1981-12-17

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Right Hon. Joe Clark (Leader of the Opposition):: Madam Speaker, 1 rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 to present a motion. Last night at Nathan Phillips Square in Toronto thousands of concerned Canadians, including members of all political parties, gathered to show their concern and support for the people of Poland in the form of the following resolution:
We, Canadians of Polish descent, are deeply concerned about the current events in Poland, and we call upon the Canadian government as cosignatory of the Helsinki Accords to undertake the following actions:
1.	To press for the immediate lifting of martial law in Poland and the release of all Solidarity officials.
2.	To press for the reinstatement of the rights of workers to form free trade unions.
3.	To publicly state that no intervention by third parties into the internal affairs of Poland will be tolerated.
4.	To send to Poland, for distribution by non-government organizations, significant economic aid in the form of food, medical supplies and agricultural machinery and feedstuffs in order that the people of Poland survive the coming winter.
We trust that the voice of the Canadian government as international mediator will be heard and that the conflicts in Poland will be resolved in a just and lasting manner.
Therefore I move, seconded by the hon. member for Oshawa (Mr. Broadbent):
That this House express its concern by supporting the resolution introduced last night by the Canadian Polish Congress and approved by the thousands of Canadians there present.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Madam Speaker:: The House has heard the terms of the motion. Does the House agree to the said motion?


Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, I wish to address this matter very briefly, as I am sure the hon. member for Oshawa, the
seconder of the motion, and the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. MacGuigan) would simply like to underline the grave concern which is felt by Canadians across the country about the situation in Poland, and particularly to underline the importance with which we, in the House and in this party, feel this matter be treated as a question that the rights and freedoms so recently won by the citizens of Poland be preserved and be free from any interference by the Soviet Union or by other outside forces.
It is for that reason that we have introduced this motion under the provisions of Standing Order 43 today. I am certainly pleased that it has received the unanimous consent of the House. I am pleased that the Secretary of State for External Affairs and the Government of Canada will be fortified in actions they might take by knowing that they have the support not only of the thousands of Canadians who met last night in Toronto, but also the unanimous support of the House of Commons.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Madam Speaker, as the seconder of the motion 1 rise eagerly to support its purpose and the ideas which lie behind it. I think people the world over, beginning in August of 1980, were impressed, were delighted with, and ultimately gave their total support to the courageous movement of the people of Poland to begin to take the very difficult steps toward achieving a free society within their own land. We have seen in the past year, in my judgment, the most remarkable mass movement since World War II by a people in face of incredible odds to determine the conditions of their lives, not by forces from without their borders but by themselves. In recent days we have seen that courage, that determination, and that fundamental love for freedom put in jeopardy. I and my colleagues strongly support the principle and the details of this motion.
I conclude by saying that I am sure I speak not only for Canadians of Polish ancestry but for all Canadians from one part of our land to the other when I wish the people of Poland well in this moment of trial.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hon. Mark MacGuigan (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Madam Speaker, I received a copy of this motion just after coming into the House. I agreed to its being debated so that we could have some moments to reflect on this very serious situation here in Parliament.

December 17, 1981
The Government of Canada has been very concerned about what has been happening in and around Poland in recent months. Of course the Canadian people themselves have been concerned. In fact there has been an enormous outpouring of support from the Canadian people, not only from Canadians of Polish ancestry but from Canadians of many other ancestries, which is typical of this country, to the Poles. There have been many contributions of food, and many contributions of money to enable food and medicines to be sent to Poland. The Government of Canada has joined in that and recently announced the contribution of $100,000 to the Canadian Polish Congress to enable food and medicines and any other useful materials to be sent to the Polish people.
Aid of that kind, of course, is distributed in Poland by non-governmental organizations but, generally speaking, the Canadian government has to deal with the Polish government, so the greater part of the aid we have sent to the Polish people has been sent through the Polish government. We have in fact been the largest per capita donors to the people of Poland. Our contributions have been principally through our sales of grain at concessional rates.
On October 29 Canada announced that it would provide an additional $500 million in credit guarantees in order to permit Poland to continue to import the one million to 1.5 million tonnes of grain provided for in our bilateral grain agreement which expires in December, 1982. Food credits announced by other countries, such as the United States, do not go beyond this year, whereas ours go through this year into next year. We are already in the position of having fulfilled some of the requirements of that contract by having shipped something like one third of the grain which is provided for under the framework agreement. We intend to continue to provide support of that kind to the Polish people.
The Canadian banks have also made a contribution to Poland in recent years. These banks are participating along with other world banks in negotiations with Poland to reschedule payments for 1981.
It is my understanding that these negotiations are still in process, but at this stage it is not clear what the outcome of them will be. Undoubtedly there will be further word on that within the next several weeks. It is not our intention, as I suggested in this House the other day, to suspend any form of our assistance to Poland at this time.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mark R. MacGuigan: It may be all very well for some countries which have different policies to suspend the application of those different policies, but it is not our policy to hurt the Polish people in any way in this time of difficulty for them by suspending our shipments of grain to them. We do not think that would be in their best interests.
As I understand this resolution, it would urge us to do even more than has been done up to this time, even though we are the largest per capita donor.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mark R. MacGuigan: I might say that it would not be possible for us to ensure that our aid be given through non-governmental organizations as the motion requests-


Mr. Nielsen:: Talk it out!


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. It being 2.15 p.m. it is my duty now to interrupt the debate. Oral questions.


An hon. Member:: Put the question.


Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, I am sure there is consent to put the question.


Madam Speaker:: Oral questions.


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, as an officer of the House I would appeal to Your Honour, I believe with the agreement of the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. MacGuigan), to extend, by the time necessary to allow a vote to be taken, the period for Standing Order 43 motions.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Madam Speaker:: I am not at liberty to do that unless the House gives me unanimous consent.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Madam Speaker:: No. Oral questions.


Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, I very deeply regret that the Secretary of State for External Affairs said no to the request by Madam Speaker for unanimous consent.


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. We are on oral questions. Certainly, the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) realizes that.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs whose refusal of unanimous consent to a motion which would have allowed this whole House to go on record in relation to a situation which is of grave concern to all

December 17, 1981

Canadians, is a matter of deepest concern to me, and, I am sure, to all hon. members on this side of the House.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: I want to ask the minister a question with regard to the approximately 250 Canadian nationals who are now in Poland. The Polish government has stated that those who wish to leave are free to do so. However, because of the situation there, leaving Poland is a very difficult undertaking. I wonder, in those circumstances, first, whether the minister would inform the House how many Canadian nationals have been successful in leaving Poland. Second, have there been any difficulties experienced by Canadian consular staff in locating and assisting Canadians who are trapped in Poland?


Mark R. MacGuigan: Madam Speaker, I am sorry that the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition tried to interfere with my right to speech in this House-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Beatty:: That's absurd.


Mark R. MacGuigan: -by preventing us from having the kind of full debate in which many hon. members on this side would wish to join. The Minister of Employment and Immigration would have been only too pleased to tell the House what he proposes to do concerning Polish immigrants.


Mr. Lawrence:: You interfered with my right to vote.


Mark R. MacGuigan: We would welcome the debate on the subject, if the opposition chooses to use an opposition day for this matter.


Mr. Epp:: Right now.


Mark R. MacGuigan: The Polish ambassador telephoned me last night to tell me that he had heard from his government in response to my representations the previous evening on a number of subjects, but he replied to only one, that is, the cutting off of communications, which is contrary to the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations. He informed me that from today-I do not know what point of today he meant-that telecommunications, both coded and non-coded, would be restored. When that happens, it will, of course, enable us to have a full exchange of information-


Allan Frederick Lawrence: Why is there no radio contact?


Mark R. MacGuigan: -with our embassy in Warsaw.
At the present time, we have no knowledge of any difficulties which any Canadians, consular officials or others, are experiencing in Poland, but we have no count of those who have left. It has been difficult for people to leave, but we have also been told that air transportation will soon be restored. That was stated in the message from the Polish ambassador last night. That should enable us to see people allowed to leave the country.
Oral Questions


Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, the minister has said that he would be interested in full debate in the House. He knows there are no allotted days left this session. If he is genuinely interested in free debate in this House on the matter, I would suggest that he might make a statement on motions this afternoon, indicating the government's intentions.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: There could then be full discussion. We will await the end of the question period to see if the minister is forthcoming with that statement on motions to indicate whether he is serious or not in his request that the House have an opportunity to express its views on this very serious crisis.


IMMIGRATION
Charles Joseph Clark: My
supplementary question is directed to the Minister of Employment and Immigration and it relates to the situation in Poland. The minister stated that he would watch that situation very carefully and that if any changes took place, such as an international crisis, his government would "respond in a flexible and open manner".
In keeping with that commitment, I wonder if the minister is prepared to increase the present refugee total of 6,000 from eastern Europe. Some 35,000 Polish refugees are now crowded in Austrian camps. In light of the present situation those numbers can only increase. Will the minister take action to aid those refugees now by significantly increasing the quota, and by doing that on an urgent basis?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Madam Speaker, as the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition knows, we have been responding in a number of ways to the request and concern about applications for landing in Canada by Polish nationals. I want to indicate to him, and to other members of the House, that since we announced our special measures about two months ago we have already accepted close to 500 applications for landing directly from Poland. We have also given over 500 permits to Polish nationals already here in Canada. In addition, we have the special designation class which allows people to come directly from the Austrian camps. The Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition will know that we increased that number to 6,000 this year, which is the full capacity of our processing at this time.
I can also indicate to the right hon. gentleman, now that he asks, that just today I announced a further extension because of the difficulty faced by Polish nationals wishing to leave the country at the present time by applying to our embassy. We will now accept landing applications sponsored by a Canadian
14154

December 17, 1981
Oral Questions
citizen for any Polish person or family to be entered into in any of our visa offices around the world. All these applications, rather than having to originate in Warsaw, can now come from any third country around the world. This will substantially increase the ability of Poles to come into this country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


REFUGEES ADMITTED UNDER PRIVATE SPONSORSHIP
Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, I am pleased, and 1 am sure other members of the House are pleased, to know that the government has taken that additional step. I hope also that the government will consider very seriously, in light of the urgent circumstances, a further increase in the quota concerning Polish refugees in Austrian camps.
As the minister is aware, many Vietnamese refugees were sponsored privately by churches, by individuals and by families. Will the minister agree to apply to the Polish situation the principle of private sponsorship that was applied in the case of the Vietnamese refugees, so that additional Polish refugees will be able to come into Canada through the avenue of private sponsorship and not be included in the refugee total established by the government.


Lloyd Axworthy: Madam Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition will be pleased to know that over a year ago I signed an agreement with the Canadian Polish Congress which gives that organization the right to provide private sponsorship of refugees. Since that time the Canadian Polish Congress has provided that application for close to several hundred Polish individuals. That measure is already in effect. All I can say to the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition is that we will provide even further encouragement for other private sponsors or individuals in Canada, and we will be prepared to receive any application from any private sponsor who wants to bring in a Polish national.


QUERY RESPECTING EFFECT ON QUOTA
Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, just to be clear on this matter, is the minister saying that these refugees, brought in through private sponsorship, are refugees in excess of the quota, or are they subject to the quota?


Lloyd Axworthy: Madam Speaker, under our immigration regulations we do not count those people brought in under private sponsorship as part of the set general level. All we need is an indication by an organization such as the Canadian Polish Congress, or any five individuals, that they are prepared to band together to give certain guarantees. They will not be considered under our normal levels and therefore, it is open as far as the numbers they wish to bring into Canada.


APPLICATIONS FOR LANDED IMMIGRANT STATUS
Mr. John McDermid (Brampton-Georgetown):: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is for the Minister of Employment and Immigration. The minister has allowed Polish visitors in Canada, who do not have relatives here, to have permits for up to one year. At the end of that time he will review the situation again. Will the minister now entertain a plan to allow these people to apply for landed immigrant status immediately, because many of them do want to stay here now?


Lloyd Axworthy: Madam Speaker, the reason why we established a ministerial permit was to provide some element of a choice for those individuals. We are not saying that every individual necessarily would ultimately want to decide to stay in Canada. They may want to remain here only until such time as the situation in Poland clarifies itself and at that time they may decide to return.
We have established a general principle of one year's residency in Canada and we are allowing them to work during that time. As I said in my original statement, we will be very receptive to their applications. Because it is such an exceptional measure, one we have only applied to a few other countries, such as El Salvador and others, I think we would want to maintain the argument that they should be here on ministerial permits. I am sure we would then be prepared, as I said at the time, to accept any application for permanent landing when their renewals come forward.


REQUEST THAT OPTION BE GIVEN TO HOLDERS OF WORK PERMITS
John Horton McDermid: Madam Speaker, I will ask the minister again if he will give consideration to providing an option for those people who are here on that 12-month basis, because they are in a very uncertain period right now. Many of them feel they will have to go back to Austria after the one year is up, and apply for landed immigrant status from offshore. They are prepared to settle here and be good citizens, and they want to apply for landed immigrant status now from within Canada. Would the minister provide that as an option for those people who are now here on a one-year work permit?


Lloyd Axworthy: Madam Speaker, we are certainly prepared to look at such options, but 1 would think it would require a substantial change in the ways in which our immigration procedures are conducted. As it is, we have given very wide latitude already, allowing them to stay here on a ministerial permit, a privilege which is not given to many other people or groups around the world. I can assure hon. members of the House that we are keeping a very careful and very close watch on the situation there. We are in close touch and consultation with the Canadian Polish organization, and during that consultation if it comes forward that further measures are required, we will respond in as sensitive a way then as we have in the past.
December 17, 1981


PROCEDURE RELATING TO STANDING ORDER 43 MOTION
John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs and it is quite direct. The motion moved by the Leader of the Official Opposition, seconded by myself, called for four specific measures to which, it seems to me, no civilized Canadian could object at all. It seems to me that the Secretary of State for External Affairs took every opportunity to stop the House from taking a vote on that issue. Therefore my question to the minister is, why did he talk the motion out so the people of Canada, through their representatives in the House of Commons, could not vote on this profoundly important question?


Mark R. MacGuigan: Madam Speaker, as members of the House, including the hon. gentleman, know, we have already had a resolution passed unanimously by Parliament this week. We have seven opposition days left between now and the end of March.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: We are going to recess tomorrow.


Mark R. MacGuigan: The resolution-


An hon. Member:: It was intentional; what a phony.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mark R. MacGuigan: The resolution which was moved by the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition, supported by the hon. member for Oshawa, was brought to my attention after I entered the House. 1 was working my way through it in the process of debate. There are many members of this House who would wish to debate such an important measure because there are many concerns expressed in this very complicated motion which involve non-interference in internal affairs. It is very important for the government, on a question of this kind, to set the bounds with respect to what we may or may not do under international law. We have clearly expressed our view on the crisis in Poland, and I am glad that members on the other side are prepared to do the same thing.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, I want to put my next question to the government House leader because he knows that under the rules of this House we could debate this matter at three o'clock if the government so decided. Considering that the four points are thoroughly responsible, recognizing the integrity of the Polish people, and are totally non-inflammatory in nature-they pertain to the problem of martial law, the rights of the workers to organize unions, the request that all outside states not intervene in Polish affairs and, finally, they simply refer to a request that we provide some aid in the form of food and other kinds of
Oral Questions
assistance to the Polish people-this is something one would have thought the Government of Canada could have supported without equivocation.
I would like to ask the government House leader if he will agree, under the rules of this House, that we have a brief opportunity at three o'clock to discuss this matter before us. The Secretary of State for External Affairs has just given us one of the reasons for wanting to say no at that time. He will have the opportunity to debate the matter at three o'clock.


Madam Speaker:: Order, please.
[ Translation]


Hon. Yvon Pinard (President of the Privy Council):: First of all, Madam Speaker, I fully agree with what was said by the Secretary of State for External Affairs. However, I am rather surprised at the request made by the leader of the New Democratic Party. This morning, at a meeting that included his House leader, we discussed the business of the House for today and tomorrow, and no one gave any indication that there was any desire to discuss this matter, either today or tomorrow. In any case, Madam Speaker, the request has taken us somewhat by surprise. Again, I agree with the statement made by the Secretary of State, but we could still set aside tomorrow as an opposition day, when the leader of the New Democratic Party or a representative of the Progressive Conservative Party could present the motion if they are really serious about it. In the circumstances, I am ready to consider this possibility. For today, the order of business was set on the basis of discussions we had with the House leaders a few hours ago. No one mentioned this request to me at the time-this is the first I have heard of it-and I think it deserves serious consideration. If the members on the opposite side want tomorrow to be an opposition day, I am prepared to give the request serious consideration.


REQUEST THAT HOUSE REVERT TO DISCUSSION OF STANDING ORDER 43 MOTION
John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, I normally respect the government House leader-and I mean that-in his dealings with the parties on this side of the House, but considering that the meeting that he referred to this morning involving House leaders of all the parties could not have dealt the government's reaction in advance to a motion which was moved in this House at two o'clock, I say with all respect that the argument he has just made is totally irrelevant.


An hon. Member:: You are playing politics.


John Edward Broadbent: I would like to ask him is he now prepared to discuss with his colleague, the Secretary of State for External Affairs, the possibility of reverting at three o'clock to this very important subject, if there is agreement on this side

December 17, 1981
Oral Questions
of the House-as I am sure there will be-so that the Government of Canada could indicate its position on the four points in the resolution, and so that members on this side of the House could also indicate that all of us in the House can make it clear that we are behind the people of Poland 100 per cent in their serious struggle, without jeopardizing at all the international situation in other respects.


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, I am truly sorry that the leader of the New Democratic Party is trying to indulge in petty politics on such an important matter. We on this side of the House have shown that we are serious about showing support for the Polish people. The Secretary of State for External Affairs has answered very extensively the concerns raised by the NDP leader. I indicated just now and did so quite clearly, that I am prepared to consider a request that is entirely new to us and to set aside tomorrow as an opposition day, for the purpose of discussing this kind of motion. I fail to see how the Leader of the Opposition, the leader of the New Democratic Party, could take offence at this show of generosity on our part.


THE BUDGET
Miss Pat Carney (Vancouver Centre):: Madam Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Finance who once again is not in his seat, and with his budget, no wonder, I will address my question to the acting minister. In light of the Economic Council's advice to the government to take precisely the opposite tack to that being taken in the minister's budget, in order to reduce inflation and create jobs, will the government now agree to withdraw the budget and present the proposals in the form of a white paper before these recessionary measures can be implemented? Is it the aim of the government to destroy the economy simply to save face?


Hon. Pierre Bussieres (Minister of State (Finance)):: Madam Speaker, I am somewhat surprised at the hon. member's attitude and at the way she has allowed herself to be influenced by a report that was presented today. She could just as well have looked at the inflation figures and noticed that the inflation rate dropped from 13 per cent in July to 12.2 per cent in November, an indication that the government's firm resolve and determination, and the measure it is taking to reduce inflation, are effective. These measures are restated in the budget, and the government intends to see to it that inflation rates are brought down so as to make our economic climate more favourable.


PROVISIONS AFFECTING EMPLOYEE BENEFITS
Pat Carney: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is for the same minister. I am surprised at the way he would misinterpret a report prepared by an independent advisory body to his government. Possibly he can clear up another point which was raised by the missing Minister of Finance who claims that he is simply being misunderstood. Yesterday the Minister of Finance told the House that the only employee benefits named in his budget as being subject to taxation were transportation passes and board and lodging. He said, "no other subject was raised in the budget." Well, the budget papers specifically say, on page 20:
Among the benefits to become taxable are:
Employer contributions to private health service plans and dental plans on behalf of employees.


An hon. Member:: Order.


Pat Carney: Would the real finance minister please stand up, either the one who feels these benefits are not taxable or the one who wrote the budget?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Bussières: Madam Speaker, I wonder why the hon. member, who seems to have read the budget speech very carefully, is asking questions about the government's intentions. She has the budget, she has read it, and she certainly does not have to worry about intentions because the government's firm resolve as well as its intentions are stated in the budget. If she did not quite understand the budget, she should read it again and she will find the answers to her own questions.


CARTELS
Hon. Ray Hnatyshyn (Saskatoon West):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice. As the minister is aware, an order in council was recently passed partially lifting the gag order under the uranium information security regulations, on documents and information available to the public with respect to cartel activities on the part of a number of companies and individuals, including government Crown corporations. On the basis of the fact that all the litigation in the United States has now been completed and there is really no purpose served in terms of continuing this gag order, will the minister now agree to recommend to his cabinet colleagues the withdrawal of the entire regulation so that people in Canada will have the opportunity of a full investigation, and an opportunity of looking at the documents and information with respect to the cartel?
December 17, 1981


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Justice and Minister of State for Social Development):: Madam Speaker, we have authorized a change of the order to permit access to some documents by people who are the defendants in these cases. With regard to the statement by the hon. member to the effect that a gag order is no longer needed, I think that it is still needed-


An hon. Member:: Why?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: -but I am glad he implicitly recognized that we were well advised to have the gag order.


REASONS FOR NON-REMOVAL OF ORDER
Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Madam Speaker, the only excuse the government has given so far for keeping the gag order in place is so that it can protect its own cronies, as far as protecting Senator Jack Austin and others is concerned.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: There are many civil actions which could well be brought with respect to an illegal domestic cartel. It is alleged, for example, that the people of Ontario have paid and lost hundreds of millions of dollars with respect to artificial uranium pricing. In order to allow provincial governments and agencies and utilities to investigate their civil opportunities for recovery, I would again ask the minister why he does not allow the gag order to be removed in order for justice to take its course?
[ Translation]


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Madam Speaker, I wish to remind the hon. member that there was an investigation into this matter, as recommended by Mr. Bertrand, which took quite a few months. When we received Mr. Bertrand's report, 1 personally approved the report's recommendations after discussing them with the lawyer who had served on the case for Mr. Bertrand, and who has now approached the courts. I think we are being entirely open about this, and we have agreed with all the recommendations we received on this matter. The case is now before the courts, and we have allowed the gag order to be lifted to a certain extent, so that lawyers for the defence can prepare their case. I believe that everything is quite in order. As for the hon. member's allegations that a gag order is no longer necessary because litigation has been completed in the United States, I do not believe that is quite the case, but I will look into this, and we may change our approach if necessary.
Oral Questions


CANADA POST
Mr. Keith Penner (Cochrane-Superior):: Madam Speaker, 1 have a question for the Solicitor General. As the minister may know, prior to the establishment of the Canada Post Corporation the postmaster general permitted groceries to be shipped via parcel post into isolated Indian communities located in the northern regions of Ontario, Quebec and Manitoba. This procedure enabled food costs to be reduced by as much as $50 per week for a family of six. It has come to my attention that the Canada Post Corporation has requested the RCMP to examine this practice to discern whether it, or some aspect of it, may constitute a criminal offence.
I would like the Solicitor General to tell this House how it can possibly be a crime to help people who are living at or below the subsistence level to receive the nutrition they need by way of parcel post service.


Hon. Bob Kaplan (Solicitor General):: Madam Speaker, Canada Post and the new corporation have been engaged in the practice of carrying perishable foods to persons in northern communities. There is absolutely nothing improper or illegal about that. It is a fine service Canada Post is providing, and I want to assure the House that the allegations which have been made and are under investigation by the RCMP-and to which I do not want to give more currency by repeating them-having nothing to do with regular customers of that service who are engaging in a perfectly lawful practice and hopefully will continue to be served by Canada Post in that way for many years.


INDIAN AFFAIRS
Mr. Jim Manly (Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. Yesterday the minister released a native claims policy which says that "persons of non-native origin who have acquired for various purposes rights in the land area claimed are equally deserving of consideration". Does this mean, for example, that a company with oil drilling rights in the Northwest Territories is as deserving of consideration as the aboriginal people who have a claim in that area and, if this is so, will the minister change his policy to recognize the primacy of aboriginal rights rather than seeing them in competition with the exploitive rights of multinational corporations?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Madam Speaker, I think the hon. member should read that in the context of discussions which

December 17, 1981
Oral Questions
have been going on for some time during land claims negotiations.


An hon. Member:: Smokey the Bear.


Erik Nielsen: When you need a shower, you can't find one.


Mr. Kempling:: You have been sending smoke signals to the natives.


John Carr Munro: I can tell hon. members that is probably the last time I will have a non-partisan reception in my ministerial office.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. Christmas is coming. I could not make out whether the minister had finished his answer.


John Carr Munro: No.


Madam Speaker:: Then he has the floor.


John Carr Munro: Madam Speaker, if I may be permitted to finish my answer, all that clause in the land claims policy means is that already alienated interests of third parties cannot be ignored. They have to be dealt with in all fairness. We cannot just obliterate them in a land claims settlement, so when they are dealt with they will have to be dealt with fairly. Those third party interests will have to be accepted and compensated for in some fashion in over-all settlements with Indian people.


James Douglas Manly: Madam Speaker, I take it from the minister's answer that aboriginal rights claims will not be prejudicated by these other claims.


NEGOTIATION OF LAND CLAIMS
James Douglas Manly: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question relates to another statement in the policy that where claims are made in a province the province must be involved in claims negotiations. Considering the past intransigence of the British Columbia government-where all major claims are still waiting negotiation- what steps is the minister prepared to take if a province refuses to negotiate?


John Carr Munro: Madam Speaker, the present policy is to be constantly urging the provinces to meet with us to resolve this question. In my view it has not become necessary to adopt any alternative method of proceeding simply because even in the province of British Columbia, as the hon. member is aware, the attorney general there has indicated that he is supportive of the negotiator we have in place with reference to the Nishga claim. His officials are participating with us in the over-all settlement. That was not the situation in that province no more than a year or so ago. I am happy to say that the situation with respect to provinces assisting and co-operating
with us-not just British Columbia but several other provinces-is changing for the better.


POSSIBILITY OF EMBARGO ON EXPORTS TO EASTERN EUROPE
Mr. Jack Murta (Lisgar):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport in his capacity as the minister responsible for responding to questions in this House respecting the Canadian Wheat Board. My question has to do with the situation in Poland. We all certainly hope that tensions will not increase and the problems will not intensify in Poland, but if they do, there is some indication that we could see a total embargo into all eastern bloc countries, possibly initiated by the United States. If that happens, Canadian grain would, of course, be the first affected.
Is the government giving any thought-although I hope it would never have to use it-to a contingency plan in case there is an embargo and in case we find that exports to that part of the world are cut off?


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Transport):: Madam Speaker, there was at least one "if' and perhaps a couple of others in the question. I think this is one occasion on which it might be better not to indulge in speculation. The Secretary of State of External Affairs has said very clearly today that we intend to continue our sales of grain to Poland. I think we would be better to leave it at that for the time being.


GOVERNMENT POLICY
Jack Burnett Murta: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question to the minister is very simple. Can he indicate to the House what the policy of the government on grain embargoes in any part of the world is?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, this is not an easy question to answer on the spur of the moment, but if I may express a personal view on the subject I think it has often been demonstrated very clearly in the past-I used to be the minister of industry, trade and commerce-that embargoes are not easy to administer and, generally speaking, do not produce what they were intended to produce in the first place. That is my own reasoning on the concept of embargoes, but it will be for the government as a whole to decide what to do if circumstances such as those indicated by the hon. member should ever develop. And, I hope, as he does, that they will not.
December 17, 1981


HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES
Mr. Jack Burghardt (London West):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and it has to do with urea formaldehyde. Would the minister tell us how negotiations with the provinces regarding some form of assistance for home owners affected with urea formaldehyde are going, and will he soon be prepared to issue a statement covering this entire issue?


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Madam Speaker, discussions with the provinces are continuing. Unfortunately I am not in a position today to respond one way or another on the type of aid we would like to be able to give to the victims of urea formaldehyde. I hope in the near future I will be in a position to announce the intentions of the Government of Canada in this regard.


Erik Nielsen: Announce them in the House.
Oral Questions RAILWAYS


FUTURE OF CROWSNEST PASS RATE
Mr. Vic Althouse (Humboldt-Lake Centre):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport. Since both he and the Minister of Agriculture have been making statements about the Crow rate, and since the Crow rate has great impact in the economy of the prairie provinces, and since two of the three prairie provincial governments support its retention, as did three Royal Commissions, which researched the problem very well, will the minister assure the House that the government has no plans to change the Crow rate either now or in the near future?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Jean-Luc Pepin: I cannot do so, Madam Speaker. But having received a letter today from the leader of the NDP, I can assure him and the NDP that it will not be done over the Christmas recess.
* *
*


GRAIN HANDLING SYSTEM
[Stage Direction]
[DOT] (M50)

Hon. Elmer M. MacKay (Central Nova):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport. I tried to get some information on this issue on May 25 when I put a question on the Order Paper, and it was not answered. In light of the Auditor General's report in which a detailed audit examination of Transport Canada's airport concessions was recommended, specifically in relation to the sum in excess of $5 million which the government lost due to an unauthorized 2'/2-year extension granted to the duty-free shop concessionaire at Toronto International Airport, will the minister assure the House that tenders will be called immediately for the concession for advertising-repeat, advertising-at Canadian airports which has not been publicly tendered for 15 years?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, this is being done now. We are now developing a regime for that particular activity of our airports. I do not see anything irregular now. On the subject of the duty-free shop, yes, indeed, I am the first one to recognize that the delay was extraordinarily long. But my hon. friend might want to agree to the fact that, here again, the Department of Transport had to develop a regime for the foreign operation of duty-free shops. I agree that it took too much time, but it was not an easy definition to reach.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Madam Speaker, may I just say that I thought the minister and the government would have learned something from Sky Shops.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, we did.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Madam Speaker, since farm net income is projected to drop 15 per cent in 1982, and since the Crow rate is part of the Confederation bargain-trading tariffs in exchange for this special rate-will the Minister of Transport tell the House whether or not he shares the vision of his department and of the previous minister, the Hon. Otto Lang, to centralize the grain handling system in such a way that it will impact heavily on local communities in the prairies, the kind of program that has been vociferously opposed by the prairie people?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, one of the ways to oppose an idea is to deform it. The NDP has been very good at it when it comes to the Crow rate.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Jean-Luc Pepin: It has never been the view of those of us who believe it might be time to look at the question of modernizing the Crow rate-it has never been the intention of any person that is worth any respect to eliminate the Crow rate. This is a straw man that the NDP has created. No one in his right mind wants to eliminate the Crow rate right off the surface. No one will deny the concept of the "Crow benefit". Those of us who believe that the Crow rate should be modernized are quite willing and eager to accommodate that concept of the Crow benefit. So stop deforming the idea.


UNITED NATIONS
Mr. Leonard Hopkins (Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of

December 17, 1981
Oral Questions
National Defence. Since 1974 Canada has had approximately 200 military personnel involved in the United Nations Truce Supervisory Organization Disengagement Observer Force on the Golan Heights. We have had many other personnel in the region during the years previous to 1974, dating back to 1948. In the light of the recent action of the Israeli government with respect to the annexation of the Golan Heights, will the Minister of National Defence give a report to the House on the status of the members of the Canadian Armed Forces who presently make up the Canadian Observer Force in place now on the Golan Heights?


Hon. J. Gilles Lamontagne (Minister of National Defence):: Madam Speaker, following the most unfortunate action by Israel on the Golan Heights, the status of our observer group there has not changed. As the hon. member knows, we have 190 military people there and they are responsible for communications, logistics, and technical support to our Austrian, Polish and Finnish friends who are with us in this observer force. We have daily contact with the commander. Every day we ask him what is the situation. I might tell the hon. member that his answer yesterday was that "the situation is normal, there is no imminent danger, UN forces are not at a higher state of alert, morale is good, and they expect to have a pleasant Christmas."


PENITENTIARIES
Mr. Benno Friesen (Surrey-White Rock-North Delta):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Solicitor General. The officials of his department have completed their study on the riot in Matsqui prison last summer. He has released it to the police chief in the area. The officials know what the study says. The prisoners can have news conferences and dump on the guards. Only the guards cannot defend themselves. Will the minister make that report available to the guards so that they can defend themselves and maintain some semblance of morale in the prison?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Madam Speaker, the guards did have an opportunity the night that I visited Matsqui to express their views and they held a press conference. So far as making the report public, for the sake of the guards, I point out to the House that the purpose of that report is not to level criticism at the guards but that the purpose of the report is to improve the security of the institution.
If I were to change the long-standing policy of the confidentiality of those reports, the Inspector General, who gathers them, would not have the benefit of confidential disclosures from the hundreds of individuals whom he interviews in connection with the preparation of those reports, and they would not be nearly as useful as they are now. If I were to make them public, reviewing, as they often do, some of the security weaknesses of the institutions, they would be a great benefit to
inmates who are considering escaping. Those are the only reasons why those reports are not made public.
I gave it to the police chief so that any suggestion of wrong doing or cover-up could be exploded. The only reason for keeping those reports confidential is a good reason, and I intend to continue that practice.


RELEASE OF REPORT TO POLICE
Benno Friesen: Madam Speaker, the minister has already violated confidentiality by releasing it to the police chief. If he is concerned about the reputation of the force with the police chief and the police departments, why does he not allow the prison guards to defend themselves?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Madam Speaker, I was willing to release it to the police chief because I understood that he would be prepared to respect the confidentiality of sources of the report and that he would not disclose to the inmates any of the structural or other weaknesses in the institution. To go beyond that I think is taking risks with that institution, that I am not prepared to take.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Hon. Walter Baker (Nepean-Carleton):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. It has to do with the report of the Royal Commission on Conditions in the Foreign Service. Miss McDougall, in a very commendable way, has pointed out some real difficulties with respect to foreign service officers serving abroad with their families, and in other areas which must be of concern to the minister. In view of the fact that she has found that there is a great deal of cynicism in the foreign service and about the government's intentions to implement any of the recommendations that she might make, will the minister advise the House what are the government's intentions with respect to her recommendations?
Hon. Mark MacGuigan (Secretary of State for External
Affairs): Madam Speaker, the McDougall report was commissioned by the Prime Minister. He will be making a statement on it in due course. I hope to have an opportunity of reading the report during the recess. I have not yet had a chance to open the covers. In any event it will not be for me to make a statement on behalf of the government. There will be government discussion, and at the appropriate time the Prime Minister will indicate our views.


Walter David Baker: Madam Speaker, when the minister is reading the report during the recess, will he pay
December 17, 1981

particular regard to page 50 which talks about the implementation and review process? Having regard to his experience, would he consider recommending to his colleagues in government that there be special consideration in Parliament given to the findings of the report, and the recommendations of Miss McDougall, and that there be responses from the government as to its intentions with respect to the findings? Would he undertake to the House that that would be his recommendation, that Parliament will have a chance to look at these in depth outside the estimates process?


Mark R. MacGuigan: Madam Speaker, when the government has a position on the report we will be releasing it. I will not give any advance commitments to the hon. member, except to assure him that I will read that page very carefully.


MINISTER'S STATEMENT ON SERVICE MORALE
Mr. Donald W. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Madam Speaker, regarding a statement on the report, on Tuesday of this week the minister said in a press conference that his general experience with the foreign service had been that morale was very good. Could the minister explain this? Has he been shielded from the morale problem in the department by his senior officers, or is he denying the validity of the findings of the McDougall report?


Mark R. MacGuigan: Madam Speaker, 1 was not at that time commenting upon the McDougall report, nor do 1 intend to do so now. But may I say that I have a good deal of experience in meeting foreign service officers in all parts of the world. If the hon. member will read the text of Miss McDougall's press conference he will see that she herself stated that the report puts things out of focus, that on balance it is a good foreign service with good morale. By singling out the various problems with it in the report, she said at her press conference that this gives an over-all false impression, that she is picking out spots rather than commenting upon the whole.


PETITIONS
Madam Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that the Clerk of the House has laid upon the table reports of the Clerk of Petitions stating that he has examined the petitions presented by hon. members on Wednesday, December 16, 1981, and finds that they meet the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.
Business of the House


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, may I ask the government House leader what the business will be for tomorrow, and in the event that we might possibly finish Bill C-53 before adjournment today, whether there is anything for back-up, and as far as he can take us into the new year after January 25.
I am sorry the Minister of Finance is not here, but while I am on my feet I ask the government House leader to refer to Hansard of November 27, 1981, at page 13384, where the Minister of Finance stipulated that he would be providing the hon. member for Calgary West with a breakdown of the scientific study which would show the impact on senior citizens in this country of his indirect taxes on their capacity to buy food, to pay rent and to buy clothing. This was followed up with a letter from the hon. member for Calgary West on December 7 requesting that information which has not yet been supplied. Before we adjourn tomorrow, perhaps the government House leader might consult the Minister of Finance in the hope that that information might be provided tomorrow.


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, on the last point, 1 will talk to the Minister of Finance and inquire about the matter. So far as House business is concerned for the rest of today, as the hon. member mentioned we will deal with Bill C-53. There is an understanding among House leaders to obtain second reading of the bill before the end of the day. If we were to obtain second reading of the bill earlier than ten o'clock tonight, the next item of business would be Bill C-10.
Also we discussed earlier the quick adoption through all stages of a bill related to the National Energy Board. This could be done either today or tomorrow. Subject to further talks, we will decide later whether we will bring it on today or tomorrow.
So far as the business for tomorrow is concerned, if hon. members opposite do not wish to have an allotted day, we will deal with the bill respecting the National Energy Board, if it is not disposed of today, as first item of business. The second item of business for tomorrow will be Bill C-ll through all stages, followed by Bill C-45 through all stages. This is the fruit of our negotiations and it was agreed among ourselves in the spirit of Christmas, I assume. Later in the afternoon we were supposed to have royal assent on a few bills. If necessary, we will resume debate tomorrow on Bill C-10, if it has not been dealt with and terminated today. But Bill C-10 would be the last item of business for tomorrow.

As regards the business of the House after the Christmas recess, Madam Speaker, the hon. members are aware that the period between January 25, when the House resumes its sittings, and March 26 is a supply period during which the government must allot the opposition a total of seven days, the first of which will either be tomorrow or Tuesday, January 26, when we come back. The opposition could then discuss the topic of its choice, as is customary. In addition, on Monday

December 17, 1981
Committee Reports
and the days following January 26, we shall be considering a bill that is very important to the farmers in our country, namely Bill C-85, an act to establish a corporation called Canagrex, designed to promote, facilitate and engage in the export of agricultural and food products from Canada. Once this bill gets second reading, depending of course when this occurs, the government intends to introduce for discussion and debate the following bills ensuing from the budget, subject to confirmation in due time, namely the borrowing authority bill and another bill to amend the Customs Tariff Act. In any event, everything I have just said, with the exception of the Canagrex bill, is subject to reconfirmation in January, and I shall of course be in touch with my colleagues, the House leaders, to give them reasonable notice as appropriate.


Benno Friesen: Madam Speaker, I have just a point of clarification for the government House leader, concerning tomorrow's deliberations. He referred to Bill C-10. I wonder whether it was a slip of the tongue and he meant to say Bill C-l 1. Did he really mean Bill C-10? If so, it would cause some concern for me.


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, the hon. member is absolutely correct and I was absolutely correct. I mentioned both Bill C-l 1 and Bill C-10.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
Twelfth report of Standing Committee on Public Accounts, in both official languages-Mr. Clarke.

[Stage Direction]
Fifth report of Standing Committee on Regional Economic Expansion in both official languages-Mr. Pelletier.

[Stage Direction]
Seventh report of Standing Committee on Transport, in both official languages-Mr. Maltais.
[Editor's Note: For above reports, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]

Hon. Gerald Regan (Secretary of State):: Madam Speaker, as the minister responsible for co-ordinating the government's response to the Obstacles report, I have the pleasure today to table in the House, under the provisions of Standing Order 41(2), the federal government's initial response to the report tabled in the House earlier this year by the Special Parliamentary Committee on the Disabled and the Handicapped.


PETITIONS
Hon. John Wise (Elgin):: Madam Speaker, I have the duty and the responsibility today to table a petition signed by the citizens of St. Thomas in Elgin county. This petition reflects the strong protest of Elgin constituents regarding the changes in the taxation of life insurance policies as indicated in the November 12 budget.
This petition reflects the disappointments and the hostility of life insurance companies, sales representatives and thousands of policyholders across the country.
I sincerely hope that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Mac-Eachen) will recognize this blunder and have the courage to withdraw these provisions immediately.


Pat Carney: Madam Speaker, I have the duty to present a petitition on behalf of my constituents who live in the west end of Vancouver. The purpose of this petition, which is signed by 678 concerned residents, is to demonstrate to the government the strength of their belief that they have a right to live in peace and quiet in their neighbourhood to the same extent as that which is enjoyed by other Canadians.
In the face of continuing inaction by the federal government, the nature of the petition is to demand that the Criminal Code be strengthened to give police the powers to cope with the problems associated with street prostitution because this has overtaken the west end and threatens to destroy forever the quality of life long enjoyed by residents.
The petitioners hope, Madam Speaker, that in your examination of their petition you will find that it is in order and that you will understand the urgency and the justice of their request.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
December 17, 1981


Mr. Vince Dantzer (Okanagan North):: Madam Speaker, I have the duty to present a petition on behalf of my constituents. This petition was signed by 59 residents of Okanagan North who indicate that when the government is dealing with gun control it must ensure that it does not infringe upon the rights and privileges of law abiding citizens who own and use guns for legitimate purposes. The petition registers the citizens' concern regarding the proposed private member's legislation, BiUC-451.


Benno Friesen: Madam Speaker, 1 have the duty to present a petition on behalf of a number of my constituents as well as people from other areas of the Fraser Valley. These 52 signatures represent individuals from Abbotsford, Coquitlam, Mission, Clearbrook, Langley, Surrey and White Rock. The substance of the petition concerns the government's economic policy and I should like to read the four points which are of greatest concern, as follows:
Wherefore we demand that the following programs be implemented:
That: I. Interest rates be reduced,
2.	Adequate, affordable housing become recognized as a major government
principle and objective,
3.	Mortgage interest be made a tax deduction or a tax credit,
4.	Limits be placed on mortgage interest increase upon renewal.



CANADA LABOUR CODE


[Stage Direction]
On the order: Introduction of bills:
December 14, 1981-Mr. Orlikow-Bill intituled: "An act to amend the Canada Labour Code (security of employment)".
Mr. Orlikow:: Madam Speaker, during the past year layoffs-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. I should like to know on what point the hon. member is rising.


David Orlikow: Madam Speaker, 1 should like to introduce the bill of which 1 gave notice.


Madam Speaker:: The bill is not available yet. I think the hon. member will have to take another opportunity to introduce it.
 * *


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Order Paper Questions
Mr. David Smith (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Madam Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 3,153, 3,155, 3,156, 3,188, 3,273 and 3,444.


Mr. Cossitt: With reference to the answer to question No. 1,196 which stated in part that Admiral Falls made some of his flights on commercial aircraft, in the case of all the flights listed, what was the cost of such flights to the taxpayer and. in each case, what category of service was used, including occasions when the Admiral flew first class?


Mrs. Ursula Appolloni (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Defence):: With reference to question No. 1,196 no commercial flights were made by Admiral Falls. The first sentence of para, (a) emphasizes that point-"All flights were service air".


Mr. Cossitt: With reference to the answer to question No. 1,196 which stated in part that the total air travel costs for Admiral Falls, his aide-de-camp and his military secretary to visit Burbank, California and Colorado Springs, Colorado from August 28 to September 1, 1978 amounted to $7,157, for what reason were regular scheduled commercial flights not used and what is the justification for spending such an amount of taxpayers' funds on a special aircraft for the Admiral?


Ursula Appolloni: The use of regularly scheduled commercial aircraft for the visit of Admiral Falls to Burbank, California to discuss the acquisition of the CP 140 Aurora and to Colorado Springs to pay an official visit to the commander-in-chief of NORAD, was precluded because of the limited time available to the Chief of the Defence Staff.


Mr. Cossitt: With reference to the answer to question No. 592 which stated in part that the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation had acquired through repossession 44,890 units and 21,980 units over a number of years, what were the total number of repossessions in each of the past eight calendar years?


Hon. Paul J. Cosgrove (Minister of Public Works):: I am
advised by Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation as follows:
	Total no. of units	Total no. of units
	acquired by the	acquired by CMHC
	mortgage insurance	in each of the
	fund in each of the	past eight calendar
	past eight calendar years	years
1973	2.728	1.9681974	1,471	1,2421975	501	2,2231976	1.253	2,0341977	2.186	2,6751978	5,916	2,8161979	14,834	1,6991980	14.548	1,732
December 17, 1981
Order Paper Questions


Mr. Lambert: 1.	What is the strength and location of all naval, air force and ground personnel in (a) Manitoba (b) Saskatchewan (c) Alberta (d) British Columbia (e) the Yukon (0 the Northwest Territories?
2.	What arc the names of all active armed forces bases in western Canada and the Territories and which bases were deactivated in the past two years?
3.	What is the over-all ratio of male to female personnel in western Canada and the Territories?


Ursula Appolloni: 1 and 2 Canadian Forces bases are no longer exclusively manned by personnel identified to one element or another. In providing the data in the table it is to be noted that maritime, land or air elements are predominating rather than exclusive on the bases so annotated. Where a single element cannot be exclusively identified, it is because of its tri-service orientation.
The only base deactivated in the past two years is CFS Churchill, Manitoba.
3.	The ratio of male to female personnel is as follows:
Male		20,088
Female		1,705
Total		21,793
Over-all ratio 11.78 to 1.		
Base/Station	Element	Total
Manitoba:		
CFS Bcauscjour	Air	110CFS Gypsumville	Air	121CFB Portage La Prairie	Air	663CFBShilo	Land	835CFB Winnipeg	Air	2,296Province Total	4,025Saskatchewan:	CFS Alsask	Air	124CFS Dana	Air	123CFS Yorkton	Air	121CFB Moose Jaw	Air	1,282Province Total	1,650Alberta:	CFS Bcavcrlodge	Air	1 11CFB Calgary	Land	2,708CFB Cold Lake	Air	2,038CFB Edmonton	Air	2,113CFB Pcnhold	Air	342CFB Sufficld	Land	101Province Total	7,413British Columbia:	CFS Aldergrovc	Maritime	103CFS Baldy Hughes	Air	122CFB Chilliwack	1,613CFB Comox	Air	1,612CFB Esquimalt	Maritime & Land 4.054	CFS Holberg	Air	187CFS Kamloops	Air	154CFS Masset	235Royal Roads Military College	324Province Total	8,404
Yukon:
Northern Region Headquarters	6
Yukon Total	6
Northwest Territories:	
CFS Inuvik	240
Northern Region Headquarters	55
Territories Total	295


Mr. McKinnon: 1.	Did the Department of National Defence award a contract for a study on radiation-induced nausea and vomiting using rats and dogs and, if so, to whom?
2.	Was the government asked to conduct these experiments in support of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and, if not, who decided on the need for such a study?
3.	Did the department check with its NATO allies to see if such experiments had been performed elsewhere and, if so, what were its findings?
4.	Will the experiments be performed in co-operation with any other country and, if so, which country?
5.	During the experiments, how long will an irradiated animal be kept alive?


Ursula Appolloni: 1. The Department of Supply and Services on behalf of the Department of National Defence awarded a contract to study radiation induced nausea and vomiting using dogs to the University of Ottawa.
2.	No. The department considered these experiments to be necessary as part of its study on the biological effects of ionizing radiation from nuclear weapons.
3.	NATO allies have been consulted and following a world search of literature, it was determined that this work has not been done before.
4.	No.
5.	Up to 12 hours; and in this respect attention is drawn to the last two sentences of parts 1(a), (b) and (c) of question No. 2,507 tabled on July 16, 1981, and published in Hansard No. 232 page 11598.


Mr. McKinnon: Did the Department of National Defence recently order 157 aircraft refueller trucks at a cost of $ 121,000 each and, if so, where arc the trucks to be stationed?


Ursula Appolloni: Yes, DND contracted through DSS with Remtec Inc. for 157 aircraft refueller trucks plus spare parts and operating and maintenance manuals. The vehicles will be positioned at 19 Canadian Forces Bases across Canada and in support of Canadian forces overseas.


David P. Smith: Madam Speaker, I would ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.
December 17, 1981


Madam Speaker:: The questions enumerated by the parliamentary secretary have been answered. Shall the other questions stand?


Mr. Stevens:: Madam Speaker, once again I would ask the parliamentary secretary if he can offer the House any satisfactory explanation why question No. 2,042, relating to the Prime Minister's world tour a year ago, has not been answered. It is shameful that the people of Canada cannot learn some of these facts.


David P. Smith: Madam Speaker, 1 will take note of the representation made by the hon. member. He should be here tomorrow and he may be pleasantly surprised.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: I will be here.


Yvon Pinard: You will not regret it.


Madam Speaker:: Shall the remaining questions stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Wednesday, July 8, 1981, consideration of the motion of Mr. Chretien that Bill C-53, to amend the Criminal Code in relation to sexual offences and the protection of young persons and to amend certain other acts in relation thereto or in consequence thereof, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.
Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, it is always interesting to see how urgencies can evaporate in this House. 1 recall that when we were dealing with Bill C-53 last July, the government urged that the bill just had to get to committee in July or else Parliament would have to continue sitting. Then, of course, the postal situation intervened and 1 never saw such scampering in my life as there was to get Parliament to adjourn. Everyone knows the results of what happened in that period. From July until now there has been no movement on the bill but, or course, priorities change.
As we come to the end of another session, it has been decided that it is appropriate that the House give some consideration to Bill C-53. It is so long since we last discussed it that I am afraid it will be very difficult for hon. members to recall what Bill C-53 is all about. In the time allotted to me today I shall try to indicate to the House what the bill is about just for the purpose of framing the debate. It involves some major amendments to the criminal law.
Criminal Code
I am conscious that in this debate I am following a very distinguished counsel, the hon. member for Saskatoon West (Mr. Hnatyshyn). In the early part of the debate he made a speech in this House that will ring through the annals of Parliament as an indication of his great depth of understanding of the criminal law, an understanding such as is rarely seen in this House. He is a counsel so pre-eminent that he was one of the very few in the province of Saskatchewan-a Conservative under New Democratic Party government-who was able to convince the powers that be that in the year 1973 he should be made a Queen's Counsel.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Walter David Baker: I think his pre-eminence at the bar should not be forgotten. He is a learned lecturer, a practitioner of great repute and all who rise to speak in this debate are conscious that they speak in the shadow of the fine parliamentary performance that will grace the pages of Hansard forever and which will be of great assistance to the committee when it considers this bill.
My friend in the New Democratic Party from Regina said that they gave him a Queen's Counsel because they thought he might then leave town. He did; he was elected to Parliament where he has distinguished himself. I think Parliament is the richer for his presence.
Having unburdened myself of that accolade I want to turn now to a discussion of the bill. As the title states, this is "An act to amend the Criminal Code in relation to sexual offences and the protection of young persons". These matters have absorbed the attention of members of this House for some time. The efforts of the hon. member for Surrey-White Rock-North Delta (Mr. Friesen) on behalf of young people and their relationship to the law have been outstanding. I think this bill is an important step in advancing the cause that he has championed in this House.
To enhance the protection of children, the bill will create new offences resulting from the sexual exploitation of young people by adults and against child pornography. In addition, other changes will assist in the prosecution of child abuse cases and cases of abduction of young children in custody disputes.
There are really four broad principles contained in this bill. The first is the protection of the integrity of the person. In a society like ours, it is a fundamental principle that the criminal law, which is a federal responsibility in terms of law-making, speaks to the protection of the integrity of the person. I guess the reason and the purpose behind laws, and the reason we have Parliament, police, and courts, is so that people will not only find equality before the law, but also protection so that they can move freely about their business providing they do so within the law. That principle really means that every person in our society is entitled to live free from violence and free from fear, as much as is possible. That is the purpose of those instruments of justice and the administration of justice about which I have spoken. In terms of the purpose of this bill, it is

December 17, 1981
Criminal Code
clearly implied that no one should be compelled to engage in sexual activity without his or her consent. That is the basic premise of these amendments.
The second broad principle is the protection of children and special groups. The need for this is obvious. Children are not deemed to be adults who are able to make certain decisions. If one looks at the history of law in Canada, children have been treated differently from adults. The law has always indicated that those who are not mature and cannot make judgments ought not to be held responsible for making judgments under the law. Children require special protection from the physical and emotional consequences of activities with which they cannot properly deal. There has been a sufficient number of reported incidents which fall against this principle to indicate to anyone who considers the matter that we must be very vigilant in ensuring that the law is adequate for that purpose.
The third broad area reflected in this bill is the government's duty to safeguard public decency. As the parliamentary secretary said on behalf of the minister, society has a right to expect laws which protect its members from other individuals and which safeguard public morals. That is a broad principle. There are naturally questions as to how that is addressed by this bill, but it is a thread which passes through the bill. As society changes, this must be addressed from time to time.
The fourth broad principle is also of significance. It is also the proper subject of increasing attention today. It concerns the elimination of sexual discrimination in the country. That is the part of the bill which has gained the greatest attention in society, by women's groups, by lawyers, by learned legal authors and by others who were interested in the evolution of criminal law.
Therefore, this bill creates some new crimes. It replaces rape and indecent assault in the part of the code dealing with offences against the person and reputation. This change would separate violent sexual attacks from the concept of sexual morality. The bill would eliminate the stigma attached to terms such as "indecent assault" and ''rape". There would be two new offences, the first being sexual assault and the second being aggravated sexual assault. Assault causing serious bodily harm through the use of a weapon would be known as aggravated sexual assault. I think that all of us who are involved in the law remember rape trails under the present court system in which great emphasis was placed on required evidence of penetration to prove that the crime of rape had been committed. In the event this bill becomes law, that will be no longer necessary.
I believe that everyone who has practised or observed in the criminal courts has gone through a certain amount of emotional turmoil in watching an attempt being made to prove penetration, and in watching the effect of the evidence adduced during the trial on the people involved. Indeed, what concerns me about the law as it presently exists, with its preoccupation on penetration, is something which was raised by the Law Reform Commission some time ago. The commission indicated that many cases involving grievous sexual assault have not led to conviction for the very serious offence of rape, but, rather,
to conviction for the lesser offence of indecent assault. I have a feeling that the amendments which have been proposed in this bill will go a long way toward removing that from the law.
I want to say one thing. I do not intend to speak for very long because it is the intention of our party and this House, I believe, to have this bill dealt with today. However, I want to say something to the Minister of Justice (Mr. Chretien) who has come into the House, about the practice of his department with regard to legislation. His department has the practice of putting a number of concepts dealing with the broad field of criminal law, or any other field, into an omnibus bill. When that occurs, Parliament has great difficulty in dealing with the matter in any particular way at that stage of the bill or legislation. A former hon. member of this House, Mr. Eldon Woolliams, Q.C., of Calgary, who is a very distinguished lawyer, made the point time and time again that there could be difficulty if we deal with a huge number of things which are perhaps strung together generally, but which deal with separate principles.
I have enumerated four very important principles with which this bill deals. Members of Parliament may have views with regard to one principle or another, yet they must consider it all in the scope of one bill. While the minister is here, I hope he will consider that particular problem.
I suggest it could be dealt with in another way. When the government considers a bill of this nature which deals with a whole host of matters, these items could be forwarded in advance, before a bill is brought to the House of Commons, by way of a white paper to the justice committee. The justice committee could deal with the matter before the government made a commitment to a particular principle as set forth in the bill. Experts could be called to look at the legislation in advance, to consider all of its elements, to see where it might be changed or improved, and to consider what should be dropped. Then, when the omnibus bill came forward for debate on second reading, if we must deal with an omnibus bill, the principles would have been discussed by Members of Parliament who are particularly interested in justice and legal matters.
I think this would do two things. It would allow a department to have responses from public interest groups in advance. It would allow Parliament to deal with a number of principles in a way they cannot be dealt with in debate and on second reading in the House. It would also move toward finding some consensus with respect to what the law ought to be in Parliament, and in dealing with affairs which are of great interest to all hon. members of the House. It is important that we recognize the difficulty of handling this kind of omnibus bill on second reading in the House of Commons.
I am glad the minister is here to listen to this suggestion. A great deal of time could be saved in the House of Commons by transferring much of that debate through the subject matter approach before the legislation is finally put down. I remind the minister of the experience of the House concerning immigration legislation which was brought in by his government. The green paper was used with respect to legislation which
December 17, 1981

fundamentally changed the immigration laws of the country. At that time, abuse was heaped upon a joint committee which did some travelling as a result of that green paper. However, as the minister will recall, the concepts set forth in that green paper were dealt with by the committee and the public.
As a result, there was guidance to the department, to the minister of employment and immigration and to the government with respect to what society really thought about immigration and what the true problems really were. The legislation that came out of that was responsive, at least in terms of this House of Commons. It was so responsive that, as I recollect it, there were only four days spent on second reading of a very complicated bill. It got over the problem of the omnibus nature of the bill. It is something which should commend itself to the minister in terms of dealing with a number of principles arranged side by side in a piece of legislation that can cause great difficulty in focusing upon those principles for the purposes of a debate.
As you perhaps know, Mr. Speaker, there are a number of non-controversial items in the bill. I am concerned that nowhere in Sections 166, 177 and 168(1) is there any definition of what constitutes sexual misconduct. A definition of that is nowhere to be found in this bill. I think this can cause some difficulty in terms of the application of the law. I hope that in the course of studying this bill, the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs will try to find some definition. If that does not happen, then the courts will have to take a close look and come up with something that constitutes what is sexual misconduct in any given set of circumstances.
It is important when we are making some new law in the matter that the criminal law define rather specifically for the benefit of the accused as well as the benefit of society what the rights and responsibilities and the limits of conduct are in accordance with that law.
One other question I think the committee will have to consider concerns the sentences that are set forth in the bill. Some of them are rather light. One matter brought to my attention by men and women in my constituency as well as those people I meet as I travel across the country, and also mentioned in letters, concerns a developing sense of disrespect for the law. Policemen tell me that sentences in some cases are really licences to carry on an illegal activity, that the element of deterrence is gradually being eroded from the criminal law and that the criminal law itself is not providing a sense of determination by government, as they see it, by the system of the administration of justice. I hear these things from policemen, and I am sure the minister has received letters from policemen regarding that matter. But more and more ordinary members of society, who are either the beneficiaries of the law or perhaps from time to time subject to it, but at least those who would like to be beneficiaries, are saying that something is happening with respect to sentencing, with respect to parole and with respect to bail. People say now that attitudes are hardening, that sentences are too light and that people are
Criminal Code
getting off too easily. There are some areas within this bill where sentences are set out. I think the committee has to look at those areas with respect to the general concern that is evident in society.
The law that exists, particularly the criminal law, gives a message to the community. It sets a certain standard for the community and demands something of the community. That message has to be that we are within reason, when they are reasonable, behind the law enforcement agencies of the country; that a criminal act, an act outside the law, is viewed seriously and that the administration of justice in all of its fields views breaches of the law seriously. That is not to say we do not temper justice with mercy, but the public is demanding, and I think they have a right to demand, that sentences be firm and that there are messages for those who contemplate breaking the law. However, some people will not listen to those messages. We make mistakes sometimes in thinking that criminals think normally. They do not. Having dealt with them at both ends of the counsel table, I have found they do not. It is important that a message goes out. From that point of view we will have to look at some of the sentences in this bill.
There has been a great deal of public comment. No doubt the committee will have the benefit of advice from the Department of Justice as well as input from a great number of people who are concerned with all of the elements in the bill. It is not the kind of bill that should be delayed. It is one that should be dealt with appropriately because of the nature of the bill and the fact that it deals with a number of matters.
I want to say that I am very pleased that the Minister of Justice has returned from launching his leadership campaign in the United Kingdom and is here to listen to my speech. I want to express to him every good wish for Christmas;-


Mr. Gordon Taylor (Bow River);: Mr. Speaker, I wish to join the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker) in paying tribute to the hon. member for Saskatoon West (Mr. Hnatyshyn) who has been working on this bill. I was not aware that he was a Queen's Counsel, but I am aware that he has a keen interest in the people of this country and in the unity of Canada. That, in my view, is even better than being a Queen's Counsel.
I want to deal with some items in the bill. I cannot say that I am enthusiastic about everything in this bill, nor are my constituents. It is my responsibility to bring to the attention of the Minister of Justice who is sponsoring this bill some of the concerns of the people and some of the changes we would like to see in this bill.
The title of the bill is very positive. It reads:
An Act to amend the Criminal Code in relation to sexual offences and the protection of young persons and to amend certain other acts in relation thereto or in consequence thereof.
When I first read that title and noticed the words "the protection of young persons", I felt quite happy. That was a positive statement. Certainly our young people need protection. But when I read the bill, I am not so sure that we are protecting our young people. I am concerned about what

December 17, 1981
Criminal Code
appears to me to be a lowering of moral standards in the country.
Some of the sections in the bill, instead of protecting young people, really destroy the morals of Canada's young people, in my opinion. I do not believe that it would be of benefit to our youth to know that they can commit rape provided that the victim is not more than three years younger than the offender. But yes, it could very well be rape.
I have difficulty in following the new clause on sexual assault which will replace rape and other charges. Sexual assault is not defined anywhere in the bill. What is sexual assault? If the sexual assault clause is to replace the clause on rape, as it does in the bill, what about the retroactivity of the penal provisions? At the present time, if an individual is found guilty of rape, he is given a sentence of 15 years. But this bill provides a penalty of only ten years' imprisonment. Is there going to be a new law for those who have already been charged, convicted and are now in our prisons? I find it difficult to understand why we are lowering the penalty from 15 years to ten years for a crime like rape, particularly when the sexual assault may be on a young girl or a teenage girl, or even someone under the age of ten.
I noticed a story in the paper the other day about a teacher who had been convicted of assault on an eight or nine year old girl. Surely that type of person should not be out running loose. I know he might be sick, but if he is teaching school he is not that sick. Surely he is not that sick if he can hold a job as a teacher in any province in Canada, and if he is doing that type of thing surely 15 years is not too much. I really object to the lowering of the penalties for some of these offences, even if the offence is committed under a different name. The name is not going to make much difference. Rape is rape whether you call it sexual assault or rape.
I know the question of retroactivity of legislation may be dealt with in the interpretation section, but I am concerned about whether it refers to those who have already been convicted and are in our prisons, or refers only to those who are convicted from the date of the passing of this measure. In my view, reducing the penalty to ten years is not good.
I am not a member of the committee that will study this, but I would like to see the committee increase the penalties, if anything. Let us not encourage people to think we are lowering moral standards in this country. I know there are groups that want that done, but the vast majority of the Canadian people have high moral standards and want those high moral standards for their families, their children, their grandchildren and their friends. We should not be reducing these penalties because when you reduce penalties you inadvertently say that the crime is now not quite as bad as it was a few years ago. In my view, when rape is carried out, particularly on young people, it is just as bad now as it was ten, 50 or 200 years ago. We should be very careful of what we do in this regard.
Another item in the bill which bothers me greatly is to be found in proposed Section 166 which deals with sexual misconduct. Exactly what is sexual misconduct? I know there are some things that will become sexual misconduct under the provisions of this bill, but I would have thought that sexual misconduct would be defined. It is a term that should be defined so that when we talk about sexual misconduct we know what we are talking about.
Proposed Section 166 dealing with this particular item is of concern to a great number of people. I am going to read it into the record because I think it is that important. The heading is "Sexual Exploitation of Young Persons". It does not form part of the act, of course. It states:
Every one who engages in or procures sexual misconduct with or by a person who
(a)	is not his spouse, and
(b)	is under the age of fourteen years, is guilty of an indictable offence and is
liable to imprisonment for ten years.
If that happens to be rape, the individual gets ten years, but I believe the present penalty is 15 years and I do not think we should lower that at all. Then the proposed section continues as follows:
(2) No one shall be found guilty of an offence under subsection (1) if he establishes that
(a)	at the time the sexual misconduct took place, he was under fourteen years
of age; or
(b)	he is less than three years older than the complainant.
I suppose he could be 17 and the girl could be 15, in which case there would be no offence. I do not really know what we are trying to do in this regard, and neither do a lot of people in this country.
I want to put on the record some comments that have come to my attention from people in my constituency in connection with this proposed section. One letter that came in on February 23 says:
Although there are other parts of this bill that I disagree with, the part that I am particularly outraged at and am vehemently against is the section on the lowering of the legal age to have sex to 14.
And further on it states:
We do not need our government to aid and abet the general lowering of standards by putting forth such bills camouflaged in the name of help .. .
I would also let you know at this time that I am not some puritanical old maid preaching. I am a young mother with four small children. I am sick at heart when I think of how hard our government is trying to make it for parents to bring their children up in any kind of moral surroundings.
I think the letter speaks for itself.
This is a statement that comes from another letter:
I was stunned to read in the paper Bill C-53 which wants to make it legal for children 14 years and older to have sexual intercourse with partners who are no more than three years older (Single people).
People are concerned about this section, as I am.
Most of all I want to deal with this matter in relation to a case that came to my attention, first of all, through a telephone conversation with a mother who was very, very impassioned, angry and frustrated because when her daughter was 21 she had been persuaded to have intercourse and became pregnant and her entire life was ruined. Later on things were patched up, but at the time the whole earth crumbled and a
December 17, 1981

gap opened in that family. They were overwhelmed with sorrow and agony. Her first words to me were "she was 21". Now we are going to lower the legal age to 18 so this type of thing can be done legally and within the law. This is her letter dated February 13, 1981:
I am very upset and concerned about Bill C-53 regarding the lowering of the age limit to 14, for legal sexual intercourse! My husband and I were appalled and sickened by this proposed law. Recently, we had cause for grief over the legal age being 18 instead of 21, as it used to be a few years ago. What a terrible grief will cover the whole land if our young 14-year-olds can legally take part in sex, with their parents being helpless to do anything about it! We found that even though we taught our children well, certain traumatic experiences can weaken the thinking of a child, as well as the ability to hold on to high standards when strong temptations come along.
The letter then refers to the bill and asks whether it is "actually protecting our youth by limiting the partner's age to no more than three years older". The letter then states:
What difference, really, is the age of the partner if he makes a 14-year-old pregnant? What's the difference, if he causes her to sin, to commit fornication- it goes by the same name, regardless of age!
This is the sentiment of many parents in this country. The legislation may not say that we are legalizing it, but the very fact that we lower the age and say it is not an indictable offence if there is a three-year difference between the two means we are indicating it is okay, that the laws of the land permit this lowering of standards. This is contrary to the teachings of almost every church in this country and at least 9 per cent of the parents, the ones who are concerned about their children.
When the parliamentary secretary dealt with this bill a few months ago, he outlined four principles of the bill. The first principle was the protection of the integrity of a person. 1 agree that our laws should contain this principle, and I hope that this legislation will meet that principle. When a girl is walking home, be it night or day, and she is assaulted on a street corner and subsequently there is a charge laid, she must then be put on the witness stand. She is then insulted, maligned and her character is torn apart. She becomes the guilty one instead of the person who assaulted her. 1 do not think any lawyers have the right to do this. Although we expect them to represent the defendant, they should not be allowed to turn the tables on the person who was assaulted, who had nothing whatsoever to do with the fact that someone grabbed her and dragged her into an alley. This situation should be corrected. It should not be permitted by any court or judge in Canada. If this principle becomes law, 1 hope it will protect the integrity of those people who are assaulted. The law itself may not do that but it would show our desire to deal properly with those people in our courts.
The second principle which was mentioned was the protection of children. 1 agree that our children should be protected. I do not know why we talk about lowering the penalty on these people, who I call monsters, who attack children of all ages. We have seen this happening in Canada and I think we have to start thinking more of the victims of these crimes and less of those who commit them. I have sympathy for a person who is
Criminal Code
mentally unbalanced or insane, but I do not consider anyone who deliberately plans to take a girl and assault her, who then ties her up to rocks and drops her to the bottom of a lake, insane. This happened to a young girl in Alberta. When that monster is caught no one should feel sorry for him. I do not feel sorry for him because he brought misery to a wonderful family and killed a girl who had a bright future, a girl in her teens who was working to become a contributing citizen of this country. Since she was killed by this monster, in my view that person should have the same penalty handed out. I believe in capital punishment when somebody deliberately plans and takes the life of an individual. It is even worse when a grown man does it to a young girl. Instead of reducing the punishment it should be increased significantly. Every provision in this act should be explicit to protect our young people. It is not only young children who need this protection, but our teenagers who have not yet reached the age of majority.
This legislation also tries to protect young children in respect to pornography, and they need still further protection in that respect. Some of our Canadian cities have become as bad as San Francisco and New York where pictures of absolutely every sexual act are displayed in full view of young children. In Toronto, I saw a young child, no more than nine years old, looking through a window at some of these pictures. That should not be permitted. It was my understanding that pictures of this kind were to be displayed in a separate room and this most likely is the case in many places, but not all. I have no objection if an adult wants to read that kind of material, it is his business, but it should not be on display in front of boys and girls. There should be severe penalties for those who have this material on display for children to see. There should be other means of advertising, instead of in a window for everyone to see. Protecting children from pornography is excellent but there should be more protection against pornography.
The third principle is the duty to safeguard public morals and decency. I think we all want to do that, yet there is a clause in this bill which allows these acts to be carried out in public but in a private way. I do not know whether the back seat of a car is considered private, or whether it would have to take place in the trunk. This kind of conduct should not take place in a public park where families are out to enjoy the scenery. I, along with many others, would like to see this clause removed entirely from the bill. 1 will expand on that point later on. Every legislature in Canada should pass legislation safeguarding public morals and decency. It is a basic principle upon which to work.
The fourth principle is the elimination of sexual discrimination and protection for those who are sick. 1 agree with that. Men should not have preference over women and women should not have preference over men.
Although I agree with these four broad principles stated by the parliamentary secretary, in my view the bill does not follow through with these principles. When it goes to committee it will be its responsibility to go through this legislation with a

December 17, 1981
Criminal Code
fine-toothed comb to find out exactly where the legislation does not follow through on those principles.
Shortly after the parliamentary secretary introduced the bill to the House in which these principles were outlined, I sent a survey containing four questions to my constituency. I will read the questions to the House. I tried to be impartial although it is sometimes hard to be impartial. I tried not to solicit an answer one way or the other. The first question I asked was:
Bill C-53 will repeal Sections 155 and 156 of the Criminal Code of Canada; and if passed, charges for buggery and bestiality would have to be laid under gross indecency and not per se for the said acts. Do you agree?
Normally I receive 2,000 or 3,000 answers, but perhaps because it was during the summer I only received a little over 800 responses. Out of those, 36 per cent agreed that it was all right to do away with charges of bestiality and buggery and put them under gross indecency, 57 per cent said no, they did not agree, and 8 per cent were undecided. I think that speaks for itself. Why do we want to eliminate the actual charges of buggery and bestiality to make it sound like something nicer under gross indecency?
I do not think we should be encouraging that type of behaviour. If it is done in private, under the Criminal Code today it is nobody's business; but what we are talking about is when it is not done in private but in a public way or in a semi-public way. I really cannot accept the argument that we should eliminate charges like that and put them under a nicer sounding heading such as gross indecency. That does not sound too nice, but certainly nicer than buggery and bestiality.
The second question was:
Bill C-53 changes Section 158 of the Criminal Code, which concerns gross indecency, by reducing the age of consent from 21 to 18 and by expanding the concept of privacy to allow for more than two participants. Do you agree?
This might be an orgy of some kind. The number of people who agreed was 53, 65 said no and 3 were undecided. That is not quite as definite as the one before, but again I think we have to take a careful look at what we are doing with this bill.
The third question was the following:
Bill C-53 repeals Section 158(2) of the Criminal Code, thereby permitting certain acts to be done in a public place, provided that they are done "in private". Do you agree?
The number who said yes was 33, 108 said no and 8 were undecided. However, the majority said this should not go ahead.
My fourth question was the following:
Do you agree with Section 167 of Bill C-53 concerning sexual misconduct?
The number who said yes was 53, 66 said no, and 25 were undecided. I think we have to take a careful look at whether some of the clauses in this bill follow the broad basic principles upon which the parliamentary secretary said the bill is based.
I suppose all hon. members have received printed cards like the one I have in my hand sent out by a number of people. It is not a postcard, it is a letter to Members of Parliament, and I
think everyone on all sides of the House has received these. This is what it says:
I wish to express my gratitude for the introducing of Bill C-53 to control child pornography and ease the pain of rape victims.
I think everybody agrees with respect to those items.
I ask, however, that it not be passed as introduced but that:
1)	Sexual assault charged between spouses be prohibited.
I want to deal with that item for a moment. Many people are charging that this will put another nail in the coffin of the family unit. There are too many things today which make it difficult for family units to operate, and this item will certainly not help.
2)	There be no lowering of the legal age of consent for sexual activities,
homosexual or heterosexual.
3)	That the prohibition of gross indency be retained.
4)	That there be retained a category of sexual assault or rape for forced
sexual intercourse.
It is my belief that the changes proposed in these respects would result in increased government interference in the family, divorce, violence, juvenile delinquency, immorality, crime, welfare costs and a multitude of other hurts inflicted on individual members of our Canadian society and harm to our nation that it can ill afford at a time when an increase in their growth has already contributed to the near destruction of our homes and our once solid economy and a questioning of our future viability as a nation.
People do not take the signing of this type of card lightly. They have signed it because they are concerned about the direction we are taking and concerned about their children and grandchildren. Legislation which in any way lowers moral standards, reduces penalties for hideous crimes or condones things which are completely obnoxious to the majority of the people should not be supported. Let us set an example instead of giving way, as even some churches have done. Some think that if you do it often enough and enough people do it, it is all right. The next thing is that there will no longer be any such thing as sin and you can do anything you like if enough people do it. That is not the type of country we want. That is not the type of thing the men and women who are members of this House teach their children. They teach them high moral standards. They try to set an example, and our laws should set an example too.
I strongly urge that the government look again at the clauses in this bill which would lower standards and reduce penalties for hideous offences. Let us make sure we do not send a message out across this nation that anything is okay if enough people do it. Let us send out the message of a high standard of moral living so that we can all try to live up to it and achieve it.


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor) is a very hard act to follow, but I am glad to be participating in this debate at second reading of Bill C-53.
Since we are dealing with the principle of the legislation, I would like to address my remarks to what will be achieved by this bill and, equally important, what will not be achieved if it is passed in its present form.
December 17, 1981

First, I would like to deal with the background of the bill. The law regarding sexual offences is basically unchanged since confederation. The most important exception was the 1969 amendments which decriminalized certain acts between consenting adults. In 1978 the Law Reform Commission of Canada advocated sweeping reform of the parts of the Criminal Code dealing with sexual offences. The commission said, first, that the rape charge should be replaced with assault and, second, that males and females should be treated equally under the law. This bill is the fourth time the government has attempted to make amendments to this part of the Criminal Code since 1978.
When the Tories were in government, then justice minister Senator Flynn promised to introduce legislation similar to the reforms the Liberals had attempted in some of these areas. As I understand it, the purpose of Bill C-53 is to modernize the code while adhering to certain principles of our society such as the protection of the integrity of the person, the protection of children and special groups, the safeguarding of public decency and the elimination of sexual discrimination.
I will just summarize the contents of the bill, which is familiar to hon. members. The new crime of sexual assault is created to replace the existing charge of rape. The exploitation of children for pornographic purposes is prohibited. Offences are enumerated regarding sexual relations with children under 16 and under 14, and I will be speaking about that portion of the bill. The offence of child abduction is redefined so as to cover children involved in custody disputes. The charge of procuring is expanded to include males as well as females.
There are two subjects in particular with which I would like to deal in my limited time. They are the issues of prostitution and sexual assault. With regard to sexual assault, the bill goes a long way toward improving the present legislation and meets many of the criticisms put forward regarding the inadequacy of our rape legislation. With regard to prostitution, however, the bill is totally inadequate, and I will deal with that subject first.
Earlier today I filed on behalf of my constituents a petition signed by 678 residents of the west end of Vancouver urging the government to take those measures necessary in amending the Criminal Code to restore to their residential neighbourhoods some form of peace and quiet. I have been actively involved in pushing for the reform of the laws dealing with this subject since I was elected, and that is why I am so disappointed with the failure of Bill C-53 to deal with this subject.
I should like to describe what the west end of Vancouver is like. It is that part of the city that I think one would see on a picture postcard. It is adjacent to the downtown area. It is primarily, but not exclusively, highrises. It is one of the most historic neighbourhoods in our city. For the last couple of years it has been invaded by prostitutes and pimps who are found on every corner. It is a business well organized by pimps with walkie-talkies and runners on motor bikes carrying messages. It is organized in relation to territories. Certain groups
Criminal Code
have the rights for certain streets and territories. It is dangerous for residents. They are not only accosted every time they leave their apartment or home to get a loaf of bread or to pick up some milk or go to the post office, but there has already been one knifing incident. It is very noisy. There are cars squealing tires and people yelling in the middle of the night.
I should like to quote some letters from residents to make my point. One resident wrote:
I am a manager of an apartment with 42 suites. Please advise what progress, if any, the federal government is acting on this terrible prostitution of these young males and females... The traffic is terrible from 5 p.m. to 5 a.m. I have good, hard working tenants paying taxes. Why should we all have to put up with this terrible situation?
Another one wrote:
As usual, I had trouble sleeping last night. The prostitutes were chattering in loud voices on the sidewalk and there was the constant roar of car engines and frequent honkings from the bumper-to-bumper traffic of hooker-hunters in the alley behind my apartment building. That is nothing new. However, by chance, because sleep was impossible I looked out my window, and there below in the parking lot, in the light of the street lamp, protected only by a three-foot high concrete wall, was a young girl hooker-
The rules of the House and one's natural sensitivity prohibit me from finishing the description of what this resident saw.
People going by in the steady flow of cars could see the proceedings. Hundreds of apartment windows looked down on that well-lit parking lot where this event took place. A young child, an elderly person, someone's daughter, someone's wife, would have seen (and perhaps did) exactly what 1 saw . . . The youngsters view it in amazement, the elderly view it in horror, and many people like myself view it with utter disgust.
I would like to emphasize, Mr. Speaker, that we are not dealing with the age old problem here of street prostitution in red light districts or street prostitution in downtown areas; we are dealing with the problem of prostitution on people's lawns, by their paper boxes, right in front of their grocery stores, in their churches and in their daycare centres. It is an infestation of a quiet and beautiful neighbourhood.
The inability of the government to act on this matter led to the formation of a group called CROWE, "Concerned Residents Of the West End", who have been again assisting in trying to bring pressure on the federal government to deal with this problem. They are intimidated by the fact that if they are publicly known, in terms of who the individuals are, they feel that there would be recriminations from the pimps and the organized drug dealers and the prostitutes who now control and patrol the west end.
CROWE has been successful in raising people's perception of the problem, but they have been unsuccessful and so far have had limited success in having the necessary changes introduced. Because of this, many people, including the mayor of Vancouver, myself and some of the residents, feel that the next step may be vigilante groups and active violence against this plague on a resident. I feel that that could take place before summer if these changes are not brought forward.
I should like to deal particularly with the juvenile prostitution problem. I see the member opposite is yawning. I would like to assure him that the problem of juvenile prostitution in the west end is not a yawning matter. It is a matter which involves children. The estimates say that on busy nights there

December 17, 1981
Criminal Code
will be 50 or 60 children in the Davie Street area alone. Some of these may be boys dressed as girls, some of them may be girls as young as 15 or boys as young as 12. One of the provisions of the bill, which I will be dealing with, will deal with the age of consent.
Most of these young prostitutes come from broken or unstable homes. Many have been physically or sexually abused. In general, they have the common denominator of a very poor self-image. Some are habitual runaways who end up on the streets and are drug addicts. Some of them come from stable backgrounds, wealthy families. They are well provided for. They seek money, excitement, or the experience. There is a danger of its becoming a sort of trendy youth movement for lower mainland young people.
Along with experience, excitement and money they often find violence. They may be beaten, raped, or robbed. To escape the degradation that they experience, they seek refuge in drugs and become heroine addicts and therefore become hardened.
Recently I visited a project called the Senator Project which is in my constituency. It is a half-way house to give these children a safe haven. It is not federally funded. It is financed by the provincial government and by the city of Vancouver. I am glad today to have received notice that the council has approved the Senator hotel for another year. The thing which strikes one who visits this modest establishment, which is not a luxurious operation, is that these are just ordinary kids. They have terrible health problems. The street life is physically very degrading and harmful to them. The first thing that the Senator Project staff try to do is to restore their basic physical health. They do not try to reform or rehabilitate them; they simply try to give them a roof over their heads so that they can be restored to physical health.
These children are sometimes extremely talented. I met a young artist, who I shall not name, who was about 16, who is illiterate by our standards and who is very talented. In this kind of environment he has the opportunity to explore his artistic talent. They also have some opportunity to learn what the jargon calls "entry skills". They have very good educators who help these children get enough confidence in themselves so they can go into the school system. They are taught while they are there. These educators also have a lot of basic understanding and support. We do not know if this project will be successful because we do not know how many young people it will save nor how many young people it will rehabilitate, but we do know that it has been a worthwhile experiment. The issue is to keep the kids off the streets in the first place and to ensure that adults who exploit these children are punished.
I first began raising the issue at a federal level in June, 1980, when I proposed a motion calling on the Minister of Justice (Mr. Chretien) to amend the Criminal Code to give local police the authority to deal fairly and firmly with the problem of prostitution. Of course, by that time, it had reached crisis proportions in the west end. However, the motion was defeated.
Also at that time 1 began a letter-writing campaign to the Minister of Justice pressuring him to take action on the situation. In a series of letters I asked the minister specifically what amendments he was prepared to make to the Criminal Code to toughen the laws on prostitution. I have also asked him to accompany me on a tour of the west end so he could see exactly what it is like. It cannot be imagined, it must be seen.
The minister has given several reasons for not acting on the problem. Initially he said that some people had expressed concern that changes to the Criminal Code might lead to some form of harassment of private citizens by the police. This is a legitimate concern. Later he mentioned that some women's groups were fearful that the rights of women may be infringed by any new laws. The last excuse seems particularly ludicrous to me, since the rights of west enders to live in a peaceful neighbourhood have long been thrown out and the rights of these children who are being exploited have long been ignored. I have canvassed women's groups in the area by letter. Not one of them responded that this was the intent of any opposition they may have. They were all appalled by the situation which exists in the west end and were quite responsive to suggestions that the situation can be dealt with.
In one letter to the minister I pointed out that if the residents of Rockcliffe in Ottawa had to endure half the disruption, noise, inconvenience and harassment experienced by west enders, I was quite convinced that the laws would have been changed a long time ago.
Last summer when the minister visited Vancouver, in the course of a confrontation with a group of concerned citizens he finally gave them a commitment that he would take some action as soon as the Supreme Court decision on soliciting was handed down. It came down earlier this month, so I intend to see that he holds to his promise.
In summary, there are four important issues which the new legislation regarding prostitution must address. It must define soliciting; the customer should be charged along with the prostitute; males should be included in the definition of prostitute; public place should be defined. The present law does not address these issues, so the police find that they are prevented from dealing with the problem of prostitution.
In the absence of any help from Ottawa, local municipalities have tried passing their own bylaws to deal with the problem, but these have almost invariably been struck down by the courts as conflicting with the Criminal Code or as being ultra vires the powers of municipalities. In fact this happened to the recent bylaw in Montreal. The only bylaw which has withstood court challenges has been a Nova Scotia law, which is the remedy the minister keeps insisting is his solution. Most municipalities, particularly Vancouver, feel that this is an issue which must be dealt with at the federal level and see the urgings by the Minister of Justice that they follow the example set by Nova Scotia as an attempt to pass the responsibility off on municipalities. Certainly there is no indication in the legislation that the federal government is ready to deal with the problem.
December 17, 1981

When questioned in committee by myself, the deputy minister of justice claimed that, despite all the time which has passed, his officials still have not prepared any draft legislation. The situation is becoming intolerable in Vancouver's west end. There is a pressing problem in many other cities across Canada; Edmonton and Calgary are two examples. There are no more excuses left for inaction. The government must make changes to the legislation now.
The second issue I should like to address is the issue of sexual assault, although I feel it has been more than adequately covered by the hon. member for Bow River. According to a study commissioned by the Canadian Advisory Council on the Status of Women, the original meaning of the word rape was to steal. The whole idea was that women were the property of men; their chastity was prized because it guaranteed the legitimacy of heirs. In Babylonian times, rape was punished by death and restitution was made to the father of the victim since she would no longer fetch any money as a bride. A married woman who was raped was put to death along with her assailant, on the grounds that she shared in the adultery.
In medieval England, propertied heiresses were sometimes kidnapped and married by unpropertied knights. If the woman in question declined to have him tried, which happened if her family considered the match beneficial and in its interests, he did not face the normal penalty of death. Interestingly enough, rape of non-propertied women such as virgins, nuns, widows and concubines was considered to be a crime but convictions were rare.
The current law is criticized because some of these medieval attitudes remain in it. Critics say that women are still treated as the property of men, and moral judgments regarding the value of virginity and chastity underlie it. The law calls the most serious offence "rape". No crime exists if the woman in question is found to have consented to the act. She must prove that force or threats were used to carry out the act as stated in the charge. Lesser penalties fall under the subject of indecent assault. These are separated into attacks on women and attacks on men. Some sections specify that a woman must be of a previously chaste character for the rape to be considered a crime.
Other criticisms of the law are that assaults on both females and males are not treated equally. The law only deals with the assault of a female by a male. Equal protection under the law is not extended to married women. The law does not recognize sexual assault between marriage partners. Great weight is placed on the issue of consent or the lack thereof on the part of the victim. It has meant that the victim's reaction to the assault has been extremely important. The violent nature of the crime has been downplayed. The attitude is that some men seem to believe that resistance by women is something to be overcome, that it is not to be taken seriously. There is the myth that women want to be overpowered, so sympathy may be evoked for the accused at the expense of the victim in the course of the trial. This concept was reinforced by the infamous Pappajohn case before the Supreme Court in June, 1980, when Mr. Justice Dickson ruled:
Criminal Code
The facts of life not infrequently impede the drawing of a clear line between consensual and non-consensual intercourse... It is easy for a man intent upon his own desires to mistake the intentions of a woman or girl who may herself be in two minds about what to do.
Of course, that was the case and the statement which infuriated women's groups across the country. Critics of this kind of interpretation argue that "no" means "no", and that consent is not possible if force is used.
Other criticisms of the present law are that the previous sexual history of the victim may be introduced as evidence during the trial. The defence may try to prove that the victim has been sexually active in the past because she may then appear to be immoral. Her credibility as a witness is then diminished. Furthermore, if she has consented to sex in the past, it may be argued that she consented in this case.
In 1976 the Criminal Code was amended so that the use of prior sexual conduct on the part of the victim was limited. Prior notice must be given that the defence intends to raise this issue and the judge must decide in camera whether the evidence is germane. Before 1976, judges were required to warn juries about the dangers of convicting someone on the basis of uncorroborated testimony. Since 1976 they have not been required to do so but may continue to so warn.
In the time remaining 1 should like to deal with some of the objectives of Bill C-53 dealing with this aspect. In the new bill, the crime of rape is replaced by sexual assault. Attempted rape and indecent assault are also covered by these categories. The emphasis is on violence and aggression. The sexual aspect is only part of the package. The consent issue is dealt with as in conventional assault cases. Consent is not present if the victim submits in the face of threatened or actual force. Prior sexual conduct is limited in use during the trial. If the victim raises this issue, the defence may pursue it. The accused may be allowed to argue that he honestly believes consent was present and if he can prove it to be reasonable, he may be acquitted.
Thus, those who make stupid mistakes, if they are honest mistakes, will not be convicted of crimes they were unaware of committing. This obviously is a controversial section since women's groups think that even this is unacceptable-that it may still be used to invoke sympathy for the accused at the expense of the victim.
Further, under the new bill men and women will be treated equally. That is one of the aspects which we would like to have extended to the matter of soliciting. Both may be charged with, and both may be viewed as victims of, sexual assault. Finally, no exemption will be made for husbands. Spousal immunity will be eliminated. As the hon. member for Bow River has indicated, some people view this as an attack on the family.
There are problems with Bill C-53 besides the deficiency that I dealt with in the area of prostitution. Many people criticize it for the vagueness of the term "sexual assault". Some people argue that more than two categories of sexual assault should be specified and some argue that the sexual

December 17, 1981
Criminal Code
element of the offence should be relevant to the sentencing. The larger argument is that the sexual aspect should not be downplayed too much. Other people claim that removal of the word "rape" reduces the seriousness of the crime.
My own personal reservation is with the age of consent. For that reason 1 look forward to a study of the bill in committee which will give us an excellent opportunity to consider the changes that should be made before it becomes law.
I should like to say that there are many good things about the proposed legislation. It will apply to men and women; it will make it easier to get convictions for sexual assault; it will give more protection for children and many anachronisms will be removed.
I look forward to the bill being made even better when it comes before committee.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Benno Friesen: Madam Speaker, I think all hon. members owe a debt of gratitude to the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Miss Carney) for sharing her insight and experience with us, for the work she has done within her constituency, for being brave and honest enough to really look at what is going on in western Vancouver, for being sensitive to the needs of the people there and for giving us a true picture of the community. She has shown the unutterable contrast between the affluence of the surroundings and the degradation of the life there.
I do not want to bicker or thrust a barb at the hon. member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson)-I do not say this in that sense- but some weeks ago in an attempt to badger the government to bring this legislation forward he made a slip of the tongue. 1 am sure that is all it was. He said, "We want to get some decent rape legislation in this country".
1 think that is what is wrong with the perspective of this House, Mr. Speaker. That is what is wrong with a large percentage of the practitioners of law in this country. They are looking for technical precision. They want legislation to be technically accurate. We are not dealing with whether the issue is good law, although that in itself is an issue, we are dealing with the question of whether the issue is good life.
Life in the western side of Vancouver in particular is being destroyed because we in this chamber have sat in splendid isolation for years, talking about the intricacies of law so that we can get good judgments in court. I realize that is important, of course, but all the while life in that part of the community and in other cities is being destroyed. So the issue is not simply whether this is good law; the issue is how we can preserve a good life for these people in the fullest sense of the word.
As the hon. member for Vancouver Centre spoke I could not help but think of some work being done in my own community of Surrey. Most of the teenage prostitutes in Vancouver are there because they were the victims of incest in their homes. These teenage prostitutes have had their self-concept destroyed in childhood. They have had their sense of self-worth destroyed in childhood. For them there is nothing to live for
that is relevant except the opportunity to make some money from their lack of self-worth. So they end up on the streets on the western side of Vancouver.
There is a committee in Surrey which has almost finished a project which, sadly enough, is to deal with an area of education from kindergarten through third grade, the aim of which is to let children know in sensitive ways, through the use of text and picture, what the subtleties of child seduction are.
1 am sure hon. members have seen news reports in the last few weeks about a conference held in Medicine Hat which drew attention to the fact that most child abuse comes at the hands of close relatives and friends-the people a child trusts. Because the adults manipulate them, they get the signals from those adults that the practice is all right. In the process their lives are being destroyed.
I say again that the focus is wrong, Mr. Speaker. Certainly we want to get good legislation because it is the mechanism that is used to preserve the good life for our children who will grow up to be the future citizens of this country.
I know that the hon. member for Burnaby and others have focused on rape legislation and that they are concerned about what is going on in the courtrooms of our land and the difficulty of getting convictions. 1 understand that concern, but it is disturbing to realize that all we are aiming for is good convictions. As I say this, I recognize the need for good convictions, and because rape law has not been adequate it is easy to lose sight of other issues.
I should like to spend a few minutes pointing out to hon. members what is going on in other areas of the country. Some weeks ago I attended a public meeting in Vancouver when a high school counsellor from my constituency spoke. He spoke of the myriad of young people who come to his office to discuss the problems of life and of the high school discussion groups with which he is involved. He told us that the dominant question about anything is: Is it against the law? That is the only rule of conduct that appears to be left for young people in our society-is it against the law?
It seems to me that along with a lot of other things that have gone on in our society has been an erosion of non-legal barriers to certain kinds of conduct. By and large, one kind of mentality that is developing asks-can I get away with it, is it against the law, or can I get around the law? As long as that kind of mentality is developing among our young people, it behooves us to be extra careful about the laws we pass in this chamber. There is an erosion of the moral and social guidance systems that we as individuals need in order to steer our course.
As fewer and fewer people are attending churches, and more and more people are becoming uneducated in terms of strict moral judgments in our land, it becomes more and more important that the laws of our land reflect a guidance system which will tell our young people, "This is what you can do, and this is what you cannot do for fear of what will happen to you". The subtle change which has come in our mentality is that the judgments passed down in our courtrooms are seen to
December 17, 1981

be the judgments which affect young people. As destructive as those judgments may be, they do not have any real effect or the greatest effect on our young people. What happens to people when they violate the law is what happens to them inside: the erosion of moral courage, the erosion of moral fibre, the erosion of character, and the erosion of self-respect which goes on within themselves, setting aside the judgments handed down by the courts. Today, our young people need reference points, more than anything else, so that they can know how they ought to behave. That is what the law becomes. The law becomes that reference point which says, "Look, if you do this, you will hurt yourself." It is more than the simple penalty the law imposes.
However, there are other ways in which people hurt themselves when they violate the law. As I said before, today the question is: If it is legal, then it is permissible. What bothers me is that if we pass Sections 166 and 167 as proposed in this bill, we will be sending out signals to our young people that will be totally destructive.
I would like to spend one moment on those sections. Section 166 states:
(1)	Every one who engages in or procures sexual misconduct with or by a person who
(a)	is not his spouse, and
(b)	is under the age of fourteen years,
is guilty of an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for ten years.
However, the defence is contained in subsection (2), which states:
(2)	No one shall be found guilty of an offence under subsection (1) if he establishes that
(a)	at the time the sexual misconduct took place, he was under fourteen years
of age; or
(b)	he is less than three years older than the complainant.
This comes under the broad and general topic of age of consent. Are we sending a signal to these young people that if the 14-year age limit was a barrier, and it is now legal, that it is now permissible? Are we saying to them that if there is no more than a three-year age difference between them, it is then permissible? I suggest to hon. members of the House that it is destructive, even if it is legal. 1 will come back to that in a moment.
1 would like to turn to Section 167, which states:
Every one who engages in or procures sexual misconduct with or by a person who
(a)	is not his spouse, and
(b)	is fourteen years of age or more and is under the age of sixteen years, is guilty of an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for five years.
The defence is found under subsection (2), which states:
(2) No one shall be found guilty of an offence under subsection (1) if he establishes that
(a)	at the time the sexual misconduct took place he was under sixteen years of
age;
(b)	he is less than three years older than the complainant;
(c)	he believed at the time the sexual misconduct took place that the
complainant was sixteen years of age or more; or
Criminal Code
(d)	he is less responsible than the complainant for the sexual misconduct that
took place.
Aside from the loose definition of sexual misconduct, I am looking at the defence once again. If the law is meant to be a reference point for the conduct of our young people, are we not sending the wrong signal to them by suggesting that, if it is legal for those who are 16 years of age and under, it is permissible? I suggest to hon. members that we must fully consider this legislation before we pass it into law.
That is why I intend to look at this measure with great scrutiny when it comes before committee. I believe other hon. members will also. I will be concerned about the kind of witnesses we bring to the committee so that it will not be rammed through on greased skids. We should have witnesses before the committee who know something about juvenile problems, juvenile psychology and so forth.
The related question we must ask ourselves is whether we are introducing young people to experiences before they are ready to handle them. It is no secret-indeed, it is common knowledge-that we tend to develop physically more quickly than we develop emotionally and psychologically. People have much physical capacity long before they have the kind of emotional self-control, emotional decision-making powers and mental information banks which enable them to make informed and sensible decisions. The fact is that someone who is 16 years old or 14 years old is physically capable of doing all of these things about which this law speaks. The question we must ask ourselves is whether they are emotionally prepared to make the kind of decisions which will lead to a healthy future.
It is not necessary to look further than television to realize that the whole commercial world is bombarding young people with suggestions to become older at a younger age. Young people feel they must be mature at 12, 14 or 16 years of age. As my hon. colleague said, "Take a look at Brooke Shields". At 14 years of age, when appearing on television, Brooke Shields appeared to be 21 years old. The entire commercial world conspires against young people to make them old before they are ready to become old. One of the side effects is that all of the anticipation for the future is taken away.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Benno Friesen: Young people are not ready to absorb the pleasures which could be theirs when they are 16, 18 or 20 years old. I think we need to take a very careful look at whether we are not pushing the age limit too low before the young people have sufficiently matured and their knowledge is seasoned enough to make the kinds of decisions which will lead them to a healthy future.
I know that it would be easy to be painted as an ogre, a killjoy, a fogey, and all of those square images. However, I make no apologies for being square enough to want to preserve young people so that they have a healthy future. I want their decision-making process to be intact so that when they can enjoy those pleasures at their fullest, they will be able to do so and will not have their pasts sullied, tarnished and ruined by

December 17, 1981
Criminal Code
the force of peer pressure and commercial pressure to do things they will regret later on.
There are many measures in this bill which I support. I take pleasure in the fact that the government is introducing measures which deal with child pornography, about which we have spoken at length. I am super pleased that the government has included a measure dealing with parental kidnapping. I know hon. members realize that I have worked on that matter for about five years, and the government has now adopted that provision. However, while those provisions are in the bill, and they are good and necessary, there are provisions in this legislation which are deeply disturbing and could erode the future of our country. They will send signals out to the youth which will introduce them to a life that could cause misfortune, destruction, concern and care in their later years. As I have said, I intend to push for very close scrutiny with regard to the future implications of those provisions.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Portage-Marquette (Mr. Mayer)- Agriculture-Reduction in interest rate payments made by farmers; the hon. member for Kindersley-Lloydminster (Mr. McKnight)-Petro-Canada-Query respecting location for heavy oil upgrader in Saskatchewan, (b) Responsibility for site decision.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Chretien that Bill C-53, to amend the Criminal Code in relation to sexual offences and the protection of young persons and to amend certain other acts in relation thereto or in consequence thereof, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.
Mr. Blaine A. Thacker (Lethbridge-Foothills):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak on Bill C-53, which is a large package of amendments to the Criminal Code of Canada. It relates
specifically to sexual offences and the protection of young people. It is a very broad bill. I think members should be very careful to realize that it probably contains too many dimensions for one bill and that it should be broken up into a series of bills so that members can more adequately direct their minds to it and vote accordingly.
For example, in this bill sexual offences are redefined to recognize that they are assaults. The number of offences is reduced and the law is simplified. Existing non-consensual sexual offences are replaced by the offences of sexual assault and aggravated sexual assault. The spousal immunity for rape is removed. Provisions of the Criminal Code are amended so as to apply equally to persons of both sexes. New offences are created for sexual misconduct by people involving young persons under the age of 16. An offence is created with regard to the exploitation of young people for pornographic purposes. The offence of abduction of children is redefined with a view to protecting children involved in custody suits. Changes are made to protect the complainant in sexual assault cases. These include restrictions on questions about previous sexual conduct with persons other than the accused. Then the general assault provisions of the code are redefined.
It is very clear that we are dealing with a vast package. It is very complex and there are many issues. I do believe that we should split the bill. However, until that occurs, I want to deal with the principle of many of the amendments. We need to recognize that we are dealing with the minimum of legal requirements which this Parliament is setting out. There is no doubt that we should be dealing at a much higher level in terms of our relationships with one another. Unfortunately, too often we find governments acting at the bare minimum level. We find adults acting at the bare minimum level rather than the much higher moral level to which we should all aspire.
This bill, as we debate it, will involve Members of Parliament sitting here making value judgments which will be put into effect by police forces across this huge country. That in itself will be very difficult.
As the caucus spokesman in our party for youth, I am particularly interested in, and will certainly want to monitor carefully, the speeches made on second reading. I will want to hear the witnesses who are brought before the committee so that we can make sure that we receive as parliamentarians a very broadly based group of people who will give evidence. This point was mentioned by the hon. member for Surrey-White Rock-North Delta (Mr. Friesen).
Too often we will have groups coming in dealing with only one section of the bill, putting enormous pressure on members individually and collectively to pass the bill in order to achieve several of the very good things which the bill does contain. But we must look at the entire bill. Each of us will have to make a decision as to whether we can support a bill, which may have some provisions that are very deleterious, particularly to the young people of this country. The bill does have some very bad principles in it when I think of it from a young person's point of view, and when we think of it from the position of maturity and experience, a state to which many of us are growing, in
December 17, 1981

contrast to a young 16-year-old. I am sure we all agree that, as a broad principle over the whole bill, we want to protect our youth.
It is an interesting personal observation that one of the main thrusts of this bill is to take away protection of young women over the age of 16. Young women used to have protection under the Criminal Code up to the age of 18 years, but in this area of the law we find the government backing out of the lives of that group in contrast to all of the other areas of our lives, particularly economic, where the government is becoming more and more involved.
Interestingly enough, some years ago when government played a very small role in our lives and people generally were uneducated, we had a higher moral standard that protected the young people. Now we find people are better educated and more sophisticated and the government is taking over more of our lives, so much more in economic matters, yet at the same time backing off on this matter of moral judgment and protection for young men and women between the ages of 16 and 18. It is an interesting inconsistency. If it is possible, I will raise that point with the witnesses. At present, religious controls and higher moral standards are declining. As parliamentarians, we are backing away when perhaps we should be stepping in to set a better and a higher minimum standard.
I do not have a lot of concern about people over the age of 18, which is the age of majority. I am not sure that we as a government should try to pass many laws that affect free consenting adults over the age of 18. But we should have extremely good laws on which we all agree and which should be enforced rigorously. We should back up our police forces in the protection of our young people. Clearly the same thing applies for mentally handicapped people.
In summary, on the first part, I am sure we can all agree that we should protect our youth, that we should be passing laws to support the family and that we should be supporting laws that promote a peaceful community. All of these aspects will be interpreted by judges. They will all be interpreted in light of the new constitutional provisions when our Constitution returns from the United Kingdom. That in itself will cause many years of uncertainty in this country as the new constitutional provisions are balanced against the specific Criminal Code matters.
May I call it five o'clock, Mr. Speaker?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate informing this House that the Senate have passed Bill C-86, an act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the public service for the financial year ending 31st March, 1982. [English]
It being five o'clock p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's Order Paper, namely, notices of motions (papers), private bills, public bills.
Emergency Planning


PRIVATE MEMBERS' MOTIONS FOR PAPERS
[Stage Direction]
Notices of Motions Nos. 22, 35, 1, 48, 28, 43, and 5 allowed to stand by unanimous consent.
Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
EMERGENCY PLANNING-P.C. 1981-1305, MAY 21, 1981, REGISTRATION SI/81-76 JUNE 10, 1981


Benno Friesen: That an humble address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this House copies of all correspondence, notes, minutes of meetings, memos, telegrams and communications relating to the order respecting Emergency Planning, P.C. 1981-1305, May 21, 1981, Registration Sl/81-76 June 10, 1981.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the summer quiet was disturbed for me last July when I was informed of a news report in one of the Edmonton newspapers which said that the government had passed an order in council empowering the government to establish and administer civilian internment camps. Frankly, I found it hard to believe that the government had passed that kind of an order because I remembered speeches in the House of Commons during the constitutional resolution debate. I recall hearing the Minister of Justice (Mr. Chretien) in February standing in his place here in the House recounting what an injustice had been done to Japanese Canadians during World War II, and the ringing words "never again". That was his justification for bringing forward a charter of rights.
As I sat in the committee and in this House I heard those assurances repeated, that the experience of the Japanese Canadian and of any other minority group in Canada should never be repeated in the future history of our country.
I also remember being part of a minority group, the Men-nonites, during World War II. As members know, most Men-nonites come from German stock and they are almost all pacifists. Then came national registration and we were not allowed to register our nationality as Canadian. There were no Canadians during World War II as all of us had to register according to our national origin. Can you imagine, Mr. Speaker, the tension in that Christian community, the members of which were all German, most of them pacifists, who had to register as Germans knowing full well that this would place a stigma on them resulting in community pressure all during the war years.
As a matter of fact, just a few months ago a relative of my wife told me of an experience she had had in a small Saskatchewan town, Drake, with a population of about 350. That Mennonite community wanted to conduct a bible school during the winter months, as was and still is so often the custom, particularly in prairie communities. They brought in a young man to teach that bible school, but the Anglos in that

December 17, 1981
Emergency Planning
community would not let him get off the train to teach the bible school because he was a "Nazi". That is the kind of scorn the Mennonites faced during World War II. I remember those years.


An hon. Member:: It was a Liberal government that did that.


Benno Friesen: It was a Liberal government that did that.
I remember attending an NDP convention in Vancouver last summer and hearing Dave Barrett speak. I hate even to inject the New Democratic Party into this speech, but he made a very relevant point. Just a few years prior to the national registration when I had to register as a German rather than as a Canadian, the Liberals, during a Liberal provincial campaign in the province of British Columbia, ran ads saying "Vote for the socialists and you will bring in the yellow peril". Mr. Woodsworth and Mr. Coldwell championed the rights of the orientals in Canada, hence the ad "Vote for the socialists and you will bring in the yellow peril." I keep wondering, do we dare scratch the Liberal government too hard for fear of what we might find underneath?
1 remember in October, 1970, when, under the powers of the War Measures Act, the Liberal government rounded up hundreds of innocent people in the province of Quebec without charges being laid. I recall reading just a few weeks ago a statement by the Speaker of the other place, Senator Jean Marchand. He was given a list of the names of people in the province of Quebec who were suspect at that time, and he said how foolish it was to include most of the names on that list of about 180 that was submitted to him.
I can understand the need to prepare for war, and I make that concession right away. I understand the government's need to do that, but there are several things that bother me and I would like to enumerate them. What bothers me is the glib contradiction between what the government says and what it does. While the minister was standing in his place in the House of Commons saying "never again", at that very moment the cabinet was discussing provisions by way of order in council to establish internment camps. That kind of glib contradiction bothers me.
It bothers me that this order is written in the context of the War Measures Act, and I am bothered by the very loose statement in there that the measures can be used at a time of "real or apprehended insurrection". I particularly wonder about that phrase "apprehended insurrection". At a time when the government wants to strengthen its position, any kind of paranoia could be apprehended insurrection.
1 wonder about the fact that the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Pinard) says the order needs legislation to validate it.


An hon. Member:: That's right.


Benno Friesen: The hon. member from Toronto says that is right. The order in council was passed while the House was sitting. Why did the government not first introduce legislation and then develop the regulations out of that legislation, if that
is what it needs? Why the hurry, the rush to bring in by order in council the kind of sweeping powers included in this provision?
It bothers me when I read about the kind of changes which were brought in in a 1965 order in council. I think hon. members should know that the order in council we are discussing now is a revision of the 1965 order in council. Let me enumerate the differences between this order in council and the one of 1965. All of those powers and provisions in the 1965 order in council were in the context of war or as a result of an attack by an enemy. The 1981 order in council provides for a division between wartime and peacetime powers. I will clarify this even more when I deal with the peacetime powers.
The 1965 order in council outlined no specific duties for the Prime Minister. The present order in council outlines that the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) has duties only in war and peace as they relate to censorship and control of information. All the administration of the 1965 order in council was through the use of the RCMP and other police forces, whether they be city or provincial. The 1981 order in council makes no mention at all of the RCMP or any other police forces.
The question that arises in my mind is, does the government have a new police force in mind? Does the government have in mind the use of the military? What is going on in the mind of the government in order to carry out the administration of these orders?
Further, the 1965 order makes no mention of prisoners within the penitentiary system at all. The 1981 order, the present one, empowers the Solicitor General (Mr. Kaplan) to "Facilitate the selective reduction and transfer of prison populations to provide for the establishment of civilian internment camps". What are the mechanisms the Solicitor General will use? Which prisoners will he free first from the penitentiaries across Canada in order to make room for the political prisoners? Beyond that, what is the triggering mechanism that will bring all of these measures into force, especially in peacetime?
The 1965 order authorizes the Minister of Justice to advise other departments and agencies on legal problems. That is the principal role of the Minister of Justice in the 1965 order. The 1981 order has no such authority at all. It appears to suggest that it will not be bothered with those legal niceties regarding the legal advice and legal limits.
The 1965 order empowered the Minister of Labour- because there was no minister of manpower at the time-with the authority for conscription, all in the context of wartime emergency. The 1981 order gives the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Axworthy) no wartime duties at all but has sweeping powers which are all peacetime powers.
I would like to talk about those powers for a moment. With regard to peacetime powers, I would point out that the sole responsibility of the Prime Minister is, first, to "Manage and co-ordinate the national information services"; second, to "Provide general guidance and direction to the public, including the co-ordination and transmission of any technical advice
December 17, 1981

and recommendations developed by any National Emergency Agency or department".
What kind of calamity in peacetime could befall our country that would require the Prime Minister to manage and co-ordinate the national information services? This is in a country which does not believe in censorship.
I would now refer hon. members to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration's authority under these provisions. I note that these are peacetime provisions. The minister of Manpower is empowered to control and regulate the registration, mobilization, allocation and movement of civilian manpower, excluding medical manpower, taking into consideration the requirements of other national emergency agencies and ministers reconciling competing claims and establishing such priorities as may be required. More sweeping, Mr. Speaker, are the powers under items six and seven. Item six states:
Establish a population register for the effective management of manpower in consultation with other ministers and National Emergency Agencies.
This one is a real mind-bender:
7. Arrange any required international manpower transactions.
Are we looking ahead to where the Minister of Manpower and Immigration is empowered to conscript manpower in Canada to serve in another country in a civilian capacity? Now, this is something which disturbs me about the whole edict, that the President of the Privy Council says in one of his speeches that if Parliament is not sitting at the time when the government declares that there is a national emergency, the government may have to act-he uses the term "extra-legally". He says that the government may have to act extra-legally. That is ominous to me and smells to me of October, 1970.
What bothers me is that we have a Prime Minister who enjoys blustering about strength and every once in a while he needs periodic confirmation of that strength through dramatic action. All we need do is remember October, 1970. All we need do is look at the way he has used the RCMP. All we have to do is look at the way he dealt with wage and price controls. The Prime Minister likes to talk about strength and every once in a while he has to reinforce what he says by some kind of dramatic action. What bothers me is that the Prime Minister has a cabinet which is filled with weak colleagues who lack the courage to stand against him, whose guide is not what is right but simply what the Prime Minister wants. They will do anything that the Prime Minister asks of them.
These are the realities which bother me. These are the reasons I think we need background information, to call upon the government to justify the passage of this order in council at this time, hard on the heels of having passed a Charter of Rights and Freedoms, at a time when there is no national emergency and at a time when the government has been talking about peace and safety.
Are they saying that sudden destruction will be coming upon us? I call upon the government to release all documents, letters, correspondence, telegrams and information on the work done with all the provincial governments which would validate in its eyes the need for this kind of precipitous and
Emergency Planning
draconian order in council. I think the people of Canada are entitled to know what has been going on in the background that justified in the mind of the government this order in council. I will be looking to the government to produce the kind of papers and documentation that will quieten the fears of Canadians and justify this kind of order in council.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I have a few brief remarks to make in support of the very important motion which has been put forward by my colleague from Surrey-White Rock-North Delta (Mr. Friesen).
To begin, I want to pay tribute to him for his persistence with respect to this particular issue. It is an issue which I think is most important in terms of the respect we have for the rule of law in this country. I will elaborate on that particular contention during my speech.
This order that is the basis of the regulations and the documentation my colleague has asked to be produced to the House now was passed under royal prerogative. It was an order which was carried out within the discretion and power of government to take action, and to direct and compel public servants and other people in the employ of the Crown to carry out certain duties. It is not an order which is passed pursuant to any legislation considered and passed by the House of Commons.
We have a unilateral, arbitrary action which was taken by the government with respect to this emergency planning order. As I understand the order, it was passed to authorize various ministers to plan for emergency situations both of a peacetime and wartime nature. However, at the present time the only legal way these plans can be implemented is through the proclamation of the War Measures Act. If we study the order, the definition of "emergency" is as follows:
An abnormal situation that requires prompt attention beyond normal procedures to prevent or limit injury to persons or damage to property or the environment.
This defines a situation far wider than that contemplated by the words "war, inflation or insurrection, real or apprehended". A lot of planning, therefore, is being undertaken by the government which cannot lawfully be used in most of the emergency situations contemplated by the order.
I think it is interesting to note, however, the comments of the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Pinard) in an address on emergency legislation reported in the July to September, 1981 Emergency Planning Digest. 1 want to quote what he said because it is an incredible proposition. He said:
When we must deal with a grave emergency, we cannot afford to base our actions on the flawed product of hurried drafting and rushed consideration by Parliament.
I agree with that, but he went on to say this:
And if the emergency arises when Parliament itself is dissolved, we would at present have no option but to act extra-legally.
To the layman, "extra-legally" means outside the law, without legal justification and without legal background or author-

December 17, 1981
Emergency Planning
ity. I suggest that this proposition flies totally in the face of the rule of law.
The logical extension of this argument is a contemplation by the government that this planning scheme could then be used as a method of dealing with an emergency even without enabling legislation. That has very serious consequences.
In his remarks the minister said that it may be preferable to place entirely new emergency legislation before Parliament. Surely it is more than just preferable; it is absolutely essential.
This government is taking unprecedented action in passing, under royal prerogative, such a planning order. It may be called a planning order, but in all probability it will include the expenditure of funds to erect buildings, design plans and enlist personnel. At what point does this massive planning step outside the prerogative authority of the government? We do not know the answers to questions such as this because we do not have access to government documents in the matter. We do not know what the plans are and what funds are being expended, and the government has stonewalled every reasonable attempt to obtain this information and simply carries on in an aura of secrecy and an aura of planning with no enabling legislative authority.
We must be made aware of these plans. No large scale planning should be undertaken without the introduction and consideration of new emergency legislation, which is something, incidentally, which has been promised by this government since 1970.
Another concern I have is that apparently many government members do not appreciate the real nature of the order. For instance, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Solicitor General (Mrs. Hervieux-Payette), in reply to a question posed by my colleague, the hon. member for Surrey-White Rock-North Delta on November 17, 1981, said that this order would go into effect only after proclamation by the House. That is simply wrong, in view of the statement of the President of the Privy Council I have quoted. There are no provisions for proclamation in the order. To implement it we either have to use the War Measures Act, with its limited scope and application, or new emergency legislation, or we act in the other way pointed out by the President of the Privy Council, extra-legally.
I think it is important that government members and the Canadian public generally understand that even to suggest the possibility of extra-legal implementation of the order is to suggest the wholesale removal of rights and freedoms without any form of parliamentary endorsement. That is a very serious suggestion indeed.
Finally, I am concerned about specific aspects of the order which give ministers authority to plan for wide-scale suppression of basic and fundamental human rights in peacetime at a time when this Parliament is asking the British Parliament to pass legislation providing for the entrenchment of a charter of rights. Let me give some examples. Under this particular order, in the field of agriculture there is provision for planning and the implementation of control and regulation of farm
production. In communications, there is provision for control, regulation and maintenance of all essential telecommunications. In employment and immigration there are provisions for control and regulation of the registration, mobilization, allocation and movement of manpower. In energy, mines and resources there is provision for the control, regulation and production of fuels. My colleague, the hon. member for Surrey-White Rock-North Delta, has pointed out that specific wartime provisions include directions to plan for censorship and civilian internment camps which, I take it, will be similar in nature to those set up during the Second World War for Japanese Canadians.
In light of past experience these plans must be looked at closely. This is so particularly in light of the fact that the government is suggesting the possibility of extra-legal implementation. It must be appreciated that these types of actions, though necessary in some very limited instances such as war, do restrict the freedom of the individual. To make plans for carrying out these actions with no enabling legislation and no parliamentary sanction leaves open the possibility of either the expenditure of a great deal of time and money without the ability to use the plans or, on the other hand-and more worrisome, as far as I am concerned-what the President of the Privy Council calls extra-legal implementation.
The first is highly undesirable, and the second prospect is outrageous. What the President of the Privy Council has said is that it would be the intention of the government, an emergency, in the opinion of the government of the day having come about, whether it happens to be some environmental emergency during peacetime or some form of insurrection in one part of the country or another, to take steps to carry out the product of the planning that is taking place. Then, according to the rationale of the President of the Privy Council, the government would expect to come back to a subsequent Parliament to have its unlawful acts retroactively made lawful. Under our parliamentary system, that is completely and absolutely out of the question and should be rejected and resisted by every thinking Canadian.
I appreciate the opportunity to give my opinion about the motion brought forward, and I call upon the government to do the right thing and produce the information requested by my colleague.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Mr. Speaker, like my two colleagues who have spoken, I too am very concerned about the implications of what we are doing here today. I will not speak at any great length because I know that the parliamentary secretary wants a chance to respond. Hopefully he will assure the House and the country that he will be tabling the information we on this side of the House are requesting so that the fears of Canadians, which are justifiably aroused, about the draconian implications of what the government has been doing will be assuaged, at least to some extent.
I think it is rather ironic that this kind of debate is taking place in the House of Commons so close upon the heels of the passage of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. One of the reasons I voted against the Constitution was the appre-
December 17, 1981

hension 1 had about some of the clauses in that charter, and 1 have said publicly that the very first one leaves me slightly less than inspired. 1 think I will put it on the record again. The very first part of our Charter of Rights and Freedoms in our proposed new Constitution has a weasel clause in it. Particularly in view of the events unfolding here today I do not think it has to be taken very seriously, at least until the government does something to justify the faith it is asking Canadians to have in it.
Before 1 read it 1 want to remind the House, for example, that we have done a lot of talking about freedom of information, and one of the most regressive clauses of any legislation of any civilized country is Section 41(2) of the Federal Court Act of Canada. I remind hon. members also that drastic modifications have been proposed to our freedom of information legislation. Yet right now in Quebec members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police are being denied an adequate opportunity to defend themselves by virtue of this particular section's invocation by the Solicitor General (Mr. Kaplan).
This was not the first time that this draconian action has been taken since the freedom of information act has been brought forward in committee. It would seem to me that if the government were the least bit serious about doing something to become more enlightened in this respect, it would not be doing what it is doing with Section 41(2), when it is apparently on the way out, nor would it be taking the course of action it is taking here today in refusing to bring forward the kind of information that it has been requested to do if it were serious about the ideals of our new Constitution. The first clause reads:
The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it-
-and here is where it starts to weasel, Mr. Speaker-
-subject only to such reasonable limits-
-as are generally accepted in a free and democratic society with a parliamentary system of government.
What kind of system are we talking about? Are we talking about Tanzania? If we are, 1 do not have very much confidence. I do not think we will ever assuage the fears of Canadians about the implications of arbitrary pieces of legislation such as this, or regulations, until the government demonstrates by its actions what it intends to do, instead of obfuscating. As the author, Eldridge Cleaver, once said, "If you are going to talk the talk, you have got to walk the walk." I do not understand why in times of peace, as the hon. member for Saskatoon West (Mr. Hnatyshyn) said, "We have to put up with the kind of apprehended fears caused by this sort of draconian regulation".
Back in the 1950s, the hysteria was over the spread of atomic technology. I can well remember a bit of doggerel by the late Pete Seeger which went something like this, "The atom don't care about all this hysteria. It flourishes in Los Alamos and also Siberia". So, it may seem, will internment camps. If we will take this kind of legislation or regulation to
Emergency Planning
its logical conclusion, maybe we will have a "Gulag Archipelago" in North Bay, or perhaps Thunder Bay. Perhaps that will be a great advancement in our contemporary Canadian Constitution.
In any event, I do not understand why the government would cause such an atmosphere to develop as is present in the House this afternoon, when it could have simply assured the hon. member for Surrey-White Rock-North Delta (Mr. Fries-en) before the debate started that it would table and make available some informaton to reassure members, such as myself and others from this side, and I am sure many members on that side, that these kinds of regulations are not really as bad as they sound.
Returning to something that hon. member from Surrey-White Rock-North Delta said regarding, I think, Clause 7 in the regulations in which the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) takes upon himself the right of censorship and will establish an organization to co-ordinate and implement the application of censorship controls, some people may say that the Prime Minister, of course, would not do anything bad. The same Prime Minister, shortly after imposing the draconian measures in the War Measures Act that affected Quebec, promised to repeal it. That was a long time ago. The War Measures Act is still with us, and so is Section 41 (2) of the Federal Court Act.
The Prime Minister has talked in the past about participatory democracy, when what we have here, of course, is his anticipatory autocracy. So far there has been no justification for what the government is proposing to do, and we do not have any reassurance that its motives are charitable. And that is really something that should have been dealt with by Parliament. We should be assured that when Parliament is sitting, nothing will be done unless it is brought forward and fully debated. I hope we will get that kind of assurance from the parliamentary secretary. As a little token of good faith, I hope that he will accede to the most reasonable request made by the hon. member for Surrey-White Rock-North Delta, buttressed so ably by the hon. member for Saskatoon West, and will assure all hon. members that this proposal, about which we are so apprehensive, will not be as autocratic and dictatorial as it seems.
Hon. members who are fortunate enough to have some training in law are familiar with the term res ipsa loquitur, things speak for themselves. The way these regulations now read, without the background and without the necessary explanation to convince hon. members they do not really seem as bad as they read nor as bad as we anticipate, and in the absence of explanations, these regulations will continue to speak for themselves. I think they will raise a great deal of well justified apprehensions in the minds and hearts of the people of Canada. I hope that the parliamentary secretary will do something in a small way to alleviate the fears raised this afternoon.


David P. Smith: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to convey to hon. members of the House some of the background behind the Emergency Planning Order P.C. 1981-1305. I

December 17, 1981
Emergency Planning
particularly welcome the opportunity to correct a few false impressions that may have been left since its passage and publication in June, 1981.
In a very real sense the story of the Emergency Planning Order begins with its predecessor, the Civil Emergency Measures Planning Order P.C. 1965-1041.
The shortest explanation for the issuance of the new order in council is that the old order in council had become badly outdated. The question recently before the government was whether substantially to amend the old order, which itself had already been amended more than once, or to issue a new one. For the sake of clarity, we chose the second route.
The old order was outdated in two ways. First, it no longer reflected the actual institutional structure of the federal government. In the 1965 order, the departments of Employment and Immigration, Solicitor General and Supply and Services were not mentioned, although the minister responsible for defence production was given significant responsibility. Responsibility for certain co-ordinating functions for civil emergency planning lodged with the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, although these responsibilities had been transferred as long ago as 1968.
The order was also outdated in a second way. It concentrated almost exclusively on civil emergency and civil defence plans and operations for wartime conditions and was silent on ministerial responsibilities for peacetime emergencies, such as natural disasters and large scale industrial accidents. It has been federal policy since 1974 that federal emergency planning should be addressed both to peacetime and wartime contingencies. The new Emergency Planning Order reflects this dual concern by setting out some continuing responsibilities of ministers in the areas of peacetime and wartime emergency planning. The new order also describes some machinery that potentially would be essential to mitigate and to recover from either peacetime or wartime emergencies.
Thus, the first part, Section (3) of the Emergency Planning Order, assigns to ministers three general responsibilities: First, ministers shall be responsible for the identification of possible types of emergencies within or directly related to their areas of responsibility, and for preparing, evaluating, testing and, when required, implementing appropriate related emergency plans and arrangements. Second, when a minister is assigned lead responsibility for an emergency, he co-ordinates relevant federal emergency planning and stands ready to secure and control assistance provided by other ministers. Third, each minister shall at all times be prepared to provide resources from his own portfolio to any other minister having lead responsibility for an emergency.
These three general responsibilities form the heart of the lead department concept in emergency planning that the government adopted in the mid 1970s. The emergency planning responsibilities of ministers are logical extensions of their normal powers, duties and functions. The Solicitor General is responsible for internal security, both in time of normality and in times of emergency.
The Emergency Planning Order also calls upon ministers, in Section 4:
-to provide emergency planning assistance to the provincial governments, and, through them, to municipal governments;
-to assist in the joint development of federal-provincial emergency plans in the regions of Canada;
-to be prepared to provide for the safety and welfare of the employees of the agencies in their portfolios;
-to develop and maintain plans for war emergencies;
-and to be prepared to provide assistance to those ministers having additional responsibilities as set out in the Emergency Planning Order.
These provisions express the main differences between the earlier war-related approach to emergency planning described in the 1965 order in council, and the current approach which is generally and equally applicable to peacetime and wartime contingencies, as was described by the minister responsible for emergency planning in his announcement of November of last year. Thus, the addition of emergency planning responsibilities for peacetime contingencies in PC 1981-1305 reflects what is in fact the current policy of the federal government in this field.
The President of the Privy Council (Mr. Pinard), as minister responsible for emergency planning, has already indicated that a certain amount of confusion has arisen about this new order. Some of that confusion can be traced to this peacetime wartime distinction and to the planning for emergency measures that, however regrettably, may be needed in either setting. I draw attention to Part I of the schedule which is entitled, "Establishment and Responsibilities of National Emergency Agencies". The eleven national emergency agencies to be planned by ministers are quite similar in detail to certain of the civil emergency powers, duties and functions assigned ministers by the 1965 order in council. I have already stated that the new order better reflects the present institutional structure of the federal government. This accounts for most of whatever differences may be found between the two texts. But Section 5 of the new order calls upon ministers to plan for the effective operation of the agency in any region of Canada in time of national emergency; that is, this machinery should ultimately be capable of operation in the circumstances of very grave peacetime emergencies as well as during wartime. Obviously the peacetime operation of national emergency agencies would only be required by and justified in the face of a most severe challenge to the peace, order and good government of Canada.
Here 1 would stress that the order is concerned only with the planning of these exceptional measures. The implementation of these measures quite clearly requires statutory authority, either as found in existing statutes or through new and special legislation which would have to be introduced, debated and passed when needed. It is very important to point this out since it seems to have been lost on some of my colleagues opposite.


Mr. Deans;: Which ones?


David P. Smith: Those who have spoken.
December 17, 1981


Ian Deans: All of them?


David P. Smith: No, not hon. members of the New Democratic Party, just those of the official opposition.
In the case of wartime emergencies, the War Measures Act confers, in our view, sufficient authority to activate, for example, the national emergency agencies needed to meet such a grave national crisis as war.
The third major part of the emergency planning order comprises ministerial planning responsibilities uniquely relevant to the exigencies of war. These responsibilities, set out in Part II of the schedule, are again quite similar in detail to certain of those set out in the 1965 order in council. Here, too, it appears to be clear that the War Measures Act confers sufficient authority to permit implementation of these plans and arrangements should this be required.
The activation of one or more of the national emergency agencies, say in the aftermath of a catastrophic disaster in Canada during peacetime, would however require authority not now conferred by any act of Parliament. Legislation to fill this void could take the form of special legislation especially tailored for a particular situation or a continuing statute addressed to emergencies more generally. Which of these paths should be followed to meet particular needs is a question now under study within the government. I should like to refer to a presentation made by the President of the Privy Council to a federal provincial conference on emergency planning for some further thoughts on the matter.
I invite hon. members to consider only one of the issues now being investigated, that is, the situation obtaining when Parliament has been dissolved. I would emphasize that I speak here not of adjournment nor of prorogation when Parliament could be recalled to deal with an extraordinary situation. In his address, the minister indicated that if an emergency were to arise when Parliament is dissolved, that is when there was no Parliament in existence to consult, the government, if it judged that action was vital and authority was not available in existing statutes, would at present have no option but to act outside the four corners of statute law. There is probably sufficient authority remaining in the prerogative of the Crown to justify such an initiative, provided the action taken was reasonable having regard to the circumstances and was referred to Parliament for review at the absolutely earliest opportunity. But the minister's point was that a continuing statute on emergencies could cater for this problem directly, thus providing the means to deal with all possible situations under all conceivable circumstances. If I rightly understand some of the concerns of hon. members, they will take comfort in the fact that this and related issues are now being carefully reviewed.
Also I should like to state that it is our profound hope that we shall never need to make use of the plans, arrangements and machinery called for by the emergency planning order. It is, however, our firm belief that emergency plans addressed to contingencies that can happen here should in fact be carefully drawn up, kept current and regularly tested. I believe that
Emergency Planning
Canadians want, expect and deserve no less preparedness than this.
I should like to turn to the matter of civilian internment camps which are identified in Part II of the schedule of the order, the part covering war contingency planning as a responsibility of the Solicitor General. 1 point out two facts to hon. members. First, this responsibility was carried over from the 1965 order in council where it was assigned to the Minister of Justice, acting through the RCMP. The present order lodges this responsibility with the minister responsible for the internal security of Canada under the lead department concept, that is, with the Solicitor General, who alone is accountable to the House. Accordingly, it leaves open the question of which element or elements in the minister's portfolio will actually undertake the detailed planning associated with this responsibility. This determination is properly made by the minister, and I would only mention that both the new security intelligence agency and the correctional service could be expected, along with the RCMP, to have some input into this planning.
Second, I draw the attention of hon. members to the view of the McDonald royal commission on the importance of the internment program and the program by which internees are identified. Pages 928 to 934 of the report are specifically addressed to the need to enhance and strengthen this aspect of federal emergency planning, not to downplay or disregard it. The commissioners state at page 930:
The wholesale round-up of people does not sit well with many Canadians who have lived through the arrests of Japanese Canadians in World War II and the crisis of October 1970. Having said this, however, the fact remains that in an emergency of the kinds contemplated by the War Measures Act some potentially dangerous persons will have to be put under restraint.
The commissioners direct six recommendations about internment to the government, all of which are being carefully considered at this time. Although I am advised that no final mechanisms have been established by which the incumbent solicitor general will discharge his obligations under the Emergency Planning Order, I would hope that the following brief description of the anticipated procedures would help to alleviate the concerns about possible internment requirements that have been expressed by hon. members.
First, it is and will continue to be a function of the security service, that is, the security intelligence agency, to obtain intelligence concerning only those individuals who are the legitimate concern of that service in accordance with an approved mandate.
Second, as a safeguard against possible abuse, any intelligence to be used in support of this identification program must first be presented for examination to a review committee composed of senior officials of the security service-again, the security intelligence agency-members of the solicitor general's secretariat and legal counsel acting as a representative of the Crown. That would be the Department of Justice.

December 17, 1981
Emergency Planning
Third, the review committee would examine the information presented to ensure that stringent guidelines protecting the rights and civil liberties of individuals are respected.
Fourth, only if the Parliament of Canada declared a national emergency in relation to war or public order and subject to the passage by this House of specific enabling legislation, could internment action actually be taken. It is important to point out that all these safeguards would be taken into consideration before internment action was taken.
Fifth, as a final safeguard against potential injustice, such legislation would guarantee a detainee the right to appeal his detention to an independent advisory committee appointed by the incumbent minister of justice, which would have the power to review all information pertaining to the case, and, if justified, order the release of the detainees.
These proposed procedures clearly illustrate the concern found throughout the federal government, that the security and safety of the state must be preserved by measures that respect the rights and freedoms of individual Canadians to the fullest extent possible. I think anyone who is objective and fair-minded in evaluating these criteria could come to no other conclusion.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member but the time allotted to him has expired. The Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Kelly).


Mr. Norman Kelly (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, my attention was drawn to this issue for the first time several months ago when 1 received a number of letters that proclaimed the imminent creation of a fascist dictatorship in Canada. I did not know what those letters were referring to. Like all good members of this House, however, when approached with a question to which I do not know the answer, I made the proper inquiries. I found that the situation is exactly as the preceding speaker outlined it. I communicated that to my constituents. I found that there has always been legislation of this sort; that this is not something new or sudden, and it certainly is not something that is unexpected. I also found out that the legislation is outmoded.
All of us in the House are used to seeing things change through the passage of time, so why should we be surprised that this sort of legislation would have to address itself to situations that change through time as well? Recognizing changing circumstances and the need to respond to those changes, the government decided to review, amend and introduce new portions to this type of legislation which has always been with us. I think every member of the House would be critical of any government that did not do that to all legislation. I do not think anyone in the House would look suspiciously at the government for reviewing and updating this particular legislation at this time.
When we look at the amended document, however, what do we find? What are the horror stories that we have supposedly been hiding from the general public? We find that we have
divided emergencies into two categories-war and peace. I do not think anyone here would dispute that type of categorization. It seems to be obvious. We have tried to target it in such a way that it can be applied to municipalities and to provinces, regionally and nationally.
In light of the debate I have heard in the House over the last few months about the diversity of the country and the need to develop structures, that reflect and cater to this diversity, I wonder what is so offensive or, to the hon. gentlemen opposite, what is so amusing, about creating a piece of legislation that recognizes that diversity and attempts to respond to it?


Mr. Hargrave:: You did it by order in council.


Norman Kelly: We find the government has decided, organizationally, to divide its response-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The hour allotted for the consideration of private members' business having expired, I do now leave the chair until eight o'clock later this day.
At six o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Chretien that Bill C-53, to amend the Criminal Code in relation to sexual offences and the protection of young persons and to amend certain other acts in relation thereto or in consequence thereof, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. When the debate was interrupted at five o'clock this afternoon, the hon. member for Lethbridge-Foothills (Mr. Thacker) had the floor.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Blaine Allen Thacker: Mr. Speaker, at 5 p.m. I had been speaking for some ten minutes, and I had been setting out some of my thoughts on the principle of these sections which are before the House in Bill C-53. At that time, I was pointing out that there has been a general lowering of standards in our country over the last few years, and I think most hon. members would agree. One need only look at the television programs which are the daily fare of our young people, who are of prime interest to me. One need only go into the bookstores and see the books
December 17, 1981

which are on display to know that the input our children are receiving can have no other possible effect than to lower standards, moral, legal and other.
One looks at the abortion statistics and finds that, in the last year, we as a society effectively killed 67,000 unborn children.


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


Blaine Allen Thacker: We did that in the face of medical evidence which showed, beyond any shadow of a doubt, that from the moment of conception a life has been created, a life which is entirely separated from the life of the mother except for a support system which lasts for a very few short months. However, in the face of all that scientific evidence, there were
67,000	abortions. I would not for one moment blame the vast majority of the young girls who have abortions, because when one looks at their conduct from the Christian perspective of tolerance, understanding and patience, one realizes that they have been faced with the daily bombardment of television, movies and books. They look to the conduct of their peer groups and, particularly, to the conduct of the older members of society. How could they do otherwise? I do not think we should ever criticize them.
Therefore, our job as legislators is surely to attempt to come up with some standard upon which we can all agree, one which we can hold out to our society as being the very minimum standard. We would certainly hope everyone would operate at a much higher standard than that; but we would want to have a minimum standard which is at least high enough to perpetuate our society. There is no doubt that if we carry on in the manner we are now, our society, as we know it, will end. The wheel of history has turned over all sorts of groups of people who came together as societies and who simply failed because they permitted the standards to which they aspired to drop.
We know that as a society in Canada, we are at an interface between two major industrial and post-industrial societies. Therefore, we are now changing, just as we developed from a nomadic society to an agricultural society, which caused stress on the people who went through that change, and just as we evolved from a rural, agricultural society to the industrial society. Those who read history know that the two or three generations of individuals throughout that transition suffered terribly. The rights of individuals failed, and the people did terrible things to themselves.
Only a few short years ago, 90 per cent of our people were on farms and in small communities with less than 10 per cent in the cities. Now over 90 per cent of people are in the cities, and we are a highly industrialized society. It will take us a while, probably two or three generations, to work out the new checks and balances between people and groups so that our society can become more stable. It seems to me that our job as legislators is, particularly, to protect the youth during this transition period. Therefore, we should clearly understand why we want to protect the youth. I suppose we could say that we need no laws at all, that everyone will be subject to his own personal sanction and the sanction of the people and the power around them. That is one way society can go. But we do not
Criminal Code
believe that in a democracy. We particularly want to protect our youth so that they will retain the opportunity to get out in society when they reach the proper age and to achieve their goals.
I am sure that you have worked with youth as most of us in this House have, Mr. Speaker. I believe, as sophisticated as children are in terms of the knowledge to which they are exposed, that they lack the emotional maturity to make conscious decisions about sexual matters and how to interact with their peer groups until they reach at least 17 or 18 years of age.
While we are protecting young girls and boys under the age of 18 and girls between 14 and 16, once they reach the magical age of 16, we have no further special protection for them other than the new sexual misconduct clauses under which it will be very difficult to obtain any sort of conviction in a situation where it is peer group versus peer group. Certainly for an age group difference of less than three years between a boy and a girl, it will be very difficult to obtain any sort of conviction. Therefore, we should recognize that fact.
I have no problem at all in speaking to high school students and telling them that that is my firm belief as a result of my experience in life. If we put the argument to them that if they will simply trust us because they lack the experience base upon which to make those important life decisions, life decisions that will forever affect their lives adversely if they make a mistake, I find that most young people have no problem accepting it. They agree that we should be setting a high standard.
For a few moments I would like to discuss some of the specific clauses of Bill C-53. The first part deals with the sexual exploitation of young people. The Criminal Code of Canada under Section 146, which deals with sexual intercourse with females under the age of 14, reads as follows:
146. (1) Every male person who has sexual intercourse with a female person who
(a)	is not his wife, and
(b)	is under the age of fourteen years,
whether or not he believes that she is fourteen years of age or more, is guilty of an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for life.
That section will be dropped and in its place, we will have Clause 166(1) which reads as follows:
166. (1) Everyone who engages in or procures sexual misconduct with or by a person who
(a)	is not his spouse, and
(b)	is under the age of fourteen years,
is guilty of an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for ten years.
Hon. members can see that the definition of sexual intercourse has been changed to sexual misconduct. I believe the question arises as to whether or not this covers ordinary sexual intercourse because the words are "sexual misconduct". Does sexual misconduct cover ordinary sexual intercourse? That question is not set forth or covered in the statute. The words
14186

December 17, 1981
Criminal Code
sexual misconduct are not defined. The committee should look at that area in detail and hear evidence on it from experts.
A great part of this clause is to try and legitimize and save the young people in the 15 to 18-year age group from having criminal charges pressed against them as a result of what some people describe as ordinary conduct for young people in that age group, such as fondling, petting etc, that is seen to be normal in some cases but which 1 am not sure, as a matter of criminal law, we should be trying to cover at all, at least to make it legal.
It is also clear that the penalty under this new clause has been changed from life imprisonment to that of ten years in prison. It will be interesting to hear what the government has to say as to why it felt it should put forth this policy for the people of Canada. It will be interesting to hear what the experts have to say, and we will want to follow up on that as well.
Section 146(2) of the Criminal Code reads:
Every male person who has sexual intercourse with a female person who
(a)	is not his wife,
(b)	is of previously chaste character, and
(c)	is fourteen years of age or more and is under the age of sixteen years, whether or not he believes that she is sixteen years of age or more, is guilty of an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for five years.
That was the special section of protection for females between the ages of 14 and 16 years. That section has been carried forward with some changes into the new bill. It will be numbered Clause 167(1), and it reads:
Every one who engages in or procures sexual misconduct with or by a person who
(o) is not spouse, and
(6) is fourteen years of age or more and is under the age of sixteen years, is guilty of an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for five years.
Clause 167 sets forth several defences. For example, if the boy is under the age of 16, that would constitute a defence. If the boy is less than three years older than the girl, that would constitute a defence.
However, the following is interesting. We read:
(2) No one shall be found guilty of an offence under subsection (1) if he establishes that
(6) he is less responsible than the complainant for the sexual misconduct
that took place.
It has always been a principle of our criminal law that if the boy could show that he was no more responsible-those are the words in the old act-then a judge or a jury could acquit him. But the standard under these new laws, and the onus would be on the person charged to prove that he is less responsible. In the case of two 17-year-old people, how could you possibly show that the boy was less responsible than the girl?
As a matter of evidence, and as a practising lawyer, I can tell hon. members that it would be very difficult to meet that requirement. I believe that to leave that clause in is worse than to leave it out.
Over all we must agree that the clause protects both males and females equally. It removes anachronism, or at least what some people say is anachronism.
Section 152 in the Criminal Code permitted a man to be charged if he seduced a girl under promise of marriage. That section is to be removed in its entirety. But again, I wonder if that is wise. I hope that hon. members will study that section. In other sections of the act we admit 18 is the age at which girls achieve full maturity. In effect, we are saying that girls between the ages of 16 and 18 have no protection at all in the case where an older man seduces them under the promise of marriage.
Bill C-53 has Clause 168 in it. This deals with sexual misconduct by a parent with a child under the age of 16. Again, we are faced with the question of what the definition of sexual misconduct is. Does it cover petting or fondling? What if a father kisses his daughter goodbye on her way to school, does that have the potential of a charge being laid if a daughter becomes spiteful and wants to insist on a charge being laid? That section has a penalty of ten years. I have to ask whether that is enough, because we do know from statistics that the incidence of parents being involved sexually with their children is increasing. That is very regrettable, but clearly it is a fact of life. More people are being divorced. Men and women are taking on common-law spouses, or new spouses who do not have the same parent-child relationship with their stepchildren, and it is simply easy for them to become involved, given the situations that occur in many, many homes. I wonder if ten years is enough as a signal from us as parliamentarians to the judges who sit out there. I particularly wonder if it is enough when you consider that there is automatically a remission of one-third of the sentence, and that the parole board gets involved and automatically reduces that sentence still further. When we as parliamentarians set ten years as the maximum penalty, we are really not giving the judges much leeway in imposing a sentence that is good in terms of preventing other people from committing similar acts. That is what we normally would call a deterrent.
Section 168(2), deals with the use of premises and is no doubt very good. This relates to a growing problem in our society that has to be dealt with. Section 168.1 deals with incest, and I wonder how witnesses will respond to this because again the penalty has been reduced from 14 years to ten years.
Section 168.2 deals with visual representation of sexually explicit conduct of young persons, namely, pornography. That is a new section. This is clearly a growing problem in our society, and I am wondering why, as a matter of government policy, the Minister of Justice (Mr. Chretien) has brought the bill forward with a penalty of only five years. Surely it is very damaging to young children to be used in making pornographic movies because they might even have the image of themselves as heroes when clearly that is not the case and their whole lives will be affected as a result. When an adult takes a 16-year-old person and gets him or her started in that kind of
December 17, 1981

activity and the child comes to believe that is a legitimate way of life and carries on in that way, surely that is a loss to society as a whole. When we say the penalty will be only five years, again given the remission provisions and the parole board, that is not much of a signal to our courts that we deem that to be important, and that that kind of conduct should be discouraged.
Section 249 deals with the abduction of unmarried persons under 16 years of age. Section 250 deals with the abduction of children under 16 years of age. I can say to you, sir, these are very good provisions, particularly in the case of divorced parents, because in many, many cases it is an absolute tragedy what happens to young children. Parents who are divorced sometimes steal these children back and forth. They are sometimes mean and vicious, using these children as though they were hammers and sledges with which to beat each other over the head, with no concern for the child; often claiming great concern for the child, but in fact using the child as a weapon to attack the other parent. Meanwhile, the children are becoming increasingly confused, and as parliamentarians I believe we should speak on that very loudly, sending a signal to parents that children have interests that go beyond the mean, narrow and selfish views of the parents.
We could then go on to other sections that deal with gross indecency, buggery and bestiality. In fact, under the present law those are offences. Under the new law they will no longer be offences. Buggery and bestiality simply disappear from our laws. Again, I am not sure that is what we should be doing in society.
Many times we believe we are updating and modernizing our law, but we are forgetting the fact that those sections were put in by people who were every bit as intelligent as are we, or think we are. They were put in as a result of the common experiences of their societies and because they found them to be necessary. 1 think we should look carefully at these offences before we pull them out.
People are often very unhappy with high interest rates and they go back to the biblical injunction against usury. Some seem to think that is in the Bible as a matter of religion. In fact, the parts of the Bible on usury flowed from the common experience of society at that time with high interest rates. They learned from practical experience that high interest rates cause a great concentration of wealth in the hands of the people who already have wealth and, in fact, create a class society that leads to the downfall of that society. That is why there is a section in the Bible against usury. Before we take out these sections we should be sure we understand as a society that we are doing the right thing.
There are quite a few changes dealing with assault. As you know, under the present code we have Section 245 which deals with common assault. That same section in another subsection deals with assault causing bodily harm. We have a separate section which deals with bodily harm with intent to wound, and there is a fourth section that deals with assault with intent to commit an indictable offence, and assaulting police officers.
Criminal Code
Bill C-53 replaces that present system with offences of assault, assault causing serious bodily harm, unlawfully causing serious bodily harm and assaulting a police officer. There is no doubt that, from a positive point of view, it is in conformity with some of the basic criminal law principles. It expresses an instruction regarding reasonableness. There is a problem in that a mistake of fact must be reasonable and not just honest.
Finally, the bill deals with sexual assaults. This is perhaps the part of the bill that gets the maximum coverage and is probably a very good reason why the bill should not be dealt with as an omnibus bill. Some of us have some pretty strong feelings about many of these other sections, yet feel that this part on rape and sexual assault has some very positive provisions which should be brought in. I believe if the government were to split the package, it would be much easier to get at least some parts passed very quickly.
Under the present Criminal Code, Section 143 deals with rape, Section 149 deals with indecent assault on females and Section 156 deals with indecent assault on males.
In 1979 there were some 3,388 rape cases reported. We know, as a broad general statistic, that only one of eight rapes is actually reported because most women are just too embarrassed to raise the matter. They know that the trial and the publicity is often more harmful to them personally than the rape, however violent, vicious and awful it might be. Under the new code Section 246.1 says:
Every one who commits a sexual assault is guilty of an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for ten years.
Section 246.2(1) reads:
Everyone who commits an aggravated sexual assault who
(a)	uses a weapon during or at the time he commits a sexual assault; or
(b)	commits a sexual assault that causes serious bodily harm.
(2) Everyone who commits an aggravated assault is guilty of an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for life.
That has now been dropped as a matter of government policy to ten years, and again that sends quite an improper signal to our judges as to how we as parliamentarians want that dealt with and how we feel Canadians want that dealt with. I suppose that provision for ten years will stay unless the public indicates to all of us as members with sufficient force that they want to have a harsher punishment. Perhaps if 20 years were served, that might be better than ten years.
It is also interesting to note that under aggravated sexual assault there can only be a conviction under that section if the person is using a weapon. A weapon is not often necessary in a case where the attacker is a big man. Surely you can still have aggravated assault without a weapon. Just the difference in size would put many women at a very real disadvantage.
The section also points out that the woman must suffer serious bodily harm. We all know that a punch in the nose heals within a short time, but when a woman has her apartment door broken down and has been dragged into her bedroom and thrown on the floor, it is an emotional trauma and

December 17, 1981
Criminal Code
an indignity for her which is far greater and lasts far longer than an actual physical punch in the nose.
Another problem with the whole section is that sexual assault is not defined. There are many situations which might arise that may result in convictions that Parliament would not want, or vice versa. Surely with the collective wisdom of cabinet, Parliament and the skilled bureaucracy, along with all the witnesses who come forward, we should be able to arrive at a proper definition which is far more meaningful than the one we have. If we do not, it will be left entirely to the judiciary, and I think that they will be so busy dealing with the new constitutional provisions that they probably will not have time to decipher this. We could be doing that ourselves. I could say much more because this is an omnibus bill which covers many other areas, but I will leave time for other members to speak.


Mr. Jim Hawkes (Calgary West):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak to the omnibus bill known as C-53 which proposes to change some of the aspects of the Criminal Code of Canada. After being a member for two and half years, I am beginning to understand the rhythms of the chamber and to carry a deep appreciation of the constitutional process and its implications on the lives of Canadians.
I rise to speak to this bill during this stage of discussion of principle, which is appropriate. To the backbenchers on the government side and to hon. members on this side of the House, I would say that as we discuss these changes to the Criminal Code, I hope we will approach the task and employ a process which is quite different from the process which was used to change the Constitution. I think it is important that we do not approach the issue of amendments to the Criminal Code of Canada with any sense of partisanship. We should deal with the amendments to the Criminal Code with the intent to define our values. I feel that we should be free in this chamber, in committee and at all stages, to work collectively to gather information of the possible implications that the proposed changes will have on Canadians. We could obtain this knowledge by bringing forward the experts we need to interpret the common law words we intend to use. These experts could help us to understand the implications that a bill such as this would have on Canadian society today and in the future. If the Liberal backbenchers allow themselves to be forced into a position of supporting one cabinet minister or one particular policy, they run the risk of doing a disservice to Canadians which will last for a long time.
That was perhaps one of the greatest tragedies during the long constitutional debate. As a Member of Parliament I was present at 50 of the 56 public hearings. Many groups of concerned Canadians came forward to give us their opinion and share their perspective on what should be in the Canadian Constitution. They talked to the committee members, and I know that those committee members who sat in the room were affected by what they heard. I know that they understood. But the decisions were made by people who were not in the room. The decisions were made by people who did not hear the testimony and were brought forward by a minister and supported by a political party and its backbenchers who served on
that committee. They supported those decisions, whether or not it was in accordance with the evidence on what would be good for the country.
The primary purpose for my intervention this evening is to say as distinctly as possible that we are dealing with some very difficult value issues which interface with the criminal justice system. Not one person in this country, whether he is a cabinet minister or a Supreme Court judge, has the wisdom to determine the best consequences for Canada. As this bill passes through the House this evening, it is important that we all have the collective will to ensure that when it goes to committee, the committee members will work hard enough and the process will last long enough to give sufficient time for Canadians who are knowledgeable of the issue to be summoned to give evidence. That testimony should be carefully examined. We should not allow ourselves to become the victims of the Department of Justice, to be subjected to their determination of the wording in the legislation. We should have alternative legal advice.
People in social work who deal with the issue of child abduction, family and marital problems should be allowed to testify about the reality of these problems in Canada and about the possible implications the wording of this bill might have on those situations.
If we do not approach this bill in this way, then we would better serve the nation if we did not change the situation at all, because in dealing with the crimes of rape, child abuse, child pornography and child abduction at least we have in place some systems which benefit from our experience in the common law. However, when we seek to revise those systems which are in place-and I think they need revision-if we do not do it in that spirit of open investigation and inquiry, we could make a bad situation worse. It is our responsibility not to move and not to make changes unless we have the information which gives us a sense of certitude that to move and to change will make the situation better in the future and more in accord with the kind of society we want to have and would value.
1 stand here today because I see little evidence that Members of Parliament have an adequate opportunity in a variety of our processes to explore in a real way the issue of values and the implications of measures we pass in the House for the values we hold.
I rose in the House one day and put a series of three questions to the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin) about the budget. The Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) has told us that the budget is a document with a social policy purpose, and that social policy purpose is equity. I have spent days examining whether there is equity in that budget, and I have concluded that there really is not. In some respects, yes, there is, but in most there is not. In the process of that examination I noted that the budget reflects the values of whoever created it. I wonder if those are the values of the Liberal Party of Canada and all those who sit on the benches opposite, whether they are the values of the cabinet and the
December 17, 1981

whole party or whether they are the values of a very small group of people in the centre. We do not have a process which allows us to look at the budget in terms of the values it expresses.
There is just one aspect of the budget I would like to identify for the Elouse at this point. The budget expresses itself with some sense of clarity on the importance it places on the family in Canadian society.
Bill C-53 deals in part with the values we hold in relation to families. When I rose in the Elouse to question the Minister of National Health and Welfare, I pointed out that there is a budget provision which provides that any adult Canadian can prepare for his retirement by owning a residence because the government leaves it tax free. The government will not levy capital gains tax when it is sold, and an adult Canadian can roll that into some kind of retirement plan. There is an encouragement to own a home, unless one is married. If a person has signed a marriage licence, the budget says he has half that right. He must share. If he chooses to live common law, gets a divorce or stays single, he can have a residence, enjoy whatever that gains for him and use it in retirement, but not if he signs a marriage license.
1 examined the budget further. If I were a tax adviser, I could look at the budget and advise any married couple. I could look around this chamber and pick some Member of Parliament who is 30 or 35 years of age and married and say to him, "Go to a lawyer before the end of this year, get yourself a divorce and reach a financial settlement whereby you put half your income into the hands of your spouse." He and his spouse could live together common law from that point on. If he were to do that, the tax system would reward him to the tune of somewhere between $150 and $200 a month. There would be some $2,000 a year in tax savings if such a Member of Parliament were to go through the legal process of dissolving his marriage and live common law. How many members sitting on government backbenches recognize that the budget makes a social policy statement of that kind and reflects a value of that kind in two important respects? One is capital gains in terms of residence and the other is the actual income tax system itself. One of those inequities is new; the other has been there a long, long time. Is that in any way responsible for the fact that we have a society in which it seems to be more and more difficult for families to stay together or for marriages to endure, flourish and prosper?
When I look at this bill through that perspective, its wording causes me a great deal of concern. The wording of the child abduction clause leads me to think of the case of a divorce resulting in a child living with one of the parents. In this hypothetical case a 13 or 14-year-old child gets into a violent disagreement with that parent-children do that-and runs away. A logical place to run is to the other parent. As I read this legislation, a charge can be brought against a parent who welcomes his child into his home in that frightened state. As expressed in Bill C-53, the criminal law of this country would allow somebody to lay a criminal charge of abduction against that parent, and the penalty would be a maximum of 5 years in
Criminal Code
prison. I do not think that is what any minister of the Crown really wants. I am quite certain it is not what any member of this Parliament would want, but it sits there as a possibility in the current wording of the bill. I think it speaks eloquently about the point on which I began: the need for caution, the need to be non-political in a partisan sense and the need to have a committee process in which hon. members can work hard and hear witnesses who will provide them with the knowledge they need to comprehend in a real way what this bill will do.
As I was looking through this bill over the last few weeks, I obtained from the library some of the books and research information which deal with the variety of topics dealt with in this omnibus bill. The one I have in my hand at this moment is entitled "Rape: The Price of Coercive Sexuality". The statistics in it are perhaps the best available, but they are not very good. According to one statistic in this book, one quarter of those who commit offences such as rape are unemployed and fairly young. When I see the unemployment figures that are published monthly increasing in this country, and 1 see that it is our young people who suffer disproportionate amounts of unemployment, as a behaviourial scientist I must conclude that we can expect to see more crimes of this kind. If we do not do a good job with legislation related to the topics that are before us tonight, then we are not providing our society with the kind of tools that it needs to ensure that we do not have an explosion of the kind of crimes which are dealt with by this particular piece of legislation.
As a member of the constitutional committee, it made any member who served there for all those hours, acutely conscious of the inherent conflict between the notion of individual rights and the notion of group rights, and the dilemma of whether the individual shall have the right to do whatever he chooses, versus the right of a society or some element of that society to live in a situation which promotes the kind of values which they have.
In our society I guess a group right for a family is an important kind of element. We give parents a great deal of power to determine the kind of schooling that their children might get, as one kind of an example. Some people will send their children to a school that has a strong religious flavour. Others would send them to a school which did not, and they would choose the kind of religious flavour that they wanted their children to enjoy.
What we are dealing with in this bill is an attempt to define the rights of the group over the rights of the individual. We are saying that an individual may not do the following series of things. The hon. member for Lethbridge-Foothills (Mr. Thacker) identified some of the problems that exist in this bill in terms of that issue. The bill speaks about sexual misconduct and then is silent on defining what that is. The member for Lethbridge-Foothills indicated that perhaps as parliamentarians we need to put our minds to finding a somewhat more complete definition of that, or we can opt out and turn it over

December 17, 1981
Criminal Code
to the judges, whose value systems may be an expression of the collective will as we experience it as people who are elected or who may be a discrepant group because of their training and experience and therefore may interpret those words in a way that is very different from what is in the minds of members of this chamber.
It seems to me that when one examines any piece of legislation which is dealing with the Criminal Code of Canada there is a sort of check list of concerns and of priorities that would run through one's mind. In some way I suspect that my check list of priorities is not the one that would immediately come to the minds of perhaps most members of the House, and certainly most members of Canadian society. It is because we have come to view our Criminal Code and our justice system from a certain perspective. When I lay out my priorities as to whether or not a particular piece of legislation affecting the Criminal Code will work, will be helpful, right at the top of my list is the concern for the victim. As a society, in a piece of legislation, in the systems we have in place, do we have adequate concern for the victim? That is at the top of my list. As one looks at the crime of rape and as one talks to people who are knowledgeable in that area and who work in rape crisis centres, they will tell you, with a great deal of clarity, that the rape which has been inflicted on the victim is bad, traumatic and very upsetting. However, far too often the treatment of the victim which follows from the rape is worse than the actual rape itself.
As we look at Bill C-53, we are trying to show some concern for the victim in the sense of trying to make the crime less potent in the vocabulary that we use-we now talk about assault rather than rape-we try to make it easier for the victim to go through the necessary process of testifying. That is quite an achievement, and one which members on this side of the House will support. It is equally important to recognize that the Criminal Code can be used to create a victim. From time to time the victim in our criminal justice system is someone who is unjustly accused.
In the area of a crime such as rape or sexual assault, we do have a tendency from time to time to accuse people unjustly. The minute that becomes public knowledge, they are a victim, whether innocent or not innocent. If they were unjustly accused of a crime of robbery of a small amount and the courts were subsequently to discover they had been unjustly accused, they would have been victims, but they would not be dealt with with the same sense of severity that will accrue to those who have been charged in a court of law with an offence of the kind that is identified in Bill C-53. Think of offences against children, sexual offences or child abduction. To be accused of any one of those is to create a problem to make a victim out of someone if, in fact, that person has not committed the offence.
As I read through the bill, is there not a fatal flaw in the fact that we are treating these kinds of concerns in the same way that we might treat a bank robber? We go immediately from some kind of police investigation to a formal charge in a court of law, to a criminal charge which is public. Yet we are
dealing with situations that, in many cases, are intra-family, that occur between family members. We are dealing with situations that occur between lovers, people who cared a great deal about each other at one point in time, and through some set of circumstances, create trouble for each other at another point in time. I wonder if we as a parliament would have the wisdom to start from a slightly different beginning point with the concern for the victim. If we have the wisdom to design a process which is more adequate and takes into account our concerns about these offences, a process which provides perhaps a more thorough investigation before charges are laid and provides a broader based professional group to do the investigating, rather than only police personnel, we can be sure, before going to the criminal justice process, that we have done the best we can do for all potential victims. In many cases everyone involved in the situation will turn out to be victims; their lives will never be the same.
Can we really get a clear handle on the protection of victims as the starting point for this piece of legislation? Can we get the witnesses we require? Can we dig inside ourselves for the wisdom to think somewhat differently and to create our law somewhat differently so that we will not risk the future of victims, whether they are innocent children or adults? I say to hon. members of the House that I hope we can approach it with that kind of spirit. Can we balance that? Do we have the wisdom to balance that with the need to protect future victims from the excesses of persons who are likely to repeat their crimes? Are we sure that we have included in this legislation the mechanism to convict people who really should be convicted? Have we included the mechanism to subsequently deal with them for long periods of time and in ways which are required, so that potential future victims do not become the victims of people who commit such crimes? The third priority should be the punishment priority or the rehabilitation priority, but that should be only the third priority, after we have dealt with the first two.
I should like to talk for a longer period of time, but the risk one runs in such situations is that one might provide such a large set of ideas that the ones one started with become obscured. In conclusion, I reiterate that we should have a decent process as we approach the bill. We should forget our party labels, work collectively and examine witnesses. We should examine thoroughly the problem which exists in society and all proposed solutions. Then, in a year's time we may be in a position to deal with the bill in third reading. We will have amended it quite a bit but with some sense of good feeling among hon. members that we have a good piece of legislation which will do a good job for Canada-adults and children of the future. I hope that is that spirit in which we approach this bill.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hon. Bill Jarvis (Perth):: Mr. Speaker, I support Bill C-53 in principle. I see many warts and many blemishes, none of which in my view are fatal, none of which are beyond correc-
December 17, 1981

tion or improvement in committee. Of course I sincerely believe that this is a committee bill.
There has been some suggestion that we have dealt with it for too long. I think spokesmen for the New Democratic Party asked at one point for agreement that there only be one speaker, limited debate for a day, or something of that nature.
I was very much opposed to the suggestion. 1 do not think the bill needs to be considered day after day, it is a bill on which various hon. members on all sides of the House should comment because it touches the lives of many of our constituents.
It is an omnibus bill. In principle I have never been happy with omnibus bills, particularly those amending the Criminal Code, because they were often used as vehicles by a succession of governments wherein they would sugarcoat an unacceptable amendment with a variety of amendments which had been long sought and long desired. I cannot make the same accusation with equal force about this omnibus bill. I would have preferred that sexual assault amendments be dealt with separately. But I want to emphasize that omnibus bills amending the Criminal Code should not become the rule but preferably the exception.
The bill has had an unhappy history. When it was first introduced by the then minister of justice, the Hon. Ron Basford, three and a half or four years ago, I remember how deplorable was the timing of the introduction of that legislation. It preceded by only three or four months the long-awaited report of the Law Reform Commission on the same subject. I thought the then minister of justice was doing a grave disservice to the commission. It was referred to again in the Speech from the Throne in April, 1980, and finally introduced in Parliament by the then parliamentary secretary to the minister of justice. I know and respect the parliamentary secretary, the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie (Mr. Irwin), but I suggest that any significant amendment to the Criminal Code deserves to be introduced on second reading in the House by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Chretien), not his parliamentary secretary.
There are a number of important matters that are dealt with in the legislation, any one of which could command our exclusive attention-child pornography, sexual exploitation of young persons and public decency. As much as I am tempted to dwell on some of these important aspects, 1 wish to deal exclusively with the amendments regarding sexual assault. I almost made a fatal mistake today because I recalled making a speech on this subject some seven or eight years ago, and I almost looked it up. But I was wise enough to stop at the last moment. I cannot remember the circumstances. I know it was not legislation. I believe it was private members' hour, an allotted day or something like that. I remember late in the evening, on about five minutes' notice, rising and saying, "When, oh when will we be rid of the rape provisions in the Criminal Code?" I went on at some length, and as a result I received a considerable amount of mail, both in support and against. I am not so naive as to suggest that my speech prompted this legislation, but I recall saying without reserva-
Criminal Code
tion and without qualification that the offence of rape must be absolutely done away with.
I dealt with two aspects of the offence of rape. The one which was hard to come to grips with was the dirty and smutty aspect, the multitude of cliches normally directed at victims of which we are all aware. For example, an unacceptable aspect of the offence is when young children look up the word "rape" in the dictionary and giggle. Another much more important aspect is the nature of the crime. I do not pretend to be a legal historian, but historically it was an offence against property, not a matter of protecting the integrity of a person. If a man's wife or daughter was defiled, his property was defiled; that is the history of this offence.
The wife or daughter was a chattel and when someone offended that chattel, the husband or the parent had recourse against the perpetrator of that offence. That is our history.
Perhaps this is not a good analogy, Mr. Speaker, but I remember very well acting for a farmer who owned a purebred heifer. A neighbour's bull broke down the fence between them and impregnated the heifer. I sued on behalf of the owner of the heifer and was quite successful. There is a great deal to be said about the offence of rape that is similar to that civil suit which I successfully prosecuted.
Those of us who have practised criminal law have certain cases that we will never forget. 1 remember an incest case, one which was very difficult for a young lawyer. I met the accused at the preliminary trial. We went through the preliminary hearings, through the trial, and by the end of it all I was absolutely convinced that my client did not know that incest was a criminal offence. He regarded that child as a piece of property and he, being the owner, could do nothing to that property that would offend the criminal law. I was not too busy at the time and I was so concerned about the case that I did some further investigation. The law school of the University of Southern California sent me a doctorate paper which showed that people in a certain vocation, to which my client happened to belong, commonly did not know that incest was a criminal offence.
The report of the Canadian Advisory Council on the Status of Women states that in 1979, just under 3,400 rapes were reported in this country, and that their information indicates that only one in eight rape cases were reported to law enforcement agencies. I presume that of the seven unreported, the decision was not left in the hands of the victim but was made by the parent or the husband. I think that situation is completely unacceptable in this century and therefore I say with all the force I can muster that we should do away with the offence of rape.
I support the principle in the bill of equal protection for and sanctions against males and females. That provision is long overdue. I have a personal view with respect to the description of the new offences of sexual assault and aggravated sexual assault. I do not like adjectives in the Criminal Code. Of course that is a sweeping generalization and I understand the

December 17, 1981
Criminal Code
necessity of having descriptive words such as "sexual" and "aggravated sexual" in certain sections. I wonder if this does not continue to maintain an undue emphasis on the sexual nature of the offence, however.
I want to adopt the personal view of one of my colleagues, the hon. member for Saskatoon West (Mr. Hnatyshyn). On July 7 he said in the House, as reported at page 11307 of Hansard'.
It is my personal view that it is wise and advisable for the law to recognize that sexual assaults are crimes of violence and that their sexual character is a secondary feature.
I support that, Mr. Speaker. I have defended theft cases where the whole nature of the offence was sexual-the theft of women's clothing off a clothes line. That was a completely sexual offence, but the charge was obviously theft and the sexual aspect played no part in the trial, the conviction or the sentencing.
On the other hand I defended a brutal rape case where the whole nature of the offence was that the accused wished to prove male dominance over the victim. The fact that it had a sexual connotation had absolutely nothing to do with the offence. The accused could just as easily have taken a knife and carved the poor woman to ribbons without any penetration or any sexual aspect to the offence. He could have done that just as easily because he had to prove that as a male he was going to be dominant over his victim. It troubles me when I see adjectives such as "sexual assault" and "aggravated sexual assault" in the bill.
I wish the committee wisdom in its deliberations, Mr. Speaker. I served on that committee for a number of years and I have profound respect for it. It has some difficult days ahead so I wish it well. I am delighted to see that the minister has entered the House, Mr. Speaker. I understand the heavy burden of work that committee had in this session, but I hope it can and will deal with the difficulties in this bill by listening to the broadest range of views that is possible.
I am the last person to ask that a proliferation of sexual offences be included in the Criminal Code, but I must say that I agree with the National Association of Women and the Law which made three basic points in its brief.
First of all, the lowest level of sexual assault must include an option to proceed by indictment or by summary conviction. 1 think that must be included in order to deal with what we may feel is the knowing behaviour but which, to some victims, is traumatic, upsetting, disturbing and humiliating. The groper on the subway, for example, or that type of behaviour, could be dealt with by summary conviction at the option of the Crown.
Second, the term "serious bodily harm" should be deleted, in my view, and replaced with "bodily harm".
Third, I believe there should be another level of assault which is parallel to the general assault provisions of the code- assault with intent to maim or endanger life.
I understand the concern there is over sentencing, which has been expressed by the attorney general of Ontario for whom I
have a profound respect-and I do not say that in any partisan sense. He is very concerned with the sentencing provision. I acknowledge the concern of my colleagues and others in the House who make the argument that a reduction in the maximum sentence could lead the public to believe that these crimes are being treated as less serious social behaviour. On the other hand, I am concerned that unacceptable, brutal and humiliating conduct may go unpunished or undeterred because of lack of prosecution. No one should try to convince us that jury equity is only a theory; juries know what the maximum sentence is and will balance it out.
I believe the committee will face its greatest test with the sexual assault clause on the sentencing aspect and I wish them wisdom. I hope they find it from the witnesses who must be called before it.
I notice the minister is now in the House, Mr. Speaker, and I presume he may wish to close the debate. I appreciate having had the opportunity to participate.


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


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I have received comments on Bill C-53 from a number of national, provincial and local associations, from the attorneys general of the provinces, from the ministers responsible for health and welfare and from the general public. I found that the majority supported the proposed legislation and its underlying principles. I have noted these constructive comments for they will certainly be helpful when I consider amending Bill C-53. I shall not go into the particulars of the bill, as there will be ample opportunity to do so in committee.

I am certain that the Justice and Legal Affairs Committee will be inviting many of those who have indicated their interest in this topic to appear before the committee. I am hopeful that the committee will begin consideration of the bill early in the new year. A few hon. members, in their speeches on this bill in the House and in questions posed to me when I appeared before the Justice and Legal Affairs Committee on December 1 have suggested other topic areas, such as soliciting for the purpose of prositution and bawdy houses, that should be included in this bill. Some of those who have submitted briefs argue that Bill C-53 should tighten the law to specify that "pressing or persistent" conduct would not be necessary to obtain convictions under Section 195.1 of the Criminal Code. Other groups, such as the National Association of Women and the Law and civil liberties organizations, have recommended deletion of Section 195.1, considering that it penalizes mostly women, or, failing that, ensuring that customers who do the soliciting be included in the offence of soliciting for the purpose of prostitution.
December 17, 1981

1 am well aware of the social nuisance of problems of inconvenience caused by the practice of soliciting for the purpose of prostitution in public and the problems associated with the enforcement of the bawdy house provision, as well as the complications that may result from the recent decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in the Galjot and Whitter cases.
We need to examine carefully whether the problem of street soliciting, for example, can best be resolved by criminal sanctions or by sanctions under provincial law such as occur in Nova Scotia under provincial loitering legislation.

As hon. members probably know, last week the by-laws of the City of Montreal were declared ultra vires by the Quebec Superior Court because they govern acts that already fall under the Criminal Code. I realize that this is another aspect that must be carefully considered, and I hope that the Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs will examine this question thoroughly when considering Bill C-53. In any case, all individuals and agencies concerned will have a chance to air their views. Finally, I should also like to point out-

-in the speeches by the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Miss Carney) 1 have noticed that she was pretty preoccupied and concerned about the situation. I am most sympathetic as I think it is a difficult problem. However, I have just indicated that in Nova Scotia some decisions of the court have permitted the police to operate quite successfully without reversal in appellate divisions. There is a similar situation with the present provisions in the city of Toronto where people who are soliciting have been arrested, and the police have been rather successful in court. I am wondering why it is so difficult to proceed in other provinces when it is possible in some provinces with the existing law. It is not an easy problem.
My predecessor, Mr. Flynn, very clearly said that we should not amend the Criminal Code and that such matters should be dealt with through either the loitering legislation of the provinces or through the municipal bylaws. At that time, I did not agree; but with the recent development of efficiency and judgments with regard to the situation in some provinces, perhaps he was right. Therefore, if he was right, I will be delighted to recognize that. However, I would like the members of this committee to look at these solutions and invite some witnesses. Some people think that if we press too hard concerning the provision respecting solicitation, especially the women's groups which feel that it is oppressive to women, it might be more than they would like or the legislature would like. I found, from discussions and after waiting for the decision of the Supreme Court in the Galjot case, that the problem was not as easy as I had expected it would be.
I would like the committee to look at all these aspects, even if they are not clearly stated in the bill. I also noted the speech of the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker) who said that it would have been nice if we had discussed these matters before. However, I would like to tell him that this bill does not concern a new subject, but one which has been
Non-Profit Corporations
debated for some time. The Law Reform Commission has looked into the matter and some work has been done since. There was discussion at the time that Mr. Basford tabled Bill C-52 on the same subject. We never managed to proceed, but there was some debate. The House is not seized with a brand new problem. It has been debated in many instances in the House, in committee and in the public.
I now hope that members of the committee will look at the problems. We will debate it and hear witnesses. I am open to suggestions. However, the problem is that it is always extremely difficult to balance freedom and order. Judgments always affect both sides, generally speaking, because if one goes too far in one direction, one will perhaps create a problem concerning the freedom of the people; and if one goes in the other direction, one will have a problem with a society which is a bit too lenient.
Therefore, I will do my best with the help of the members. I am glad the committee work on this subject will start early so that we can conclude the debate and the legislation early next year.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.

[ Translation]

André Ouellet: that Bill C-10, an act respecting Canadian non-profit corporations, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I would like to table for second reading in the House today, Bill C-10, an Act respecting Canadian non-profit corporations. There are in Canada some
3,000	non-profit corporations that are federally incorporated, and the purpose of Bill C-10 is to modernize the legislation applying to such corporations. Generally speaking, the bill's aim is to establish rules and guidelines for all those involved in the administration of non-profit corporations, and this includes managers, professional advisers, consultants and government employees. Under the bill, directors of non-profit corporations

December 17, 1981
Non-Profit Corporations
have flexible and extensive management powers, subject, of course, to the right of members to verify any abuse on the part of the directors and subject to their right to take an active part in management.
Mr. Speaker, this bill, as it stands today, is the result of many consultations. Its content is similar to that of three previous bills: S-3, S-4 and S-7. All three were considered by the Senate Committee on Banking, Trade and Commerce, passed by the Senate and subsequently tabled in the House of Commons.

In fact, Mr. Speaker, the bill before us tonight is exactly the same legislation word for word, as which was introduced in 1979 by my predecessor, the current hon. member for Dur-ham-Northumberland (Mr. Lawrence).


Walter David Baker: It is a fine bill.


André Ouellet: At the time the bill was being drafted, briefs were submitted by representatives of various key groups with an interest in the bill. In fact, between December, 1977, and February, 1978, the Senate Committee on Banking, Trade and Commerce heard witnesses from the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, the Quebec Chamber of Commerce, the Toronto Board of Trade, the Institute of Association Executives and the Canadian Red Cross Society. These associations want this legislation, and in fact, Mr. Speaker, they have been waiting for it for a long time. Finally, the bill has the same objectives as Bill S-3, Bill S-4 and Bill S-7, that is, to establish a system in which members are treated equitably and are able to make an effective contribution to the administration of the corporation's internal affairs, and managers are free to pursue the objectives of their corporation. I therefore recommend that the members of this House support the bill.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I want to say, better late than never.


Mr. Albert Cooper (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I take pleasure in having the opportunity to speak on this bill tonight. Somehow when one talks of charitable organizations, many images come to mind. We think of clubs, such as the Lions and the Kinsmen. We think of church organizations. But at the same time we think of other groups and the abuses that have occurred under the umbrella entitled charitable organizations.
I think of groups such as the Moonies. I can think of kidnapping, brainwashing and programming and all those sorts of things that we have heard on the news lately. There is no doubt that is all part of this particular piece of legislation we are addressing tonight. It is a part of it, but it is not all of it.
First, I would like to look at what we would be dealing with, the purpose of laws when they are put before Parliament and what happens when we try to have them enacted into legislation. One of the first things we do in any law is to protect the innocent. We dealt with that earlier tonight when we spoke about rape laws, laws that affect sexual conduct and sexual offences. We think of criminal law. The primary focus and purpose of much of our criminal law is to deal with crimes perpetrated on innocent people.
The second aspect of any law is probably to preserve the interests of our society. In other words, if we were to look at it in this country, it is to encourage the development of a Canadian way of life, a Canadian lifestyle, a Canadian framework for our organizations.
The third element of any law is probably to ensure order and peace, basically to have a peaceful environment. The fourth one is a difficult one and one with which parliamentarians must always grapple, that is the idea of ensuring majority rule, but at the same time going to great lengths and being very careful to protect the rights, the concerns, the difficulties and the problems that minorities face. With that in mind, I think we have to look at this particular piece of legislation.
Bill C-10, an act respecting Canadian non-profit organizations does try to protect the innocent. There are several clauses in the bill which deal with protection, the protection of the membership and its members from abuse, from difficulties and from disputes. That is one of the primary focuses of this bill.
The second purpose of any good legislation is to preserve the interests of our society. In other words, what we will try to achieve in our charitable organizations. We would look to encourage honesty. We would look to encourage legitimacy. We would look to encourage consistency in terms of the Canadian way of life and the principles and the objects that we would consider important with what we as Canadians view as right and would like to see reflected in our legislation.
The third aim of good legislation which we must consider is to attempt to ensure order and peace. Again, this legislation tries to deal with that. It would try to discourage societies that would be violent and basically dishonest, abusing the principles of a charitable organization or generally doing anything that would disrupt what we consider good order, good government and good opportunity within our government.
The fourth purpose is to deal with the attempt to ensure majority rule, but at the same time to try to protect the minority. As we study Bill C-10, we see there is plenty of room left to protect individual members from their own organization. They have plenty of opportunities through this bill to appeal to the courts, so much so that I begin to have some concerns about this part of the legislation.
After having looked briefly at the laws and our purposes for laws and what this legislation tries to reflect, what we must do is try to have a look at the purposes of charitable organizations as we see them. We should look at the importance and the role they play within our society.
The first purpose of a charitable organization-and I say first although that necessarily does not mean it is the first order of priority-would be what one would call fellowship, in other words, companionship among members, a sense of
December 17, 1981

belonging, a sense of community, a sense of togetherness and a sense of common direction, common beliefs and common philosophy. To go one step further, its purpose is the promotion of similar ideas and concepts.
The second purpose of a charitable organization is to benefit those with a specific need. As we take a look at the charitable organizations in Canada today, we can see that they cover the whole gamut, the full circle of people or objects within our society with a specific need. We have such things as art societies, animal societies and societies that deal with prisoners, whether Canadian or foreign, or prisoners held behind the Iron Curtain. I think of Amnesty International and that type of organization.
The second area of need would be physical need, for instance, food, clothing and shelter. Still another one would be emotional need. I think specifically of such areas as counselling victims of crime and victims of stress. Just recently in my own riding I have seen some of the concerns that emanate from that. Over the last couple of years we have experienced a booming economy. We have seen charitable organizations that have provided counselling for families that are suffering from some of the traumatic experiences that come with sudden economic growth which tend to put pressure on the family unit and cause all sorts of pain, destruction and hurt.
The third area is propagation of viewpoints. That is where the charitable organization gets together and really has a sense of joining of like-minded people. Their purpose is to teach the people within their organization about the principles, the guidelines and the goals they wish to foster and propagate. They strive to instruct their members and bring them to a mature approach that is consistent with their organization and the beliefs they propagate. Another area, of course, has to be the seeking out of new members, proselytizing, trying to bring new people into the corporation.
My interest in this bill comes from my keen interest in charitable organizations and from the concept I have of charitable organizations. I tend to think of them as being small groups. Charitable organizations are, in my opinion, largely small groups, minority groups, which tend to reflect a minority position, attitude and idea. They tend to have very genuine and very real reasons for their existence. As I said, I think that is one of the most important parts and most fundamental foundations for the way in which I approach Bill C-10. They tend to be small, and any legislation that attempts to deal with them, attempts to address them or their problems must, therefore, recognize the fact that we are not dealing on the average with large corporations.
Of course, there are exceptions. We do have charitable organizations with very large memberships. We do have charitable organizations that are motivated by selfishness, organizations which have been taking advantage of the charitable donations aspect of the laws in order to accumulate wealth and personal gain. We have seen them used as vehicles of abuse. I
Non-Profit Corporations
believe very strongly that in fact these are the exceptions rather than the rule.
As we approach this bill I think it is very important and fundamental that we think in terms of the small organizations which will in fact be affected by the bill. In order to emphasize that, I would like to turn first in Bill C-10 to the definition section which defines charitable organizations. It says:
"charitable corporation" means a corporation incorporated or continued under this act to carry on activities that are primarily for the benefit of the public;
Then it states:
"corporation" means a body corporate incorporated or continued under this Act and not discontinued under this Act;
That is a very broad definition. We wonder, when looking at that, just what it means. The description tends to create in our minds a picture of largeness, grandness, bigness, when in fact what it should bring to mind, because of what it really does define and stand for, is little organizations like Lions Clubs. I have them sprinkled all through my riding; Lions Clubs of ten, 12, 15 members; Kinsmen Clubs, Knights of Columbus, Masons and churches. I think it is important that we recognize that churches represent, in fact, a very important group that will be affected by this particular legislation. That fact has been downplayed in any publicity I have seen about the bill.
In looking into the matter this afternoon I discovered that churches will be covered by this particular legislation. Therefore, I think this causes us some concern and we should give this bill a great deal of consideration. If we look at the size of the bill, we find it is all-encompassing, far-reaching and with many implications. It will have a strong impact on all of us in the House and on people sprinkled throughout my area. Therefore, I believe it deserves very careful consideration and investigation.
This afternoon while sitting in the House I learned that the government intended to bring this bill before us tonight. So I tried to carry out some investigation to find out what the bill is all about. I was surprised that Bill C-10 was to come forward today. I quickly sent out some feelers because I have distributed this bill to a few people asking for consideration and comment. Some of those comments have come back, but the majority have not yet reached me. I suddenly found myself confronted with a bill in respect of which there seemed to be very little resource material on which we could draw, and few sources of background information. On studying the bill. I found it to be massive and all-encompassaing, and it will in fact cause many changes. Therefore, it is important that we treat it with the seriousness it deserves.
I have some concerns about Bill C-10. The first is that in my view it will seriously complicate charitable organizations, those charitable organizations which, as I say, create in my mind a picture of small, simple groups, sometimes almost family affairs. Under this legislation they no longer will be simple. These will no longer be family affairs and will no longer be community affairs.
The best example of that, and the one that probably brought this bill into clear focus for me, came from the work I did last

December 17, 1981
Non-Profit Corporations
week to assist a small church in my riding to obtain federal incorporation. That small church would probably have a membership of, I would guess, 20, 25, at the outside, 30 people. It is primarily a family church in a rural area and I expect the people will probably meet in someone's home.
As I address this bill I cannot help but think of and relate to that very small church that suddenly, in the next little while, will be confronted with this massive piece of legislation.
Clause 5(1 )(c) is the part that I find really begins to put some dramatic and effective regulations before this very small membership I refer to. It states in part:
(c) the classes of membership, and if there are two or more classes of memberships, the rights, privileges, restrictions and conditions that constitute the membership interests of each class;
They must be defined. They must be prescribed in form and set out. I suddenly get the picture of my ten little farmers in this little community church sitting down and trying to define the classes of membership, the rights, privileges and restrictions of membership. They are not lawyers, they are simple family farmers wanting to worship quietly with their families, likely in a farm home. Now they are suddenly involved in very concrete definitions.
The question that really arises-and I have heard it talked about briefly in some of my research-is whether churches would be affected. Just to clarify that, I think it is important that I read a quotation of the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Ouellet). This goes back to his news release of several months ago. It states:
Churches which will be incorporated federally will be affected by this bill, and although most churches which do incorporate do so provincially, there may be those who will incorporate federally.
In fact that is true, as demonstrated last week by my little community church. That little church has sought federal incorporation. As such, it will be subject to this massive legislation which is before us tonight. I would like to use this little church as an example to emphasize the importance of this legislation and its impact on each of us. This example puts a very complicated piece of legislation into perspective. It allows us to grasp some of the difficulties we face with it.
I would like to touch briefly on Clause 105. In some respects this clause personifies the priorities of this act and some of the difficulties it will present for us. Clause 105, subsection (2) says, "Every director and officer of a corporation shall comply with this act, the regulations, articles, bylaws and any unanimous member agreement." It is interesting, when you look at the priority of that clause. The first priority is that the directors are responsible to the act; the second priority is the regulations, and the third and final priority is the bylaws of the charitable organization, of which they are directors. In other words, the state comes before the regulations in their responsibility to the organizations of which they are members.
Many years ago, there was a great deal of fear of the influence that the church had over the state. That led to a doctrine which is today known as "separation of church and
state," a doctrine which has had some far-reaching implications on our society over the last several centuries. When I review this particular clause, I cannot help but wonder if we have not in fact gone full circle. Once we worried about the influence of the church on the state, but now perhaps we should worry about the influence of the state on the church. As I begin to study more clauses of the bill, the concern I have becomes more pronounced and clearer.
Another interesting clause of the bill is Clause 114. This section deals with the right of an organization to discipline its members. I believe that every organization has that right and it is defined to their membership and laid out in their rules and regulations. Clause 114 is probably nothing more than what we would see in the constitution of most organizations, simply the right to discipline their members. That is fair and reasonable.
Clause 115 says that the member is entitled to a fair hearing should he be disciplined by his organization. Again, we see that as a fairly normal, reasonable and, in fact, obligatory type of clause which should be in any legislation. It is probably the very clause we would see in the constitution of a charitable organization.
Clause 116 is one with which I have more concern about. In this clause we see a dramatic shift to another direction. I will read clause 116 because I think it is important. It says:
A member of a corporation who claims to be aggrieved because he was disciplined or because his membership interest in a corporation was terminated, may apply to a court under Section 214.
I will refer to Section 214 later. What I want to emphasize at this point is the fact that if a member was disciplined by a charitable organization-I think back to this church in my riding-and his membership was revoked for violating their particular code of law or ethics, he could dispute that in the court. That becomes very interesting and intriguing if you think of the fact that when the member joined, he probably had an understanding of the guidelines and regulations which defined his right to be a member of the organization he was joining. Yet he can appeal to a court when he disagrees with the discipline which was handed out to him.
That small church in my riding is a fundamentalist church and I am sure it would have regulations which state that a member must not commit adultery or engage in fornication or, in fact, if he were to engage in any of those activities, it would be grounds for retiring that member from membership in that church. It becomes very interesting when we realize that the very things for which they could reject him from the organization as being illegal in their organization, would not be illegal under Canadian law. If this member who is disciplined were to appeal to the court, the court would find that it is not contrary to the law. Those ramifications will become very serious, as I will illustrate later.
What results from this bill is that when that member appeals and the court upholds his appeal, the court can dictate to the church that it must change its regulations to be in accordance with government regulations.
December 17, 1981

1 can envisage a massive involvement by the state in the church, which may well have some very serious and dramatic effects in the future on a number of our church organizations.
Another interesting clause in this bill is Clause 123. It stipulates that the membership list of an organization must become public. All I would have to do to get a membership list of any organization is to simply join it. We have received some complaints about this particular part of the legislation because it causes concern to a number of our constituents, and 1 am including constituents of all members. The dangers of the abuse of this clause become evident. The RCMP could join an organization in order to get a membership list, and once they have it they would know what part of society these members are involved in. This could have very serious implications.
There could be two organizations which are dramatically opposed to each other. For example, one group could be the communists and the other group could be the John Birch Society. Under this legislation, a member of the communist party could join the John Birch Society and immediately have access to the names and addresses of all the members of that organization.
Members of the Ku Klux Klan could join an organization which might be sympathetic to the black people in our country. It would immediately have a list of targets and subjects for harassment. It is easy to see some of the difficulties we could be getting into.
A very simple example could be a mailing list. Some of us get very annoyed at having our names on a mailing list without our permission. Therefore, I believe that that clause presents difficulty and could lead to the discrediting of a number of organizations and lead to a number of difficulties within some of our small, private organizations.
Another clause which deals with court involvement in our charitable organizations is Clause 130. Under Clause 130 a member may dispute the election of a director. Not only can he dispute it among the membership, he can dispute the appointment or election of a member in the courts of the land.
Mr. Speaker, I believe it is ten o'clock.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 40 deemed to have been moved.
Adjournment Debate

Mr. Charles Mayer (Portage-Marquette):: Mr. Speaker, 1 rise this evening to speak about a very important topic which I raised with the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) in this House on December 3 concerning items in the budget which were supposed to be there as a result of some of the statements the Minister of Agriculture had been making across the country prior to November 12. He had left the impression that if there was not substantial help forthcoming in the budget for farmers, he would resign.
I want to put what is in the budget in the best perspective I can. What is in the budget for agriculture is $50 million. That $50 million is made up of an additional $45 million for loans and $5 million to be used to keep interest rates down. The $5 million sounds like a lot of money. By the admission of the federal Department of Agriculture in some of its advertisements, there are about 330,000 farmers in Canada, and that $5 million works out almost exactly to $15 per farmer. That is really an incredibly small amount of money to be made available to farmers at this time. The reason I say that amount is incredible, ludricous and insulting is that, on the average, farmers are paying in excess of $7,000 in interest. When we compare that $15 to the average $7,000 farmers are paying, that puts into perspective the kind of aid for farmers there really is in the budget.
In addition to being responsible to the farmers of this country, the Minister of Agriculture has a very large responsibility to consumers. Without a healthy agricultural industry which has some hope for the future, the consumer of the country would be very badly served. We can produce food cheaply; that is the main reason we have the standard of living we have. If the agricultural industry declines, that will be felt by farmers immediately, but ultimately it will affect all of us. It will affect the way we live. It is for this reason that the Minister of Agriculture has a responsibility not just to the agricultural community but to the total community across the country.
The minister has been able to accomplish little for farmers in the budget, and that is a serious matter for farmers. It is serious in another respect. Canada is very wealthy in natural resources. We also have farmers as a resource. I am a farmer, and I am proud of that fact. There is more arable land per farmer in Canada than in any other country in the world. That means we have a responsibility not just to ourselves but to other people around the world to produce as much food as we possibly can, but it is becoming increasingly difficult to do that because of some of the things the minister has done, or not done, during his tenure in office. The minister has held his portfolio since 1972. He makes no bones about the fact that he took a brief sabbatical. In fact, he looks on that in a laughing way, as if it were his divine right to be where he is. It was unfortunate for him he was forced into that sabbatical, but fortunate for farmers and too bad he was not forced right out.

December 17, 1981
Adjournment Debate
I think that would have been better for the farmers of the country.
We Canadians have a responsibility not just to our own countrymen but to other countries around the world not blessed with the natural resources we have here. What has this minister presided over during his term of office? As we all know, farming is a very risky business. We risk bad markets, weather, hail storms, all kinds of weeds and everything else we associate with the variables of farming. During this minister's tenure he has allowed the government to become the dominant variable, to the point that people are now cutting back on production. This is not because of the variables with which they have learned to live over the centuries. I just mentioned some of the things farmers must cope with, such as weather. There is a common joke; we blame the CPR for everything, including hail storms! Farmers in my part of the country have learned to live with all of these things, but they are now finding it impossible to live with the variables this government has imposed on them.
The Minister of Agriculture cannot have it both ways; he cannot go around the country saying that the banks are the bad guys and that they should not be lending unlimited amounts of money, implying that people get themselves into trouble because of all the money they borrow and cannot repay. The minister cannot say those things while at the same time supporting his government's policies which deliberately keep interest rates high. I could give all kinds of examples of those policies, but 1 do not have the time to do so tonight. The simple fact is that this government supports the policies of the Bank of Canada and Mr. Bouey, and that is the main reason we have high interest rates. If the Minister of Agriculture were to choose to take up that cause, go to bat in the cabinet, in public and everywhere and resign on this issue, he would earn a tremendous amount of credibility from the agricultural community in this country. I cannot emphasize too strongly, Mr. Speaker, that the budget contained virtually nothing for farmers and that it literally gutted the Small Business Development Bond. In fact, they do not even call it a Small Business Development Bond, they call it the small business bond. There are no guidelines available to the banks as yet. We met with the Royal Bank of Canada on Tuesday night and the bank officials stated that they had not received any guidelines on how the small business bond would be made available to the farming community and that they would go ahead on their own and begin to make loans.
Surely it is incumbent upon the minister to see that there are some guidelines available to the banks so that the banks can then come along and assist farmers in difficulty. I know the Parliamentary Secretary will get up and read a bunch of things that have been prepared by the department and he will talk about all the great things that the minister did. I find that unfortunate.
I shall close, Mr. Speaker, by wishing the chairman of the Standing Committee on Agriculture, who has recently suffered
some illness, a speedy recovery and a Merry Christmas to everyone in the House.
[ Translation]


Mr. Marcel Ostiguy (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Agriculture):: In reply to the question asked by my colleague opposite concerning interest rates, I would like to point out to him that it is very interesting to see that some people are trying to prove with statistics what the hon. member for Portage-Marquette (Mr. Mayer) is now saying to the effect that the refinancing made possible through the Farm Credit Corporation and announced in the budget will only save $15 in interests per farmer. My hon. colleague was very careful not to say per farmer in Canada, which is the true basis of his figures.
If he had used these words, Mr. Speaker, we would have seen immediately the irrelevance of his comments since the government has never pretended to reduce interest rates paid by every single farmer. On the contrary, this program has always been aimed at those in dire straits. I believe that the folder recently published by the Farm Credit Corporation at the request or for the use of farmers clearly shows that this is a program designed to provide financial assistance during a difficult period. Nearly all eligibility requirements can be found in this folder as well as the maximum amount provided, and so on.
Finally, every farmer who receives the maximum refinancing amount of $200,000 from the Farm Credit Corporation will save not $15,000, but up to $28,000 over two years if he pays the current interest rates of 18% per cent, since interest on loans now being granted by the Farm Credit Corporation to those in difficulty is 11% per cent, which means that the Corporation is offering a 7 per cent discount on interest rates. While the number of farmers in dire straits is certainly higher than it would appear from bankruptcy data, it must be recognized that they are still a minority.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: 1 am sorry to interrupt the hon. parliamentary secretary, but his time has expired.


Marcel Ostiguy: It is already over, Mr. Speaker, but I had so much to say.


PETRO-CANADA-QUERY RESPECTING LOCATION FOR HEAVY OIL UPGRADER IN SASKATCHEWAN. (B) RESPONSIBILITY FOR SITE DECISION
Mr. Bill McKnight (Kindersley-Lloydminster):: Mr. Speaker, I take part in this adjournment debate to try to solicit some information on a question that I asked on December 9 of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde). I find the reply strange, as I took the time, and felt I did the right thing, to give the minister prior notice that 1 would ask a question regarding something in the constituency of Kindersley-Lloydminster, which is of utmost importance to that area
December 17, 1981

of Saskatchewan. It concerns a heavy oil upgrader in an area of Canada with the largest available supply of heavy oil. Heavy oil must be refined, upgraded and moved to market. At the present time, 60 per cent of that oil is being sent to the United States so that the sulphur can be removed, so that it can be sweetened, so that it can be sold.
PetroCan is a member of a five-company consortium, comprised of Saskoil with 25 per cent of the shares; Husky Oil with 25 per cent of the shares; Shell Oil with 15 per cent; Petro-Canada with 15 per cent; Gulf Oil with 20 per cent. I asked the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources where PetroCan, which the minister said is the window on the resource industry, and where the government wanted the heavy oil upgrader located in Canada. The minister said that PetroCan did not have any preference at all as to the location of an upgrader in Saskatchewan. He went on to say that Husky was the leader of the group. All representatives of Husky Oil said was that they would provide the people to explore the location. The decision would not be made by Husky, it would be made by the consortium.
The consortium made a decision yesterday in Saskatchewan that the upgrader would be located in Moose Jaw, which is approximately 300 miles from the oil patch which produces the volume required by the upgrader. It will be a $1 billion construction project. It will take 2,000 to 2,500 people to build the upgrader. When it is completed, it will employ 300 to 500 people on a permanent basis. The area in Saskatchewan in which the oil is located is similar to any other area which produces raw material. They become tired of producing raw material and seeing the benefits of refinishing and manufacturing removed from the area. This is what is happening now. The people in the northwestern part of Saskatchewan have long looked forward to additional benefits by having the upgrader located near the oil patch. The decision to move it to Moose Jaw was done with no surprise. It did not surprise anyone in the House or anyone in northwestern Saskatchewan. It was done because Saskoil and the government of Saskatchewan chose to place it in Moose Jaw. They made this choice because the federal government and PetroCan said, "Go ahead and choose the site." Husky Oil did not choose the site. It only has 25 per cent, along with Saskoil.
This summer, Mr. Bob Blair, the president of a Canadian company, Husky, said in Lloydminster that the preference of Husky was to have it built near Lloydminster. As a matter of fact, Husky on its own was prepared to build the 100,000 barrel per day upgrader in northwestern Saskatchewan near Lloydminister. Gulf, which owns 20 per cent of the consortium, indicated that its preference was in northwestern Saskatchewan. The only company which expressed a preference for the Moose Jaw area was Saskoil, and it was done for purely political reasons.
I am astounded that the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources did not have some awareness of even the percentages held by the companies in the consortium. He said that
Adjournment Debate
Husky Oil was the largest shareholder. He was completely wrong in that statement. Husky Oil is not the largest shareholder. There are several communities, such as the communities of Maidstone, Lloydminster, Wilkie, Unity, Kindersley, Neilburg and other surrounding communities, which had the capability of providing housing and having the benefit of a stable tax base by people moving into their communities. It would not disrupt those communities.
The plans are to build the townsite during the construction stage so that there would not be much disruption to the 2,000 or 2,500 people who are employed there. Those of us in northwest Saskatchewan find it strange that the minister allowed something like this to happen. 1 cannot sit idly by in my province and see the manufacturing basis for our raw materials moved away from the areas in which they occur, any more than I appreciate it that the rapeseed produced in Saskatchewan has to be sent to central Canada to be processed. People who produce raw materials have the right to expect the added benefits of manufacturing and finishing the product.
That is why I hope that whoever answers for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources will explain why this decision was made. Was it economic grounds or political grounds? I suspect the latter, but in the spirit of brotherly love and good cheer, Merry Christmas, Joyeux Noel et Bonne Annee.


Mr. Jack Masters (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Communications):: Mr. Speaker, during the past few weeks there has been considerable speculation in the press, especially in Saskatchewan, regarding the location of a heavy oil upgrader being planned for that province. The federal government recognizes the valuable contribution that the heavy crude oil resources of Saskatchewan and Alberta can make to securing future sources of petroleum for Canadians. However, their development has proceeded slowly. The reasons have been partly technical: only a small proportion of this oil can be produced in the field unless costly recovery techniques are employed. While the National Energy Program has provided new price and tax incentives for production of heavy crude oil by enhanced recovery processes, the problem remains of finding domestic markets for this heavy crude.
The federal government believes that resource upgrading should take place in the actual regions of production. It is crucial that facilities be installed in producing areas to upgrade the heavy oil into a more marketable product, which can be readily shipped to any domestic refinery. Toward this end, the federal commitment to participate financially in an upgrading plant in Saskatchewan is clearly set out in the National Energy Program.
The Government of Canada and the government of Saskatchewan agreement of October 26, 1981 provided further encouragement for the establishment of a heavy oil upgrader as noted in the following extract from the agreement:
We are agreed that a commercial-scale crude oil upgrading facility, designed to optimize the energy and economic benefits to Saskatchewan and Canada,

December 17, 1981
Adjournment Debate
should be constructed in Saskatchewan. We agree to encourage the construction of an upgrading facility for substantial completion by the end of the term of this understanding.
A differentiated Petroleum Compensation Charge (PCC) will be applied to the input of heavy crude oil upgraders in Saskatchewan. This will provide heavy oil upgraders with access to appropriate differentials between input and output prices.
It is agreed that heavy oil upgraders in Saskatchewan will be treated as resource activities for income tax purposes.
Shortly after the release of the NEP in October 1980, negotiations began between several companies culminating in the creation of a joint venture to upgrade heavy crude in Saskatchewan. The companies participating in this undertaking are: Husky Oil, the project leader with a 25 per cent
interest; SasKoil Resources Inc. 25 per cent; Gulf Canada Limited 20 per cent; Petro-Canada 15 per cent; and Shell Canada 15 per cent. During the past months this group has been actively investigating the possibility of building a heavy crude oil processing plant in Saskatchewan.
May I reiterate what the minister said in the House on December 9 and that is, that so far as the Government of Canada is concerned, it has taken no stand and has no particular views with regard to a specific site.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: A motion to adjourn the House is deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 11 a.m.
At 10.20 p.m. the House adjourned without question put pursuant to Standing Order 2(1).

Friday, December 18, 1981