Northern Ontario. Because of other similar examples, and although its intentions are good, I am not going to support the Bill introduced by the Hon. Member for Skeena, a man very familiar with the administration of justice for having worked in it for a great many years, as I feel that the list of constituencies which he has proposed and his geographic approach to this legislation are both unacceptable.

June 5, 1987
Gun Control
Moreover, I have another problem resulting from the fact that it would include in the Criminal Code divisions which are federal constituencies. I am a little concerned about this, because riding boundaries are changed every ten years on the basis of census results. Some of these ridings should not appear in that group. But I am mostly concerned about the fact that, following the next electoral boundaries readjustment, other regions could be added to the list which are not really remote and where this legislation could be used differently from what our hon. friend expects. I urge him, therefore, to suggest a more equitable formula-I am not saying that our party would necessarily support it entirely-to define these so-called remote regions, in order to convince Hon. Members that they do need and want these exemptions.
Mr. Speaker, we know that many Canadians, but certainly not most of them, would like to have an unrestricted right to carry fire arms. But I know that there are a great many more who insist on restrictions and controls. This does not mean that we want to prevent reasonable people who have full use of their faculties and who do not represent any risk to society from owning firearms. Nevertheless, Mr. Speaker, both as Members of Parliament and as Canadians, we want to avoid a proliferation of firearms and especially their falling into the hands of people who should not have them, as is often the case especially in the United States.
I therefore urge the Hon. Member to prepare another Bill which would be more acceptable to the House, because, in spite of his good intentions, I do not feel I could support Bill C-213 as debated in the House this afternoon.


Mrs. Anne Blouin (Montmorency-Orleans):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to take part in the debate on Bill C-213, whose purpose is to amend the provisions of the Criminal Code relating to firearms.
The explanatory notes accompanying this Private Member's Bill are very revealing. They start with the words:
The purpose of this Bill is to relax certain features of the gun control
legislation in effect since 1979.
Mr. Speaker, the very purpose of this Bill raises some very serious questions. In fact, the question of relaxing some very important features of Canada's gun control legislation deserves to be looked at very carefully.
Canada has a long tradition of responsible use of firearms and a long history of controlling ownership and use. Although it is not generally known, Canada has exercised control over this area for over 100 years. As early as 1877 there were restrictions on the carrying of firearms. After Confederation, the federal Government adopted a Criminal Code that was administered by the provinces, and in 1892, the first national gun controls were introduced.
With the support of successive Governments, Canada's gun control system has evolved over the years and been reinforced to take into consideration the situation existing at the time. I am sure that most Hon. Members will remember some very
interesting debates that took place when the last amendments to the provisions on gun control were passed in 1977.
Mr. Speaker, I think it would be a mistake to depart from a national control system which has been in place for such a long time and which provides for uniform controls across this vast country of ours. Exempting the twenty-five ridings listed in Schedule 3 of the Canada Elections Act from the obligation to obtain a firearms acquisition certificate might do tremendous harm to an important part of this program and would be a direct contradiction of its fundamental principles.
Mr. Speaker, I said that Canada's reasonable approach to firearms control has been endorsed by successive governments. I should also point out that firearms control has had considerable public support. The provisions concerning firearms acquisition certificates came into force in 1979. Three years later, the following question was asked in a Gallup poll:
"Under current legislation, a person must be at least 16 years of age, have completed an acquisition form and obtained police permission before buying a firearm. In your opinion, should this law be maintained as is, should it be more restrictive, or should it be less restrictive?"
According to the results tabulated throughout Canada, 28 per cent of respondents felt it should remained unchanged, 66 per cent were in favour of more restrictive control, and only 4 per cent thought the law should be less restrictive. In addition, even in communities of fewer than 10,000 residents, only 7 per cent favoured less restrictive legislation.
More recently, in 1985, another survey on this issue produced similar results. To sum up, the response in the country as a whole indicates that 90 per cent of Canadians want existing controls to be maintained or tightened.
Mr. Speaker, such findings deserve serious thought. I do not advocate government by polls, but it seems obvious that the legislative provisions concerning firearms in general and the firearms acquisition certificate system in particular have gained widespread acceptance. In fact, I saw nothing to indicate this system is an excessive hurdle for bona fide firearm users. Nothing has been adduced to show the usefulness of dismantling it by eliminating the firearms acquisition certificate in major areas of Canada. As far as firearms control is concerned, the Government insisted on the need to strike a balance between the genuine interests of users and public security.
It should be recalled, Mr. Speaker, that the goal of the firearms acquisition certificate is to provide better public protection. By making firearm buyers subject to a review process, the system is aimed at preventing as far as possible that access to firearms be opened to potentially dangerous people. Each year, the firearms acquisition certificate is denied for cause to some 1,000 individuals. In my view, those rejections are a very significant contribution to solving what otherwise could be serious problems. Why should we abolish such a system in a large part of the country?
June 5, 1987

The only reason submitted by the Hon. Member for Skeena (Mr. Fulton) is that firearms acquisition certificates are a hindrance for firearm users and owners. Mr. Speaker, I do not deny that the need to apply for a certificate can inconvenience. But if we consider that the licence is valid for five years and enables its owner to acquire all firearms he may need over the period, the inconvenience is minimal. After all, this is a hurdle most people would have to go through only a few times in the course of a lifetime. The procedure itself only requires a few minutes. As far as going to the local police station is concerned, most applicants can do that on the occasion of other necessary errands, thereby limiting any inconvenience.
The matter of applying for the firearms acquisition certificate also raises another major point the Hon. Member for Seena seems to have overlooked. It is simply that the issuing of certificates and the conditions therefore are matters of purely provincial responsibility. For instance, New Brunswick has implemented a system of mail applications under which the applicant sends his filled questionnaire along with the prescribed moneys, his application is then processed by the police, and eventually the firearms acquisition certificate is sent by mail. One could hardly qualify this as a bureaucratic impediment. If the existing method really makes things difficult for people living in Canada's northern and remote areas- although nothing proves that is the case-other, more satisfactory measures could be introduced. Provincial or territorial procedures for issuing the certificates could be changed to allow for cases where applying for the certificate would be particularly difficult for the applicant. If problems of this nature exist, they should be brought to the attention of the responsible provincial and territorial authorities. However, I do not think there is any justification for amending the Criminal Code to abolish completely the system we have now across this vast country. The same principles should apply everywhere in Canada. However, it is possible to adjust the procedure to meet local needs.
Mr. Speaker, the legislation's existing provisions already include one that allows the provinces to ask the federal Government to declare that in their province, hunting licences, competence certificates and other permits issued for the use of firearms may be substituted for firearms acquisition certificates. By adopting this provision, Parliament clearly wished to give local authorities the necessary flexibility to enforce these provisions in the light of their own particular situation. However, it is interesting to note that none of the provinces ever asked for this provision.
I think that indicates that the system of firearms acquisition certificates was introduced without any problems and that the general public and the provincial and territorial governments accepted this as a useful form of public protection. The very existence of this provision is one more reason not to amend the Criminal Code so as to abolish the requirement for firearms acquisition certificates in twenty-five federal ridings.
Mr. Speaker, so far my comments concerned the proposal about firearms acquisition certificates. I would also like to say
Gun Control
a few words about the possible repercussions of a proposal by the Hon. Member for Skeena to relax the provisions relating to search and seizure. The existing provision is in fact an important preventive measure. When policemen have to intervene, for instance in a family quarrel where a firearm may be used, they have the authority to search for and seize the firearm before it becomes a tragic part of the quarrel. We all know that that kind of incident unfortunately is frequent. It should be noted that family or social relations are involved in the majority of homicides. Needless to say, those situations are so unpredictable that it would be totally unreasonable to require police to get a warrant before moving in. In fact, they may have to act immediately to save innocent lives.
Provisions pertaining to searches and seizures have led to controversy. It was feared giving the police additional powers would lead to abuses. Such has not been the case. Current legislative provisions also include a system of checks and balances under which control is exercized to prevent abuses.
This is another area of the law where it is important to maintain an adequate balance. The need to protect the people must not infringe upon individual rights and freedoms. There are safeguards in that respect, and this is a matter that we should be closely monitoring.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, the proposals put forward by the Hon. Member for Skeena would significantly dilute of important provisions protecting the public. It is therefore my view that Bill C-213 does not deserve our support.


Mrs. Claudy Mailly (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Communications):: Mr. Speaker, I would like first to state that I am in support of legislation to control firearms.
[DOT]	(1640)

In my view no civilized society can exist without some restrictions. In an open and progressive society the task of striking the appropriate balance between liberty and order is an ongoing process and the end result is dependent upon public consensus.
The first amendment which the Hon. Member for Skeena (Mr. Fulton) is proposing would do away with warrantless searches and seizures by police. He views this provision in the legislation as unnecessary and an infringement upon legal rights. Section 8 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms reads:
Everyone has the right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure.
[DOT]	(1650)
It is a fine balance between the needs of public safety and the legitimate interests of firearm owners and users.
The Supreme Court of Canada has already recognized that in exceptional circumstances, searches and seizures without warrant do not infringe on individual legal rights under the Charter. An example of a warrantless search and seizure

June 5, 1987
Gun Control
would be the case of a domestic dispute which might end in the death of one of the people involved.
It has not been found that this power has been abused by the police. Moreover, the provision requiring a return before a court whether or not articles were seized provides a check on undue harassment of individuals. If the Hon. Member knows of examples which might counter my argument, I would be pleased to hear them. However, I am not aware of there having been an over-all abuse of this by the police. I would be the first to ask the Government to review the policy if the Hon. Member could show some facts that would dispute my position.
His other amendment in Bill C-213 would abandon the need for a firearms acquisition certificate in 25 electoral districts spread across the country. How would the Hon. Member explain to Members representing those areas the creation of inequities in safety and rights of people in those areas as a result of this amendment?
The FAC provisions were intended by Parliament to apply equally throughout Canada and not give one region an advantage over another. This is not the way the gun control legislation operates in Canada. Why should the general public residing in these regions be afforded less protection and benefit of the law than those who reside in large urban areas? I recognize that there is a problem with respect to distances and people having to travel a long way to get a licence as a result of provincial regulations. However, I suggest that this is an administrative problem rather than something requiring an amendment to the Criminal Code. That is why I cannot support that second provision in his Bill. Perhaps there is another solution to that problem.
The Government is currently reviewing the legislative portion of the firearms control program to determine which amendments are required to further facilitate its administration. While contemplating no alteration of the fundamental principles underlying the program, it will be seeking to find ways to enhance the protection of the public, as well as to limit some overly burdensome administrative provisions of the law which inconvenience legitimate gun owners and which do not serve to protect the public. This review will help to ensure that the firearms legislation is able to respond to problems which were not anticipated at the time of its introduction.
It is an interesting coincidence that today we are debating the death penalty. I have discussed the question of the death penalty with enforcement people in my riding. As an abolitionist, I was comforted to hear that stronger penalties for illegal use of firearms would be preferred by the senior members of our forces rather than the use of the death penalty. Our local police have managed to reduce the crime rate in our region which, unfortunately, is very high in comparison with the rest of Quebec as well as the rest of Canada. They are doing a splendid job and certainly would not appreciate any relaxation of gun control.
My area is also a natural paradise. There is plentiful game and a beautiful landscape. Therefore, my constituents are very individualistic, but they recognize that there is a need for gun control and the legislation we have at the moment. While it may be imperfect in some technical, administrative way, it is protecting the public and giving them a chance to enjoy the sport that they want to enjoy in our region.


William Tupper: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased this afternoon to take part in the debate on Bill C-213. The purpose of this Bill is to relax certain features of the gun control legislation that has been in effect since 1979, while retaining strict prohibition of firearms possession by those convicted of violent or firearms-related offences.
Section 95 of the Criminal Code makes a firearms acquisition certificate mandatory for practically anyone seeking to acquire a firearm. If I understand this amendment correctly, it would accordingly eliminate the requirement for a firearms acquisition certificate for residents of the more northerly and remote regions of Canada in some 25 constituencies.
The other amendment deals with the section of the Criminal Code which currently provides extensive powers to police officers to search for and seize firearms without a search warrant, in some circumstances. This amendment would remove the power to search a house without such a warrant.
My life today is much different than it was at one time. I want to speak to this Bill from some personal experience in the area of firearms.
In the course of my professional life I have been obliged to carry a firearm for a variety of reasons. I have been obliged to carry a firearm to protect myself from wildlife. I have been obliged to carry a firearm to provide my food supply. I regret that I have been obliged to carry a firearm to protect my life and the life of those with whom I worked. Of course, in my farming operation in which I am involved, the use of firearms is not necessarily a daily occurrence, but it is frequently required to protect my livestock from rodents, wolves and so on.
I approach this Bill with a considerable amount of personal interest.
In the spring and summer of 1976, and again in the same period in 1977, the House of Commons went through an emotional and controversial period, all in aid of amending the gun control provisions of the Criminal Code.
Finally, in July, 1977, Bill C-51 was passed, and that is the legislation that is on the books today. I think it has been well received in Canada.
The legislation contains several significant provisions. Those measures include the increased court powers to prohibit persons with histories of violence from possessing firearms; stiffer sentences, including a mandatory minimum for persons using guns to commit indictable offences; tighter controls over firearms businesses or dealers; expanded powers of firearms seizures for police to aid them in dealing with domestic
June 5, 1987

disputes and new penalties for carelessness in storage and use of firearms.
Perhaps the most important feature of the firearms legislation was the establishment of the firearms acquisition certificate system to control the availability of firearms to potentially dangerous or unstable individuals.
I want to devote a few moments to the first amendment proposed by the Hon. Member for Skeena (Mr. Fulton). He would like to remove the power of police to search for and seize firearms, ammunition, or other explosive substances from a dwelling house without a warrant. As he states, searches of private homes would be lawful only when authorized by a magistrate.
I once found myself in my daily life, not recently, albeit, in a situation where I went into a home in the middle of the night, in the presence of a police officer, where violence at its worst was taking place. Firearms were present. Lives were in danger, the life of a mother and potentially the lives of the children. There was no time to react, but in one direction and that was to get that weapon out of the house as quickly as possible and out of the danger area.
I can only imagine if this amendment were in place at that particular night what would have happened during the period when the police officers who were involved would have had to go for a warrant in order to retrieve and remove that firearm. I trust that my colleague has considered that aspect carefully. I am not sure what is motivating him to move in this direction.
I support the measure which gives police the power on reasonable grounds and under judicial control to take firearms without a warrant, which I believe is urgent, and which was unanimously endorsed by all Parties when the present legislation was under consideration.
Domestic disputes are volatile and there is no way to predict their outcome. I believe that police officers in our country need this special provision. I also believe that this is one of the ingredients in the legislation which gives reasonable balance between the needs of public safety and the legitimate interests of firearm owners and users. So I cannot support the first amendment.
The second amendment would eliminate the requirement for a firearms acquisition certificate for residents, as he describes, of more northerly or remote regions of Canada. He has chosen and identified 25 federal constituencies named in Schedule III to the Canada Elections Act. I find it a great dichotomy that one member of the New Democratic Party wants to loosen the firearms acquisition certificate system and another of his Party, in a Private Member's Bill, is making it even more restrictive. There is very awkward and difficult dichotomy within the New Democratic Party on firearms control. For instance, the Hon. Member Burnaby (Mr. Robinson), 1 understand, has sponsored a Bill which would turn the firearms acquisition certificate into a firearms possession
Gun Control
certificate. The effect of this would be to extend the present system of control over unrestricted firearms, which only covers transactions, to include control over possession.
I honestly do not know how the Hon. Member is going to implement his scheme. One does not have to be a resident of the jurisdiction in which one applies for a firearms acquisition certificate. One could live, for example, in Ottawa and apply for a firearms certificate elsewhere and all of the guidelines would apply. What if one lived in Ottawa and wanted a firearm? One would only have to go to one of these 25 constituencies where one would not require a certificate in order to procure it and be able to obtain a firearm. Therefore, if an individual believes he would not meet the requirements for a certificate in his own area, he or she could simply purchase a long gun in any of the 25 constituencies named, no question asked.
The Hon. Member's proposal reminds me of the kind of checkerboard firearms legislation which exists in the United States. If the legislation is too tough in one area, all one has to do is to drive across the state line where controls are few or non-existent. Is that the type of firearm control we want in Canada? I do not think it is. I do not think it is what we, as legislators, have in mind for Canada.
I do not think that we can accept the proposals before us this afternoon. As legislators, it is up to us to ensure that there are adequate and good gun control laws. The Hon. Member's suggested amendments are unreasonable, not to mention controversial, and I think it would be wrong to support such measures in this debate.


Mr. Barry Moore (Pontiac-Gatineau-Labelle):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to speak on the Private Member's Bill submitted by the Hon. Member of Skeena (Mr. Fulton). I congratulate him for his interest in this area, which is one which concerns all Canadians, especially those in my riding.
I am certain that Members of this House appreciate that Canada's firearms control program, presently set out in part II (1) of the Criminal Code, is one of the most effective mechanisms existing in the world today for controlling the ownership and use of firearms. All free and democratic countries have recognized the necessity of controlling the possession of such weapons and strive to achieve what is for them an appropriate balance between the interests of society and those of persons interested in acquiring these potentially dangerous weapons.
This proposed legislation focuses on two issues: first, the issuance of the firearms acquisition certificates in remote areas of Canada, such as my riding, and, second, the right of police officers in exigent circumstances, to search for and seize a firearm without a warrant. It is my view that both proposals submitted for our consideration today are wrong-headed. One would seriously diminish the effectiveness and universality of the protection of the public offered through the firearms acquisition certificate's screening process in the existing

June 5, 1987
Capital Punishment
legislation as it is applied across the country. The other would hamper the police in performing their duty to preserve the peace and protect the public.
I would propose to address the proposed modification of subsection 101(2) of the Criminal Code first. Let us be clear from the outset with regard to the present Criminal Code provisions set out in respect of search for and seizure of firearms. Where the police have reasonable grounds to believe that it is not in the public interest for the individual who is believed to be in possession of the firearms to retain them in his possession, there are two possible courses of action. Section 105(1) of the Criminal Code states that upon application to a provincial court judge made by or on behalf of the Attorney General with respect to any person, the provincial court judge is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing it is not desirable in the interests of the safety of that person, or of other persons, that that person should have in his possession custody or control any firearm or other offensive weapon or any ammunition or explosive substance, the provincial court judge may issue a warrant authorizing the search for and seizure of any firearm or other offensive weapon, or any ammunition or explosive substance in the possession, custody or control of that person.
Subsection 101(2) reads that where, with respect to any person, a peace officer is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that it is not desirable in the interest of the safety of that person, or of any other person, that that person should have in his possession, custody or control any firearm or other offensive weapon or any ammunition or explosive substance and that the danger to the safety of that person, or other persons, is such as to proceed by way of an application-I notice, Mr. Speaker, my time has run out and I thank you very much.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The hour provided for consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired. Pursuant to Standing Order 42(1) the order is dropped from the Order Paper.
Pursuant to the motion adopted earlier today pursuant to Standing Order 94(b) the House will now revert to the consideration of the motion on capital punishment and the amendment of Mr. Robinson.




[Stage Direction]
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 a 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".
and on the amendment of Mr. Robinson (p. 5331).
Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to the motion adopted earlier today pursuant to Standing Order 9(4)(a) the House will now revert to the consideration of the motion on capital punishment and the amendment of Mr. Robinson.
Are there any Members rising?


George Albert Proud: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I wish to know if we have a quorum to proceed.


Mr. Speaker:: 
Some Hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Speaker:: The question is on the amendment standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson). Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment?


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: All those in favour of the amendment will please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.
Capital Punishment


Mr. Speaker:: All those opposed to the amendment will please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five Members having risen:


Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 13(5), the recorded division stands deferred until 6 p.m. on Monday, June 8, 1987.
It being after 5 p.m. the House stands adjourned until 11 a.m. on Monday.


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 5.14 p.m.
[Stage Direction]

Monday, June 8, 1987
[Stage Direction]
Prayers