1981-07-08

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Vince Dantzer (Okanagan North):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. In view of the fact that a recently released study directly attributes the disastrous financial losses suffered this year by British Columbia's southern interior forest industry to high interest rates, and because the forest industry is a critical component of the country's economy and a major employer in Canada, and because the government's inaction demonstrates an astounding inability to solve today's economic problems, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Surrey-White Rock-North Delta (Mr. Friesen):
That this House condemns the government for the lack of an effective economic program for these difficult times.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


THE JUDICIARY
Mr. Walter McLean (Waterloo):: Madam Speaker, yesterday President Reagan announced that he was entering the name of a woman, Sandra O'Connor, into nomination for the Supreme Court of the United States.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Walter Franklin McLean: It will be noted that it took a conservative administration to break with two centuries of male exclusivity. Therefore I move, seconded by the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald):
That the Minister of Justice waste no time in naming an earnest committee of Progressive Conservative members to consult with bar associations and womens' groups in order to develop a list of suitable female candidates for high court membership, with the aim of removing the age-old phobia of the Liberal party against progressive action in the area of female appointments to the Supreme Court of Canada.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


COMBINES
Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Madam Speaker, it took the Liberals years to move on Your Honour's important position. I hope they will follow the suggestion made in the preceding motion with despatch.
I move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow):
That this House urges the government to make public the results of the four-year study by the Combines Investigation Branch into a cartel in the uranium industry, and further, that the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources make a statement on motions explaining why responsible political ministers have not been named in the organization and operation of this uranium cartel.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


HOUSING
Mr. Doug Lewis (Simcoe North):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. In 1980 apartment vacancy rates were running between 2.3 per cent and 2.8 per cent across Canada. The government's response was to allocate an additional 5,000 units under the non-profit and co-operative housing program. Yesterday the Minister of Finance announced the addition of 2,500 units under the program, even though vacancy rates are now at a critical 1.8 per cent. I

July 8, 1981
therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Waterloo (Mr. McLean):
That the government increase the allocation of units under the social housing programs to at least 5,000 in order that the vacancy rate problem in Canada will be alleviated immediately.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


POLITICAL PARTIES
Mr. Jim Peterson (Willowdale):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the usual provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. In this House we have had a long debate on Bill S-6, an act to amend the Two-Price Wheat Act. This delay was occasioned mainly by obstruction from certain Conservative members of this House.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


James Scott (Jim) Peterson: This delay was occasioned by obstruction from the hon. members opposite-


Mr. Andre:: Your wheat farmers are upset, are they?


James Scott (Jim) Peterson: -and particularly the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor), who indicated that this bill would be harmful to western wheat farmers. In light of this I move, seconded by the hon. member for Guelph (Mr. Schroder):
That this House urge the Conservatives to be more consistent in their policy applications, because this Bill S-6 is exactly the same bill as was presented by the previous Conservative government.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


THE ADMINISTRATION
Mr. Tom McMillan (Hillsborough):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. Prince Edward Island is the only province in Canada not represented in the cabinet of the present federal government. Given that this situation will have existed for a full year by the time Parliament likely reconvenes
in the fall, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Cambridge (Mr. Speyer):
That this House call on the Prime Minister to rectify the problem before the end of the summer so that government decisions can more fully reflect the concerns of all Canadians.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


COMMUNICATIONS
Mr. Mark Rose (Mission-Port Moody):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. Four months ago the B.C. Telephone Co. socked it to B.C. residents with a 12.5 per cent increase. Now the company has just applied to the CRTC for a further increase of 25 per cent for residential subscribers, a 28 per cent increase for business rates, and the cost of pay phones would rise to 25 cents from ten cents. Therefore I move, seconded by the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Kristiansen):
That this House instructs the CRTC to reject the exorbitant rate increases demanded by this foreign multinational, and to stand by its decision to reconsider the last rate increases if B.C. Tel does not improve its services by the end of 1981.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


NATIONAL ENERGY PROGRAM
Mr. Len Gustafson (Assiniboia):: Madam Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 43 I move, seconded by the hon. member for Edmonton East (Mr. Yurko):
That this House condemn the government for its failure to reach an energy agreement in an 18-month period, costing the taxpayers of Canada $8 million per day in imported oil, $1 million per hour in losses to the economy, and putting thousands of people out of work while the national energy policy of Canada does not address itself to the production of oil in this country; and that this House call on the Prime Minister and the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources to redress immediately the negative impact the national energy policy is having on this country.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?
July 8, 1981


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


POST OFFICE
Mr. Benno Friesen (Surrey-White Rock-North Delta):: Madam Speaker, since the government does not want to legislate or negotiate the postal strike, but is willing to let small businesses suffer and die and letter carriers be unemployed, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Don Valley West (Mr. Bosley):
That the government declare with some precision how long it is prepared to live with the strike, so that letter carriers can get other employment and business people may develop alternate and sure delivery systems.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Jack Shields (Athabasca):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. Whereas many farmers in western Canada have maintained their cattle herds by incurring considerable debt in order to continue their eligibility for assistance under the herd maintenance program; whereas these farmers have been left in limbo, wondering whether they will receive assistance at all, and whereas the hard line, and unfair adherence to bureaucratic rules and regulations by the government has meant that numerous requests for herd maintenance assistance have been denied to some farmers, even though their townships were declared eligible for assistance after the original application deadline had passed, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski):
That the government display some compassion for those farmers who have legitimate claim to herd maintenance assistance and adjudicate all applications, late or not, as quickly and as fairly as possible.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


ANNEXATION OF ARABLE LAND FOR URBAN DEVELOPMENT-MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Mr. Bill Yurko (Edmonton East):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. Urban sprawl is continuing to take vast tracts of Canada's prime agricultural land out of food production. Therefore I move, seconded by the hon. member for Wetaskiwin (Mr. Schellenberger):
That the government establish a federal-provincial municipal task force to evolve new policies to minimize the amount of class No. 1, class No. 2 and class No. 3 farm land that is being annexed for urban sprawl and development.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


INTERNATIONAL YEAR OF DISABLED PERSONS
Mr. Neil Young (Beaches):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. Since the B.C. Committee for the International Year of Disabled Persons has received an overwhelming number of requests for program funding and estimates it would require another $12 million to meet those requests and since other areas of the country are experiencing the same enthusiastic response, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mrs. Mitchell):
That this House instruct the government to recognize the obvious desire of Canadians to be actively involved in this international year and that it increase the $1 million already allocated to an amount that equals the moneys being contributed by provincial governments.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


NATIONAL ENERGY PROGRAM
Mr. Gordon Taylor (Bow River):: Madam Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity under the provisions of Standing Order 43. Whereas the objective of 50 per cent Canadian ownership of the oil and gas industry in Canada is a worthy objective, providing this means that 50 per cent foreign ownership will be replaced by 50 per cent private ownership; and whereas the last budget of the Liberal government is silent on this matter, leaving many to suspect that it is a smoke-

July 8, 1981
Oral Questions
screen, enticing the public into something they do not want, that is, nationalization of the oil and gas industry, therefore I move, seconded by the hon. member for Calgary South (Mr. Thomson):
That this House urges Prime Minister Trudeau to define immediately the term 50 per cent Canadian ownership.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Right Hon. Joe Clark (Leader of the Opposition):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice and Attorney General. It concerns the information which has been sworn regarding the uranium cartel, an action flowing from the report of the director of the combines investigation branch and from independent legal advice which the government sought.
The minister will remember that on March 4 his colleague, the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, promised that the full report of the director of the combines investigation branch would be made public. In order that Parliament may have all of the information about the uranium cartel and may understand why certain corporations and individuals were named and certain others, including past or present ministers of this government, were not named, will the Minister of Justice and Attorney General agree now to publish immediately the full report of the combines director and the full context of the independent legal advice which the government sought?


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Justice and Minister of State for Social Development):: Madam Speaker, the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs never made such a promise to the House.


Mr. Stevens:: On March 4.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: I have, however, received a report from the combines director, who was advised by a Toronto lawyer named John Brown. I also asked the same firm of lawyers to advise me on this matter. I have asked Mr. Brown to act as prosecutor in the cases he recommended that I prosecute, whose recommendation I have accepted. All of Mr. Brown's recommendations are included in the action which has been launched before the court, which will now be disposed of by the court.


REQUEST FOR APPOINTMENT OF SPECIAL PROSECUTOR
Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, what the minister is saying is that some lawyer he has chosen in Toronto has a right to see this report and has a right to knowledge of the independent legal advice that was made available, but the minister is hiding that report and that legal advice from the House of Commons of Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: The minister will know that among the unindicted co-conspirators are former public servants. The minister will also know that the cartel involved a "gag" order in council and other direct policy decisions taken by the Government of Canada. Since the Attorney General and Minister of Justice was a member of the government which set up that cartel, and which was involved in taking other decisions leading to this legal action, will the minister act to avoid any appearance at all of a conflict of interest and have this legal action pursued by a special prosecutor or by attorneys general who have no association whatever with the actions that will be considered by the courts?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Madam Speaker, I would like to clarify the statement made by the hon. member. The lawyer to whom I have referred is the same one who was hired by Mr. Bertrand and who has worked for four years on the case. He is the lawyer who made the report to Mr. Bertrand.
After I received the report from Mr. Bertrand, I asked the same lawyer, who had worked on the commission for four years, to be the prosecutor. This lawyer who worked on the inquiry for four years is the same one I have hired to be the special prosecutor in this file. Both in the report made to Mr. Bertrand, which was transferred to me, and in the special report that was made to me after I hired the same lawyer, that lawyer recommended that I prosecute the same companies. I have accepted his recommendation. This prosecutor is the same person who conducted the inquiry. He has accepted the position of special prosecutor in this case, and I am very pleased that he has done so.


NAMING OF UNINDICTED CO-CONSPIRATORS
Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, now we know who they are. They are Mr. Brown and Mr. Bertrand. But we do not know what they said. This House of Commons has a right to know what was said in those reports, which involved information being laid against certain corporations and individuals but not information being laid, for example, against the Minister of Justice, against the former minister of energy, mines and resources and against the Prime Minister. He points to himself. He has perhaps read the report. The members of the House of Commons would like the opportunity to read the report.
July 8, 1981

My question stands as to whether the minister will now end the secrecy and publish the report. While he is considering that question which was asked some time ago, let me ask him a question which goes to the heart of our system of responsible government in this country. Two former public servants are named as unindicated co-conspirators for actions taken during the period that they were public servants. One was an ADM at the time. Obviously they had to be acting on the instructions of the cabinet to which they were responsible. Will the minister explain why, when former public servants are named, the Prime Minister and present and former ministers of the government to whom those public servants were responsible are not named?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: In my opinion, Madam Speaker, the answer is very easy. Mr. Brown and the other lawyers who worked with him on this case made recommendations to me and I followed all of them. I ordered that legal action be taken against the companies, as recommended by Messrs. Bertrand and Brown, and I accepted their recommendations exactly as they were. At no time did the commission or the director himself feel that there had been anomalies in the conduct of the ministers or of other persons, except those referred to in the lawsuit. I therefore accept Messrs. Bertrand's and Brown's report, and I have launched proceedings in line with their recommendations. I cannot do any better than to follow the advice of people who have spent the last four years scrutinizing thousands of documents and pages of evidence they received. They have recommended that the six companies be prosecuted and that is exactly what I have done.


KNOWLEDGE OF SENIOR OFFICIALS AND MINISTERS
Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Madam Speaker, my question is also to the Minister of Justice and, most important, the Attorney General of Canada. The essence of the information of the charge that has been laid is the fact that it has apparently come to the attention of the combines investigation people that the accused had knowledge that the cartel activities affected the Canadian market. In particular, Mr. Mac-Nabb, a co-conspirator, and Mr. Runnalls, a co-conspirator, according to the information, had knowledge that the cartel affected the Canadian market. Will the Attorney General indicate to the House how he determined that nobody senior to Mr. Runnalls or Mr. MacNabb had similar knowledge that the cartel had affected the Canadian market, including Mr. Austin, the deputy minister, Mr. Macdonald the minister, and the Prime Minister who, of course, presided over the whole cabinet deliberations when the conspiracy was put in place? Why were they not joined as co-conspirators?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Madam Speaker, Mr. Bertrand and the
Oral Questions
outside lawyers worked on the files for four years. They examined thousands of documents and talked to a lot of witnesses. They concluded that the charges should be put in front of the court the way they have been. I am not about to have a trial in this House of Commons when we decide to prosecute companies or individuals. The matter is being decided before the courts. If the hon. member is very interested, when the case is being heard in Toronto he might sit there and learn a little more.


INFORMATION CONTAINED IN CABINET DOCUMENTS
Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Madam Speaker, my supplementary is to the Attorney General of Canada, and I emphasize Attorney General of Canada, who should at least be neutral in this case. Will the Attorney General confirm to the House that, first, Mr. Bertrand was denied access to cabinet minutes and other cabinet documents that have shed some light on who was aware of the effect of the cartel in Canada and, second, whether he personally in his role as Attorney General reviewed those cabinet minutes to determine whether others within cabinet were implicated, as has been indicated today?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Madam Speaker, I must say that there are rules and customs with respect to minutes of the cabinet. Mr. Bertrand did contact the cabinet officials at the time and he himself declared that the minutes of the cabinet meetings were not essential to carry out his mandate. In the circumstances, they completed their inquiry. They also made recommendations to me and I accepted them as they were. The case is now before the courts and it will be up to them to decide whether or not the six companies involved broke the law of Canada.


POST OFFICE
John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the President of Treasury Board. Considering that this morning the postal workers took an important conciliatory step in terms of reaching, one hopes, a settlement that will stop the postal strike, the step being the proposal that the president-designate of the new Crown corporation to run the post office be included as part of the government's negotiating team, I would ask the minister whether the government will match this good will offer of the postal workers by agreeing to it?

July 8, 1981
Oral Questions


Hon. Donald J. Johnston (President of the Treasury Board):: Madam Speaker, indeed I am very pleased with the conciliatory step which has been taken by CUPW in suggesting that the pre-conditions will be removed before we return to the table. The additional condition which it has stipulated, the presence of Mr. Warren, causes us, I must say frankly, some reservations which I have been discussing with my colleagues. I can assure the House that I have responded to Mr. Parrot's letter in the most positive terms, thanking him for their efforts at conciliation and hoping to provide some other means of establishing the conditions which would not be as difficult for us to accept.


POSSIBLE RESUMPTION OF NEGOTIATIONS
John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, will the minister elaborate on the last part of his answer? Considering that Mr. Warren is a man with considerable industrial relations experience, would it not make perfectly good sense, given that background on the one hand, and considering that he is about to run the new post office on the other hand, for him to be involved precisely at this point in the negotiations, especially if this can get negotiations under way again in order to put an end to the postal strike?


Donald James Johnston: Madam Speaker, it is essential that the position of Mr. Warren, the long-term interests of the post office, and relationships between the union and the post office be on the best terms possible, and it is important that such position not in any way be prejudiced. Accordingly that is why my colleagues and I have been consulting on this request that has been made. I must say we find it somewhat unusual that CUPW would suggest that it should determine who the members of our negotiating team should be.


REASONS FOR GOVERNMENT'S POSITION
John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, with regard to just the last part of the answer from the minister, that is the disturbing kind of note that hopefully everyone on both sides of this House, as well as the post office and postal workers, wants to avoid. If the postal workers have withdrawn an important pre-condition which they have laid down for the past week or so, then they have taken an important step forward. What I am at a loss to understand is why the minister is not prepared to match this good will gesture by saying, "Yes, given Mr. Warren's past negotiating experience, and given the importance of resolving this dispute to all the people of Canada who are affected by it, especially the postal workers, we will go ahead and do that"?


Donald James Johnston: Madam Speaker, I thought I had answered that question in the first instance. I do not think the hon. Leader of the NDP has considered all the implications of that particular request. I believe it is our responsibility as a government, not just as President of the Treasury Board, to hold consultations
with the Postmaster General and other colleagues who should be consulted on this matter, and I can assure the hon. member that I do accept with gratitude that there has been some movement on the part of the union. I have responded in writing to Mr. Parrot's request, but I do not think the floor of the House of Commons is the proper forum within which to carry on this kind of negotiation.


COMBINES
Mr. Chris Speyer (Cambridge):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Justice, who is behind the curtains. I wonder if I could await his arrival.
The Minister of Justice is the only individual in this House who knows why Mr. Brown recommended that these six corporate accused be charged. In light of the fact that, according to the indictment, the conspiracy took place partially in Ottawa, and two senior officials of the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources, Gordon MacNabb and John Runnalls, are named but as unindicted co-conspirators, I would like to ask the Minister of Justice why they have been named but not charged.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Madam Speaker, this is not unprecedented. It has happened on many occasions in the past that decisions like that have been made. It was the recommendation of the commission and of Mr. Brown, as he acted as a special prosecutor for me in that case, to proceed that way, and I have accepted this recommendation.


Chris Speyer: Madam Speaker, what I want to know are the reasons Mr. Brown gave to the Minister of Justice for not charging these individuals and yet naming them in this indictment.


REQUEST THAT ORDER IN COUNCIL BE RESCINDED
Chris Speyer: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is to the Minister of Justice. As Minister of Justice he is aware that one of his most fundamental roles is to protect the rights of accused by a full answer and defence. That is in the Criminal Code. In light of the fact that demands, if they have not already been made by lawyers representing the accused, will be made, will the minister have the Prime Minister and the cabinet rescind the gag regulation with respect to the 100,000 documents which would enable these accused to get a full answer and defence?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Madam Speaker, with respect
July 8, 1981

to those regulations, the Appeal Division of the Federal Court rendered a decision in the case of McNamus. As for activities within Canada and under Canadian legislation, the regulations do not apply. In any event, the debate will take place before the courts and the government will act in due time as required, but the Appeal Division of the Federal Court has already rendered its decision.


LEGISLATION TO PROTECT CANADIAN CONSUMERS
Hon. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Madam Speaker, my question is to the Right Hon. Prime Minister. The Prime Minister is quoted today as having said that the international marketing arrangement was set up as a defensive action. He said, "Canada joined the cartel to protect the domestic uranium industry against U.S. restrictions". When the government set up this cartel, why did it not bring in legislation to protect Canadian consumers against these fixed prices? He could have done that by bringing in legislation establishing a marketing board, as other members of the cartel have done.


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Madam Speaker, Canadian consumers are protected by the combines investigation branch. It has reported to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General. The result of Mr. Bertrand's decision as head of the branch was to refer the matter for prosecution precisely because it is his role to protect consumers against this type of combine. That is the way the law proceeds.
We do not pass laws-and I think the hon. member is a witness to the difficulty in many cases to passing laws, even if they may be desirable-to protect consumers. We have overall laws like the anti-combines law to protect consumers.


James Aloysius McGrath: Madam Speaker, by circumventing the combines law the government has in fact broken the law, and as a co-conspirator in this-that is what it is; it stands indicted by its own action as a co-conspirator-has milked Canadians of millions and millions of dollars. During the period of the cartel uranium prices in Canada went up by 500 per cent. Electricity prices in Ontario-electricity in Ontario is dependent by one-third on nuclear energy-went up by 500 per cent.


REQUEST FOR COMPENSATION TO CONSUMERS
James Aloysius McGrath: Madam Speaker, since no government is above the law, not even the government of the Prime Minister, and since this government failed to protect Canadian consumers by establishing legislation, does the government intend to make compensation to Canadian consumers-or should I say restitution?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I am sorry to say that the hon. member does not understand the situation and therefore misrepresents the reality. When he says the government broke the law by creating a combine against Canadian consumers, he does not understand what happened. The Minister of Justice just quoted a decision
Oral Questions
which indicated precisely that that did not happen, that that was not the law and that that was not the intention of the government. The intention of the government was to create an international trading agreement.


Charles Joseph Clark: Illegal.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The Leader of the Opposition says "illegal". I wish he would stop making assumptions like that. What proof does he have that we have done it illegally?


Mr. Beatty:: Release the documents.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Hon. members opposite should stop shouting and try to understand what happened. An international agreement was set up between many countries as a defensive mechanism against the United States action. It was set up to reach an understanding on prices in international trade. It was not set up to create a combine in relation to the sale of uranium in Canada. As a matter of fact there was at that period no, or very little, uranium being sold in Canada. It was the international markets we were protecting. That was the purpose of the cartel. It was only years later-


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: What happened then?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, if hon. members opposite are willing to give me time, I am happy to explain it once again. There was nothing against the law, contrary to what the Leader of the Opposition says, in creating an international cartel. That is not against the law of Canada, and I challenge him or anybody on his side who knows anything about the law to say it is.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Bertrand.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: In answer we have a judgment of the Federal Court saying that the agreement, the cartel or the combine did not apply in Canada. That is the reality. We were protecting the Canadian uranium industry and the workers against an American action as it affected-


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Why are you charging them then?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Be quiet, and you will find the answers. I cannot say everything at the same time.


Mr. Olivier:: Listen and learn.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: One has to listen to one idea and try to digest it, and then listen to the other one. I am trying to go as slowly as I can for the hon. member.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Madam Speaker:: The Prime Minister might have another occasion, but I think that is long enough for one answer.

July 8, 1981
Oral Questions HEALTH AND WELFARE


REFORM OF CHILD TAX CREDIT SYSTEM
Mrs. Margaret Mitchell (Vancouver East):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare, and it concerns a non-renewable resource, Canada's children. Since poverty is the single most damaging factor affecting both native children and non-native children, and since the Minister of National Health and Welfare has indicated on a number of occasions her desire to change the inequities in the child tax credit system, will the minister tell us, please, when she intends to do this and what reforms she will be undertaking in order for this to affect the future of 13 per cent of Canada's children who are poor?


Hon. Monique Begin (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Madam Speaker, I suppose the hon. member is referring more particularly to the report of the Standing Committee on Health and Social Affairs following the International Year of the Child, which, if I am not mistaken, will be tabled a little later in the House. The hon. member is a fine politician, and she is trying to draw the public's attention to that report. When it is tabled and I have a copy, I will read it, of course, and we will carry on the very serious work already started. We will discuss the issue with the Canadian people in an attempt to show that the present tax system is unfair with regard to credits allowed for children. However, as I have often stated, it means that some Canadian families would lose tax credits for the benefit of poorer families. Such a decision will be taken in due time by the Minister of Finance and the entire cabinet.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Madam Speaker, I think the minister did not clearly hear the question. Her answer was not specific about what she intends to do to reform child tax credits for poor children.


SPONSORSHIP OF COMMUNITY PROGRAMS TO HELP CHILDREN
Margaret Anne Mitchell: My supplementary concerns a proposal made in an alternate report for a preventive program for children. Federal leadership is needed if we are ever going to reverse the poverty cycle for the next generation. It is incumbent upon the federal government to take leadership, particularly in regard to preventive programs for young children.
Will the minister consider initiating a federally sponsored program, similar to the New Horizons program for senior citizens, which could encourage self-help programs at the community level for preschoolers and their parents, to strengthen families and give children a better start in life?


Monique Bégin: Madam Speaker, the minister completely and clearly understood the question. I point out to the hon. member that
her colleague, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, asked me the same question Friday morning. If she will please read Hansard, she will find the answer regarding the child tax credit.
As to the second question, which is also I suppose a recommendation of the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs, which is going to table its report in 20 minutes, I will prefer to read the report first. It would help me to study it so I can give a complete plan of action to members at the appropriate time.


HEALTH CARE
Mr. Stanley Hudecki (Hamilton West):: Madam Speaker, my question is also for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. There are two preventable conditions present at birth which can lead to mental retardation. One is a poorly functioning thyroid gland in the newborn, the second is a disturbance of cellular chemistry as evidenced by phenylketones in the urine. If the present postal strike persists for one month, it has been estimated by competent authorities that approximately nine such cases will be missed due to failure of delivery of blood samples from maternity hospitals to appropriate screening laboratories. Nine infants will go on to mental retardation that could otherwise be treated and cured. Can the minister advise whether steps have been taken to provide alternate means of transportation of blood samples from nurseries to the laboratories?


Monique Bégin: I guess all I can do today is acknowledge the problem to which no solution, to my knowledge, has been found. I advised Dr. Charles Scriver, who heads that research team, to put the problem to Mr. Parrot, the president of the union, prior to the strike. I did that as soon as I was informed of that very serious problem. I wish the union could find a solution so as to save several Canadian babies from being seriously handicapped for life.


COMBINES
Hon. Ray Hnatyshyn (Saskatoon West):: Madam Speaker, my supplementary is to the Prime Minister with respect to the uranium cartel prosecutions. The Prime Minister has attempted to indicate to the House that no illegal acts took place with respect to this cartel, which is patently absurd because the combines investigation branch has now recommended charges. What he is saying to this House and the people of Canada is, "I am no crook." He will remember that particular statement was made before by another leader.


EFFECT OF POSTAL STRIKE ON MEDICAL TESTS FOR INFANTS
[Stage Direction]
July 8, 1981
[Stage Direction]
The Prime Minister refuses to allow us to see the recommendations that lead to the prosecutions. Why is he covering up? Why does he not allow the release of the report so the people of Canada can be satisfied that the Prime Minister is in fact no crook?
An hon. Member:: That is dirty, Ray.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I am rather happy to answer that rather nasty question, but I wish the House would hear me to the end because I only gave the first half of my answer.
When I said there was no illegality, I said there was no illegality in creating an international cartel, agreement, combine, or whatever it is. That is what I said. That is why the Leader of the Opposition is dead wrong in saying we did something illegal. We set up an international agreement with effects on the markets of the world.
Under the existence of that international agreement, Madam Speaker, it appears, according to the combines investigation people, that people in Canada used it to create a combine and fix prices in Canada. That, as I understand it, is the allegation made by Mr. Bertrand in a report which I personally did not read.
Once again, Mr. Bertrand had two choices, Madam Speaker, and I hope the opposition will be patient and hear me out. After they had been working on this since 1978, one choice was to refer their findings to the Restrictive Trade Practices Commission. The other was to refer their findings to the Attorney General of Canada. Sometimes they do one, sometimes the other. In the case of the petroleum inquiry they took the first choice, they referred the matter to the Restrictive Trade Practices Commission which, as we know, made it public. Then we were summoned, indeed we were accused in this House of having followed that rather lengthy route which would take years in front of the commission, rather than giving it to the Minister of Justice so he could attempt prosecutions.
Now, by accident, Madam Speaker, or by design-I do not know-Mr. Bertrand in this case reached the other alternative provided to him under the law to refer it to the Minister of Justice rather than make it public via the Restrictive Trade Practices Commission. Now the opposition have changed their song completely-


Harvie Andre: Because this-


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Shut up, my friend. Shut up a minute.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Baker (Nepean-Carleton):: Who the hell do you think you are, you arrogant pup?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: So in one case-


Harvie Andre: I am sorry to interrupt your lies.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker-
Oral Questions


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. Order, please. 1 think it is important that the House hear this answer to the end, and I will recognize the Right Hon. Prime Minister to terminate his answer. However, I would hope that he could do it and be heard.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I want to raise a-


Charles Joseph Clark: Hide the evidence and shut up the House.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: -a question of privilege. The hon. member for Calgary Centre just said "I was shouting because I didn't want to hear your lies". I wish he would withdraw that accusation, Madam Speaker.


Some hon. Members:: Withdraw! Withdraw!


Madam Speaker:: First of all, if the Right Hon. Prime Minister wants to raise a question of privilege, he may do it at three o'clock.


Charles Joseph Clark: He wants to break that rule, too.


Madam Speaker:: The Chair has not heard an unparliamentary expression and therefore I cannot ask the hon. member to withdraw as the Right Hon. Prime Minister requests. If I read in Hansard that there is an unparliamentary expression, of course I will have to ask the hon. member to withdraw, unless he chooses to do it immediately if he recognizes that he said that unparliamentary expression.


Some hon. Members:: Stand up! Stand up!


Madam Speaker:: The Right Hon. Prime Minister has the floor to terminate his answer.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I merely wanted to conclude that Mr. Bertrand had these two courses of action under the law. In one case he followed the first course to the Restrictive Trade Practices Commission, for which we were condemned by the opposition. Now he has followed the other course. The Minister of Justice has made it quite plain that, in order to avoid the suspicion that we would in some way not be following Mr. Bertrand's recommendations or conclusions, he did not ask the officials of his department to see if there was cause to lay charges; he went to the very lawyers who since 1978 have been working on this case, the lawyers who were left on this case during the period when the Leader of the Opposition was Prime Minister of Canada.
These lawyers were not changed; they are the ones chosen way back by Mr. Bertrand himself. They know more about the case, 1 suspect, than anyone on this or that side of the House. They have been working on it for over three years. These are the very lawyers to whom the Minister of Justice has said, "Please, you recommended something to Mr. Bertrand. Your findings led him to ask the Minister of Justice to prosecute." The Minister of Justice turned around and said, "Please, you do the prosecutions. You know the facts. We do not want to be suspected of hiding anything. You prosecute those very people that you said might be guilty."

July 8, 1981
Oral Questions
[DOT] (M50)


REQUEST THAT INDEPENDENT PROSECUTOR REVIEW EVIDENCE
Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Madam Speaker, there are two very substantial distinctions which must be made. One is that in this particular case, unlike the oil inquiry, the government itself is implicated. In fact the combine affected domestic prices in that Canadian utilities were told by the government and by the producers that they had to follow world prices which, in turn, had been influenced by the cartel.
The government is now engaging as a prosecutor the person who helped prepare the report of the combines investigation branch. It is inconceivable to me that there is not an involvement on the part of the government and the minister when there are public servants charged. Will the Prime Minister not have an independent prosecutor, or the provincial attorneys general, review the evidence independently? There is a conflict of interest here with the government; it is implicated whether it likes it or not. There is an allegation of illegality. Will the Prime Minister not put this matter into the hands of an impartial, special prosecutor, or the provincial attorneys general, so that they can review the matter, and make their own assessment as to who should be prosecuted and who should be named in the conspiracy?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I understand that under our system the opposition is paid, as it were, to attack the government and not to trust it in its decisions. That is fine. But surely somewhere, somehow, in some place, they have to trust somebody. That is the basis on which we live in society. Just a few months ago they were trusting Mr. Bertrand as an honest man who, in some way, had been maltreated by this government.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: You didn't trust him.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Now we have the hon. member for York-Peel trying to get into the act. This is a common tactic of the opposition. They ask questions but they never want to hear the answers. They would rather heckle.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


REQUEST FOR RELEASE OF CABINET MINUTES
Walter David Baker: Madam Speaker, the Prime Minister has raised the question of trust. One of the matters which is disturbing us is that neither Mr. Brown, Mr. Bertrand, nor anyone outside the members on the treasury benches has seen those cabinet minutes. There may be details in those cabinet minutes which, if shown to Messrs. Brown and Bertrand, may not only change the information but change the basis of the court action. In order that we can have the trust in the government which the Prime Minister asks for, will he release those minutes?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, coming from a Privy Councillor I find that an astonishing suggestion. Mr. Bertrand made it clear that he had reached his findings without the help of the minutes and that he did not need them. The hon. Privy Councillor opposite is suggesting that we release Mr. Bertrand's report, which did not have the minutes and which he said he did not need. Now the hon. member wants the minutes released. Could I have the undertaking of the hon. member that his party will release all former minutes of its cabinet and of previous Conservative cabinets, in which case we might be able to discuss this further?


Walter David Baker: Madam Speaker, I point out to the Prime Minister that even with respect to his government the release of minutes is not unprecedented. I would point to the release of cabinet minutes to the McDonald commission, which was also a commission of inquiry into the truth.


ACCESS TO MINUTES
Walter David Baker: Madam Speaker, I would like to put my question again to the Prime Minister, and never mind his dancing. In order to obtain the element of trust which he seeks will he release the cabinet minutes, which Mr. Bertrand did not see, to another kind of inquiry, an inquiry under the Combines Investigation Act, respecting a specific matter, as was done with respect to the McDonald commission? Even the prosecutor, the counsel for the government, has not seen these minutes.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, the Bertrand commission is over. It has been its recommendations on the basics of findings it made. It said its findings were sufficient without access to the minutes. The commission did not insist on the production of those minutes as a condition of making its report. That is the situation, Madam Speaker. I have the clear impression that the hon. member is just bringing out a red herring.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: He is changing course now. He is no longer talking about making the report public, because he now admits that the commissioner had two choices-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: He made one of the two choices. Now we are onto the minutes. I find it quite unbelievable that a Privy Councillor would ask that, on suggestions like that, cabinet minutes should be made public. Why not your own minutes? Give us the example-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Walter David Baker: We are not accused. You are.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I accuse you of all kinds of nonsense, your Jerusalem nonsense-release those minutes.
July 8, 1981


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I will make a deal. If the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition is prepared to release all the minutes of his cabinet dealing with Petro-Canada and the Jerusalem incident,
I will be prepared to show our minutes to Mr. Bertrand.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


ACTIONS OF DEPARTMENTAL OFFICIALS
Henry Perrin Beatty: Madam Speaker, the Prime Minister said the opposition is paid to attack the government. The government is paid to obey the laws of Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Henry Perrin Beatty: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. In view of the fact that two senior officials in the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources, Mr. Runnalls and Mr. MacNabb, one of whom was an assistant deputy minister, have been named as unindicted co-conspirators, does the Prime Minister allege that Mr. MacNabb and Mr. Runnalls acted without the knowledge or consent of their superiors?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I make no such allegation because I have not either gone back to read the minutes or study the report of Mr. Betrand, which I have no right to see, since it is transmitted to the Attorney General, I make no such allegation. All I am saying is that we have done exactly what the opposition demands when they say we should give the matter to an independent counsel. These counsel are not only independent of the government, they were not chosen by the Attorney General but chosen years ago. They were kept by the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition. They are independent counsel of the firm of Blake Cassells; they are Mr. John Brown and Mr. Calvin Goldman. They are not known to me. I doubt whether they are known in any real sense to the Attorney General. We have chosen independent counsel.
Once again I put it to the opposition, if they want to live in society they must trust somebody.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Epp:: Not you.


EFFECT OF CARTEL ON DOMESTIC PRICES
Henry Perrin Beatty: Madam Speaker, in this society if you want trust you have to deserve trust.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Henry Perrin Beatty: The Prime Minister has said that this cartel was acceptable-


Some hon. Members:: Question!
Oral Questions


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Madam Speaker:: Order, please.


Henry Perrin Beatty: Madam Speaker, the Prime Minister said that this cartel was acceptable because it was designed to raise prices internationally as opposed to domestically. Does the Prime Minister now tell the House that his government was unaware, at the time that it encouraged the companies to enter into the cartel, of the effect it would have on domestic prices? Does the Prime Minister allege that his government instructed the other participants in the cartel to ensure that the domestic prices were not affected?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, the hon. member prefaced his question by saying that we have to deserve trust. I was not asking for trust for myself.
I know I do not have it from the hon. member. I was asking him to trust Mr. John Brown and Mr. Calvin Goldman. Can the hon. member make the allegation that he does not trust them? Is that his position?


Henry Perrin Beatty: Release the documents.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: If that is his position, then there is nothing I can do.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


EXERCISE OF PRIME MINISTERIAL RESPONSIBILITY
John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is for the Prime Minister on the same subject. If I heard the Prime Minister correctly, he just said that the report he alluded to was referred to the Minister of Justice and that he had no business looking at it. A very serious question has been raised, not necessarily about legal culpability here, but perhaps more important, about cabinet responsibility. Could the Prime Minister explain to us, since two senior public servants have been named, why it would not be entirely appropriate for the Prime Minister, in exercising his responsibility, to look at the report to find out if in fact the ministers who had authority over those civil servants were cognizant of the events? Surely it is the Prime Minister's responsibility to find out about what his ministers knew.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, my answer to that is my previous one. That is the duty of the Attorney General. He must look at it.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: He must look at it and see if, in his view, there are people who should be charged, including ministers, including civil servants, and so on. That is his duty. He discharged it, not by asking himself or his own legal advisers; he discharged it by asking independent lawyers who had been working with the case for three or four years.


Charles Joseph Clark: Who had not seen cabinet minutes.

July 8, 1981
Oral Questions


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: And they have not seen yours on Petro-Canada, either. Therefore, that is the duty. It is not even as the Minister of Justice, but it is as Attorney General that he must decide to prosecute or not, whether to prosecute ministers or members of the opposition or civil servants. He could make an independent judgment but he preferred to leave the judgment in the hands of the very people who had written the combines report, the very people who had worked at it. That is the situation, Madam Speaker.


MINISTERS' KNOWLEDGE OF CERTAIN ACTIVITIES
John Edward Broadbent: I have a final supplementary question. I will pay the Prime Minister the courtesy of suggesting that he did not understand the question. The question, to me, is a very serious one. There is a distinction between legal culpability and cabinet ministers' responsibilities. It is a very important distinction.
I would therefore like to ask the Prime Minister, since very serious legal allegations have not only been made, but charges are being processed, is it not a basic responsibility of the Prime Minister, in the cabinet system, to find out if his ministers knew of certain kinds of activity, whether or not they were doing anything illegal? Surely there is a basic collective responsibility of those ministers aiding the Prime Minister, to both the House of Commons and to the people of Canada. The Prime Minister, in exercising his responsibility, must be seen to be determined to get at the truth. Surely that is the issue.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I could understand that the hon. member would suggest that at some point in the proceedings I might want to do that if a charge is made against civil servants, of which there has been none, for the time being. If a charge is made against civil servants, if there is something of a proof in the courts that, indeed, they may be guilty, which I do not presume, but as seems to be the case across the aisle, then perhaps I would have to give consideration to the point raised by the hon. member. However, for the time being, there is no civil servant charged, and there is certainly no proof, of which I know, that anyone was guilty in this.
I must remind the House that there are hundreds of investigations every year by the combines investigation board. There are hundreds. They are not made public, and we never hear these screams. We are hearing them in this particular case, and because of that I repeat that the Attorney General, without consultation with cabinet, decided-and I think it was the right decision-to take the lawyers who prepared the case for Mr. Bertrand.
I come back to the question, and I repeat that if it appears that some civil servants are, indeed, guilty of something, I imagine then the suggestion made by the Leader of the New Democratic Party would follow, and I would certainly have to consider it very seriously.


DATE WHEN GOVERNMENT BECAME AWARE OF CARTEL'S DOMESTIC EFFECT
Hon. Bill Jarvis (Perth):: My question is directed to the Prime Minister. I wonder if he could tell us at what point in time did the government of which he was head become aware that the activities of the cartel were affecting not only the international price-which he quite rightly said is not illegal- but at what point in time did he become aware that those activities may have also been affecting the domestic price?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I cannot say this out of knowledge or out of memory. I can say, out of subsequent information 1 received, that it was likely around 1975. It was several years, I think three years after the international agreement had been made, that this international cartel began to have some possible effects within our country. Once again, I am repeating information I received at the time, and which would have to be checked for accuracy of dates. Until then, there had been no demand for uranium in Canada. It was only around the mid seventies that this demand arose.
Once again I refer to the judgment cited by the Attorney General earlier in this Question Period. It was judged that the regulations that we had made regarding the international cartel did not apply to actions to fix prices in Canada. That is the whole essence of the case, if there is one, made by Mr. Bertrand.
At some point, long after the government had created this international cartel, there was a possibility of fixing prices in Canada. From the beginning we have taken the position that illegal activities were carried on in Canada to the detriment of consumers under the umbrella of some international cartel which was legal-I note the hon. members words, which are contrary to that of his own leader-under the cover of an international cartel which was legal. Then, if illegalities were committed in Canada, it is indeed the job of the combines commission to investigate into them, and to decide whether to prosecute or not. That is the situation, Madam Speaker.


FILING OF COMPLAINT BY ONTARIO HYDRO
William Herbert Jarvis: What is disturbing about the chronology, in my supplementary question to the Prime Minister, is that if he became aware in 1975, he was surely aware of the enormous purchase in 1977, in Ontario. 1 believe that Ontario Hydro filed a complaint at some time during that period. I would like to know what the government did, if anything, in that regard. More particularly, what is disturbing me is that if the named but unindicted co-conspirators, a deputy minister or assistant deputy minister, and another official of that department, were aware that the activities were affecting the domestic price and were therefore illegal, are we to be led to believe that the then deputy minister and the then minister or ministers were unaware of this?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, the hon. member cites the chronology and I think he
July 8, 1981

said that-was it 1975 or 1976 that the hon. member said the hydro-


William Herbert Jarvis: I think it was 1977.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: It was 1977. The hon. member asks about what we did when someone complained. I do not remember that complaint, but the answer is quite obvious. In that very year, in 1977, the then minister of consumer and corporate affairs, and I believe it was the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine East, asked Mr. Bertrand to investigate; and it was as a result of that investigation, started in 1977, at the very time that the hon. member says we should have started doing something, that we started, at that time, the inquiry-


Walter David Baker: 1975.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: -about which we are now talking.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



THE ROYAL ASSENT

['I have the honour to inform the House that the Clerk of the House has laid upon the Table the fifty-ninth report of the Clerk of Petitions stating that he has examined the petition presented by the hon. member for\nTabling of Documents\nEtobicoke Centre (Mr. Wilson) and finds that it meets the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.']
Madam Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that I have received the following communication:
R1DEAU HALL Ottawa
Government House
July 8, 1981
Madam,
I have the honour to inform you that the Honourable Brian Dickson, Puisne Judge of the Supreme Court of Canada, in his capacity as Deputy Governor General, will proceed to the Senate Chamber today, the 8th day of July, at 5.45 p.m., for the purpose of giving Royal Assent to certain bills.
I have the honour to be,
Madam,
Your obedient servant,
Edmond Joly de Lotbiniere Administrative Secretary to the Governor General



Madam Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that the Clerk of the House has laid upon the Table the fifty-ninth report of the Clerk of Petitions stating that he has examined the petition presented by the hon. member for
Tabling of Documents
Etobicoke Centre (Mr. Wilson) and finds that it meets the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Marcel Roy (Laval):: Madam Speaker, on behalf of my fellow committee members, I have the honour to present in both official languages the second report of the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs.
[Editor's Note: For text of above report, see today's Votes
and Proceedings.]


USE OF UNPARLIAMENTARY LANGUAGE BY MR. ANDRE
Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I do not know if Your Honour has yet had a chance to see the blues. I have not seen them myself, but I think this would be the point to remind the House that we distinctly overheard the hon. member accuse me of lying, or telling lies, something to that effect.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Harvie Andre: Madam Speaker, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) indicated that during the course of his remarks I shouted over something along the lines of interrupting him in the course of a lie. He is correct. That is what he heard. I will remove the word "lie" and substitute "cover-up".


An hon. Member:: Tongue in cheek is good.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Hon. Mark MacGuigan (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Madam Speaker, I have the honour to table in both official languages the Seventeenth Annual Report of the Roosevelt-Campobello International Park Commission.

July 8, 1981
Order Paper Questions


INTERNATIONAL LABOUR CONFERENCE
Hon. Gerald Regan (Minister of Labour):: Madam Speaker, pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 41(2), I wish to table in both official languages a document entitled "Canadian Position with respect to Conventions and Recommendations adopted at the 65th Session of the International Labour Conference, Geneva, June, 1979."

[ Translation]


PENSION ACT COMPENSATION FOR FORMER PRISONERS OF WAR ACT MEASURE TO AMEND
Hon. J. Gilles Lamontagne (Minister of National Defence) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-82, to amend the Pension Act and the Compensation for Former Prisoners of War Act.


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

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. D. M. Collenette (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Madam Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 2,291, 2,372, 2,432, 2,601, 2,611 and 2,684.
1 ask, Madam Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Herbert: Does the Department of Employment and Immigration contribute to associations for the handicapped and, if so (a) which associations (b) what amount was (i) contributed in each of the past three years (ii) budgeted for 1981-82?


Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: In so far as the Canada Employment and Immigration Department is concerned, the reply is as follows: Yes. (See list below).
(a) Name of Associations
Cerebral Palsy Association of Alberta Coalition of Provincial Organizations of the Handicapped Canadian National Institute for the Blind
National Institute on Mental Retardation
Social Planning Council of Ottawa-Carleton Churchill Park Greenhouses Ontario Welfare Council
(b) (i) Amount of Contribution
1978-79	1979-80	1980-81
622.05		
16,000.00	5,000.00	
364,427.00	419,218.00	533,659.00
	4,000.00	
	36,292.00	97,824.00 2.500.00 3.500.00
(a) Name of Associations
Saskatchewan Association of Rehabilitation Centres Canadian Paraplegic Association Rehabilitation Foundation for the Disabled (Ontario March of Dimes)
Metro Area Community Service Board for the Deaf
Metro Mental Health Planning Board Saint John Centre for Services to Handicapped Inc.
Key Outreach
Saint John Hearing Society Inc. Association des Sourds du Nord-Est Moncton Community Residences Inc. Centre Marronniers Inc.
La Jeune Chambre de St-Hyacinthe L'Arrimage (Dr. Jacques MacKay) Centre point d'appui de Lanaudiere La Corporation du Journal des Handicapes du Quebec Jewish Vocational Services of Metro Toronto
Placing Assessed Trained Handicapped
The World of One in Seven Inc. Windsor Western Hospital Centre Epilepsy Association Manitoba League of the Physically Handicapped
Battleford's Employment and Rehabilitation Program Distinctive Employment Counselling Service
Polaris Board of Sponsors-% Assoc.
for Mentally Retarded Citizen Advocacy of Powell River Calgary Association of Self-Help Halifax Association for the Deaf Horizon-Travail (Jacques Levesque) Essor 1 (Denise Beauregard and Michel Bellemare)
Kiwanis Club of Cambridge Inc. Family Service Bureau of South Waterloo
Handicapped Manpower Centre (Bruce Northam)
Hearing Handicapped Association Inc.
La Fondation HSPM La Croisee (Richard Rious)
Le Tournesol (Jacques Audet and Pierre-Paul Belanger)
Service de placement pour deficients auditifs (Denise Beauchamp)
B.C. Coalition of the Disabled Occupational Training Centre Conseil Quebecois des Ateliers de Readaptation Inc.
Carrefour de Services (Guy Germain) Service de Main-d'oeuvre aux Handicapes (Jean-Marie Laprise) Mini-CMC (Julien Roy)
Essor II (Yves Gagnon)
H.E.E.D. Society
(b) (i) Amount of Contribution
1978-79	1979-80	1980-81 3,735.0055,586.00	58,594.00	115,441.00 37.347.00 23.185.0026,722.00	31.250.00 17.246.0018,959.00	23,459.00	5,949.0017,520.00	19,768.0010,744.00	2.819.00 8.774.0082,516.00	78,653.00	83.437.00 29.020.0060,563.00	110,889.00	105,050.00 23,596.0092,895.00	111,241.00	90,203.0059,801.00	37,943.00	58,518.0078,814.00	78,814.00	63,056.0057,786.00	19,736.00	46,650.0049,541.00	42.602.00	70,266.0064,035.00	23,909.00	21,716.0025,044.00	63,791.00	90.668.00 60.553.00161,426.00	168,393.00	164,753.0066,434.00	60,985.00	82,791.008,884.00	10,001.00 37,779.0040,696.00	31,289.00	43,225.00	25,394.00	17,813.00	19.878.00 28.285.00	40,830.00	7,021.00	88,494.00	43,000.00	33,743.00	16.258.00 54.315.00	72,938.00	70,874.00	42,971.00	38,087.00	32,164.00	34,651.00	26.316.00 8.147.00 23.483.00 19.614.00 3.234.00 7.211.00 2.969.00 60.681.00	15,862.00	
In addition in 1978-79, 695 projects involving the handicapped were the recipients of $17.7 million from our department; in 1979-80, 545 projects received $11.91 million and in 1980-81,636 projects received $16.2 million.
(b) (ii) At this time of this fiscal year it is not possible to give a meaningful response since specific allocations for next fiscal year have not yet been made.
July 8, 1981


Mr. McKnight: What is the cost to date of the (a) Herd Maintenance Assistance Program (b) Federal Drought Review Board in terms of (i) administration (ii) total payout (iii) other costs?


Hon. Pierre De Bane (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: The reply for the Department of Regional Economic Expansion is as follows: as at April 10, 1981, the cost of:
(a) Herd Maintenance Assistance Program
(i)	administration	$	636,000
(ii) total payout	31,654,000
(iii) other costs	256,000
Order Paper Questions (b) Federal Drought Review Board
(i) administration	$ 165,000
(ii) total payout	2,726,000
(iii) other costs	None


Mr. McKinnon: What proportion in each rank of (a) the Canadian Armed Forces (b) Maritime Command (c) Mobile Command (d) Air Command (e) personnel not allocated to Maritime Command, Mobile Command or Air Command is (i) anglophone (ii) francophone?


Mrs. Ursula Appolloni (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Defence):: (a), (b), (c), (d) and (e) (i) and (ii) See list below for officers, list below for other ranks.
Proportion in Each Rank of Anglophones/Francophones (Officers) in:
Gen	LGen	MGen	BGen	Col	LCol	Maj	Capt	Lt	2Lt	Ocdt	Total(a)	Canadian Armed Forces Anglophone	100.0	57.1	91.3	83.1	88.5	87.3	85.6	82.3	74.4	80.3	66.5	79.99Francophone	0.0	42.9	8.7	16.9	11.5	12.7	14.4	17.7	25.6	19.7	33.5	20.01(b)	Maritime Command	Anglophone	100.0	100.0	100.0	93.3	93.5	93.5	90.2	84.9	95.6	84.6	90.21Francophone	0.0	0.0	0.0	6.7	6.5	6.5	9.8	15.1	4.4	15.4	9.79(c)	Mobile Command Anglophone	0.0	100.0	66.7	70.8	66.2	70.6	74.1	69.2	70.6	54.4	71.27Francophone	100.0	0.0	33.3	29.2	33.8	29.4	25.9	30.8	29.4	45.6	28.73(d)	Air Command Anglophone	100.0	100.0	80.0	97.0	89.6	88.0	86.0	76.7	82.6	76.2	83.7(e)	Francophone Not in Marcom,	0.0	0.0	20.0	3.0	10.4	12.0	14.0	23.3	17.4	23.8	16.3Mobcom or Aircom	Anglophone	100.0	50.0	89.5	84.1	88.5	88.6	86.1	80.2	66.2	75.0	64.4	77.91Francophone	0.0	50.0	10.5	15.9	11.5	11.4	13.9	19.8	33.8	25.0	35.6	22.09Note: Data valid as of March 31, 1981	Proportion in Each Rank of Anglophones/Francophones (Other Ranks) in:	cwo	MWO	wo	Sgt	MCpI	Cpl	PTET	PTEB	PTER	Total(a)	Canadian Armed Forces Anglophone	83.0	82.2	80.6	79.6	75.9	70.9	69.7	66.2	68.3	71.67Francophone	17.0	17.8	19.4	21.4	24.1	29.1	30.3	33.8	31.7	28.33(b)	Maritime Command Anglophone	96.2	92.9	92.6	90.3	84.9	84.0	83.7	83.4	100.0	86.54Francophone	3.8	7.1	7.4	9.7	15.1	16.0	16.3	16.6	0.0	13.46(c)	Mobile Command Anglophone	65.1	68.6	67.1	67.2	67.4	60.4	63.5	63.4	90.3	64.37Francophone	34.9	31.4	32.9	32.8	32.6	39.6	36.5	36.6	9.7	35.63(d)	Air Command Anglophone	87.8	84.1	83.5	84.0	80.2	73.0	68.8	72.4	71.4	72.96Francophone	12.2	15.9	16.5	16.0	19.8	27.0	31.2	27.6	28.6	27.04(e)	Not in Marcom,	Mobcom or Aircom	Anglophone	81.4	81.1	79.7	75.7	73.6	71.0	67.6	56.2	67.5	69.81Francophone	18.6	18.9	20.3	24.3	26.4	29.0	32.4	43.8	32.5	30.19Legend PTET-Private trained	PTEB-Private on basic training	
PTER-Private recruit
Note: Data valid as of March 31, 1981

July 8, 1981
Order Paper Questions


Mir. Stewart: 1.	Did the Department of the Environment purchase perfect bound books valued at $90,000 from Canadian Printco Ltd. and, if so (a) what was the (i) title (ii) number printed (iii) cost per book (b) to whom are the books being distributed?
2.	Were public tenders called and, if so, in each case, what was the name of the bidder and the amount?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Minister of Supply and Services: 1. DSS
awarded a contract to Canadian Printco Ltd., on behalf of the Department of the Environment, for the amount of $90,000.
(a)	(i) Manuscript Report "Travail Inedit".
(ii)	The contract calls for 50 different issues of 75 to 100 copies with an option of up to 20 additional issues.
(iii)	Unknown since no invoice has yet been received. The cost will vary depending upon the number of pages per issue and the number of copies of each issue printed.
(b)	Mr. D. Cright, Environment Canada (five copies)
Mr. B. Fry, Parks Canada (five copies),
National Historic Parks and Sites (other copies)
Room 140, 1600 Liverpool Court,
Ottawa, Ontario.
2. Public tenders were called via the Printing Products Centre bulletin board tendering system in Winnipeg, Toronto, Ottawa/Hull and Quebec. In response the following firms submitted bids and the details are as follows:
of the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources for the acquisition of media time and space.
(a)	The amount of $100,000 was to be spent to place advertisements in daily and weekly newpapers in the province of Quebec in support of the Canadian Oil Substitution Program.
(b)	Nil.


Mr. Beatty: What is the name of the (a) minister (b) acting minister (c) second acting minister of each department?


David Michael Collenette: See Order in Council P.C. 19802824, tabled in the House of Commons February 10, 1981, Sessional Paper No. 321-1/205A.


Madam Speaker:: The questions enumerated by the parliamentary secretary have been answered. Shall the remaining questions be allowed to stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


David Michael Collenette: Madam Speaker, I ask that all notices of motions for the production of papers be allowed to stand.


Madam Speaker:: Shall all notices of motions for the production of papers be allowed to stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Campbells Printing Hull, Quebec. Canadian Printco Ltd. Montreal, Quebec.
$1,509.00 for 75 copies of 100 pages. $1,510.00 for 100 copies of 100 pages. $463.00 for 75 copies of 100 pages. $492,50 for 100 copies of 100 pages.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Mr. Stewart: 


CORPORATIONS AND LABOUR UNIONS RETURNS ACT
[Stage Direction]
Did the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources award a contract in the amount of $100,000 to Canadian Media Corporation for the acquisition of media time and space and, if so (a) what was the total amount of media time and space (b) what was the corporation's commission?

Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Minister of Supply and Services: that Bill S-10, to amend the Corporations and Labour Unions Returns Act, as amended, be agreed to.


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Minister of Supply and Services: awarded a contract to Canadian Media Corporation, on behalf


Madam Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
July 8, 1981


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Madam Speaker:: When shall the bill be read the third time?


Some hon. Members:: Now.


Mr. Blais moved: that the bill be read the third time and do pass.

He said: Madam Speaker, in moving that Bill S-10 receive third reading at this time, I should like to call attention to all the co-operative effort that has gone into getting the bill to this point in the legislative process. I have in mind the recent deliberations at second reading, slightly more than two weeks ago, when a number of hon. members from the other side rose to express their views on this bill to amend the Corporations and Labour Unions Returns Act or, as we call it, CALURA. The same spirit of participation continued to manifest itself as the bill received further review and study before the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates.
During the last two days of June the committee worked hard to further improve the legislation wherever possible.
[ Translation]
Thanks to those exhaustive deliberations the committee was able to complete its work rapidly and tabled its report last Thursday, July 2.
Mr. Speaker, according to the report, the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates had adopted two rather significant amendments. The first, under clause 3(1 )(a), raises the threshold of corporate returns from $5 million in assets, as was originally proposed, to $10 million, and from $10 million to $15 million in gross revenue. The second, under clause 3(1)(6), also raises the threshold of corporate returns on the basis of equity or long-term debt obligations of persons not resident in Canada from a total amount of $100,000 to a ceiling of $200,000 for various equities and long-term debt obligations owing to persons or associates not resident in Canada.

I have cited the substance of these two amendments so that the considerable benefits that flow from them will be fully appreciated. The overriding benefit is relief from paperwork for more than-would you believe-96,000 Canadian-owned corporations, 6,000 more than was the case before the committee began deliberations a few short days ago.
When this legislation was first introduced in the House some three and a half years ago-it has been a long time coming-as Bill C-7, it was estimated that some 70,000 relatively small Canadian-owned corporations would be exempted from reporting under CALURA.
The threshold for reporting now proposed-that of $10 million in assets or $15 million in sales-is more in line with the conditions prevailing today and the original intent of the act.
It is a source of satisfaction to me that, numerically, the greatest relief from reporting will take place in those industries
Corporations and Labour Unions
where the smaller, Canadian-owned company is most prevalent. Coming from northern Ontario where most corporations are small, I am pleased that the impact of this bill will be felt in rural regions, including the northern region of this province.
Based on estimates related to corporate activity in 1978, we find that 11,420 Canadian-controlled companies in the construction industry will be exempt; only 526 will be obliged to report, along with 205 foreign-controlled companies. Similar generous exemptions will prevail in the wholesale, retail and services industries. The most dramatic decrease in the reporting requirement will come within the agriculture, forestry and fishing segment. On the same basis, there will be exemptions for 5,113 Canadian corporations, leaving only 56 corporations to report.

Overall, 96,800 Canadian-owned companies will be exempt from reporting if Bill S-10 is passed in its present form.
And now, Mr. Speaker, given those significant figures, we have every right to ask the following question: Will there be enough companies left to report under CALURA so as to appropriately meet our needs? In other words, will CALURA have the same impact and the same raison d'etre after those exemptions? Let me assure the House that the integrity of CALURA will not be jeopardized in any way.

We have made an analysis based on the new threshold. It shows that in terms of assets, over 81 per cent of all corporate activity in Canada will be recorded on the CALURA questionnaire. Notwithstanding the 96 corporations that we have eliminated, I repeat, 81 per cent of corporate activity will be caught by the statute.
Pursuing the analysis industry by industry, we discover that future reporting under CALURA will include companies with over 85 per cent of all manufacturing assets, in mining, approximately 95 per cent and in utilities about the same percentage. In the entire non-financial segment, over 76 per cent, and in the finance sector 85 per cent, will be required to report. We, therefore, have a happy situation whereby through Bill S-10 we can exempt all but 17,000 Canadian-owned companies and at the same time capture the information considered essential.
To conclude this review of the new thresholds and their impact on business, I should like to point out that under the bill before us today there will be slightly more than 9,000 foreign-owned companies that will be liable to report ownership data-and I do stress, ownership data. Canadian-controlled corporations that also have to report would total just under an; under an amended CALURA and under the proposed amendments, less than 8,000 companies will have to report consolidated financial information. Only about 2,000 companies will have to complete the schedules on technology transfer.

July 8, 1981
Corporations and Labour Unions
In other words, with passage of Bill S-10 we will have a streamlined, up-to-date piece of legislation providing us with the information we need with the least possible amount of paperwork.
1 hope that we can conclude third reading of this bill today. These amendments, having been in the legislative process for years, are now ready. As I have indicated, their time has come. I reiterate what I said earlier, that I appreciate the co-operation and the contribution that has been made in improving this bill by members of the committee. The bill has come out of committee improved, although at the outset when proposals were being made I had some doubt. We now have an up-to-date bill which we have been trying to get through the legislative process for about three and a half years. Hopefully, we are now in the last 20 or 25 minutes of debate on it. 1 would be very pleased if it were possible for this bill to be passed this afternoon.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, I have a few brief comments to make on third reading of Bill S-10. In many ways I support what the minister has said. In fact, I think we have before us today an example of what can happen in this place sometimes when there is some co-operation between the government of the day, the minister of the day and all members of the House of Commons. I do not think there has been any serious disagreement that some bill in the form of S-10 is overdue. The main disagreement was whether we were sure that the threshold limits as originally proposed in Bill S-10 are low enough to ensure that many of the comparatively small businesses will not be caught up in this unnecessary paper burden in the future.
As the minister indicated during the committee hearings, there was discussion and then agreement that there should be amendments raising the threshold in the case of revenue in each company from $10 million to $15 million a year and in the case of assets raising the limit from $5 million to $10 million per year. In the case foreign subsidiaries, there was a rather complicated section which would have required companies doing business here who happen to have a mere $200,000 of foreign investment to file in accordance with the act. We were able to get the minister's agreement and also the committee's agreement to have that requirement amended so there is a much more reasonable threshold limit all round.
In short, I see no reason to delay the bill further. I hope the Senate will agree with the changes that have been made in this House.
In handling this bill in future months and years, I hope the minister will always bear in mind, and he gave us his undertaking in committee, that if there is any suggestion of an undue paper burden remaining on small businesses, he will take the steps provided for in the bill to relieve that paper burden still further, and perhaps raise the threshold even higher. He has indicated from across the House that he is writing it in blood today. I am sure if we can get this minister to write such a commitment in his own blood-


Jean-Jacques Blais: I was touching wood!


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: The minister says he is touching wood. Perhaps that is something like what he has in his veins, I am not sure.
In short, I do not think there is any particular difficulty on our side of the House with the bill in its present form. I hope that in future years whoever has responsibility for this bill will always bear in mind that if it can be altered to relieve business still further from the necessity of having to file unnecessary paperwork, then at the earliest opportunity that will be done.


Hon. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, we too are pleased that the government was willing when this bill was in committee to make a number of amendments to it and to make it a bill that is generally more acceptable.
Speaking on behalf of trade unions in this country, 1 can say that in general they do not like the Corporations and Labour Unions Returns Act, but they would rather have it with the amendments proposed in Bill S-10 than as it stands at the present time.
Therefore, we are prepared to give third reading to this bill.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.


VETERANS' LAND ACT
J. Gilles Lamontagne: that Bill C-79, to amend the Veterans' Land Act and to amend the Veterans Benefits Act in consequence thereof, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs.
He said: Mr. Speaker, it is a great pleasure for me to introduce this bill today. It is a very complex bill in that it took about four or five years to get through it, legally and otherwise.
In proposing these amendments to the Veterans' Land Act, the government is acting to bring this legislation into accord with current social conventions. This legislation has been a valuable ally of veterans and their families for almost 40 years. Now, however, the act needs to reflect the changes that are taking place in our society.
Our amendments will ensure that the Veterans' Land Act no longer frustrates the aims of family law legislation in many provinces. In addition, these amendments will allow the veteran greater freedom in planning his estate. But as we move to amend the Veterans' Land Act, let us pause to review its benefits.
[ Translation]
Close to 144,000 veterans have been getting these benefits. In excess of $1.34 billion in public funds have helped to set up veterans on farms, on small homesteads or as commercial
July 8, 1981

fishermen and trappers. They have also been helped in continuing to be real Canadians and to be very active in today's society.
Even now, close to 38,000 veterans still live on properties which come under the Veterans Land Administration. Our country has gotten its fair reward. We also have gotten ours since so many gallant people have been able to settle on the land for which they had fought. Very few parts of this country have not benefited from the Veterans' Land Act, and this has resulted in a healthy growth for Canada.
Moreover, many of these small homesteads are now prosperous farms that are in a position to feed thousands of people overseas and to make a major contribution to our gross national product. However, in spite of its acknowledged success, the Act is now seen as inadequate by groups or individuals who are concerned about women's rights.

The spouses of veterans, the vast majority of whom are women, enjoy no legal interest in the land on which they live. And as more than 90 per cent of all outstanding VLA agreements represent the matrimonial home, it is little wonder that our present legislation has been termed unjust in this area.
However, any shortcomings in the act have developed accidentally. The first priority of those legislators back in 1942 was to protect the veteran. The earlier Soldier Settlement Act had met with mixed success. The legislators wanted to restrict individual failures to a minimum. They surrounded the veteran land holder with safeguards.
As a result, whenever a veteran went to apply for a conditional grant and a subsidized interest rate loan, he also received protection. In a typical situation, the director of Veterans Land Administration purchased a property for the veteran and held title to it until the debt was repaid. The veteran was designated as a tenant at will and on a direct legal basis was considered to have no recognized financial interest in the property during the period of the contract. This arrangement ensured that the veteran was immune to any action taken by would be creditors.
In the early days of the VLA, such agreement was most beneficial both to the veteran and to the Crown. Both received considerable benefits. In the case of the veteran, the land was protected against any lien which could have represented a very heavy responsibility for the veteran leaseholder. As for the Crown, it merely could regain possession of the property and hand it back to another eligible veteran if need be.
However, Mr. Speaker, the spouse, the wife in most cases, had no right to any of the benefits provided in this mutually profitable agreement. Let us think for a moment of the case where the young wife had helped her husband with the downpayment for the purchase of the family home. Let us think also
Veterans' Land Act
of the rather frequent case of the wife bringing along property which would make the couple's farm more productive. If the husband was a veteran and if the couple decided to avail themselves of the benefits available under the Veterans Land Act in order to expand or improve their property, the wife had to waive any property right she had even to whatever assets she had personally contributed. Such a situation is not good enough today in 1981, but in 1942, the legislators did not see any harm in it. Times have changed.

But as we well know, society has changed and veterans are not isolated from the joys and disappointments of marriage. There has been a dramatic increase in the number of cases before the courts for divorce, legal separation and property settlement. And along with the increase in marital breakdowns has come the valid charge that the Veterans' Land Act is not in concert with today's realities.
The reason is that with no dower, homestead of family rights in the veteran's property, the spouse is clearly at a disadvantage. Such a situation contradicts the purpose of the far-reaching changes that have been made in family law legislation in a number of provinces.
Such provincial legislation states, in effect, that irrespective of who holds title to the matrimonial home the statutory presumption is that on divorce or on marriage breakdown each spouse is entitled to a one-half interest in the matrimonial home.
Even in provinces where such legislation exists, the VLA property is virtually immune to the joint ownership principle. The wife can ask the court to declare that she has an interest in the property to be held in trust by the veteran, but this involves expensive legal action and many spouses are unaware of the legal intricacies. In addition, any interest she may receive will be of no benefit until the loan is repaid.
Away from the unhappiness of a family court, our present legislation can be a source of irritation for those many couples who still enjoy a happy marriage. By restricting the property agreement to the veteran alone, and by making him, in effect, a tenant on his own land, the legislation hampers estate planning.
[ Translation]
The Government has been trying for some time now to find an honourable and efficient way of solving this problem. We had to protect the vested interests of veterans in wartime while acknowledging the justified claim of the spouse who was not a veteran. More specifically, the properties involved are as much owned by the Crown as this Parliament. Mr. Speaker, I think that this amendment is the logical and acceptable solution under the circumstances.

Lirst, we are proposing to amend Section 37 of the act in order that the spouse has rights in the matrimonial home as provided by provincial legislation.

July 8, 1981
Veterans' Land Act
f Translation]
For equity's sake, Mr. Speaker, we also suggest a second amendment. It would allow the voluntary conversion of the sale contract to a mortgage when a 10-year conditional grant had been received. There is no change whatsoever in the interest rates provided for in the contract. Such a conversion to a conventional mortgage is acceptable to many veterans and their spouses anxious to hold the titles on their assets and funds as well as their ownership rights.

Before concluding, 1 would like to state that prior to introducing this legislation we consulted with the Royal Canadian Legion, the veterans' association and the commission on the status of women who reacted favourably to this bill. I am sure we can agree that this is a good bill and that it should be passed quickly.


Mr. Joe Reid (St. Catharines):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to reply on behalf of Eler Majesty's loyal opposition with respect to Bill C-79. As a veteran I have a personal interest in veterans' legislation and it is with real interest and concern that I address this bill. It is a bill I think veterans will approve and it is one lawyers will also applaud. I shall return to this aspect later in my remarks.
Before I address the various provisions of this bill-and I say this for the interest of the Chair-I would like to make a few favourable and complimentary comments on the Veterans' Land Act, its implementation, application and administration. These comments should make it clear why the PC party supports the proposed legislation.
It is a sad fact of life that memory is imperfect. Few, if any, could reconstruct with accuracy what it was like to return to Canada following the Second World War, or, conversely, what it was like to welcome home the veterans of foreign wars. Major readjustments were necessary for both veterans and civilians.
Fortunately, Parliament had acted three years earlier to pass the Veterans' Land Act, a major rehabilitation program designed to assist veterans in their return to civilian life. Under this act a veteran could receive financial assistance to purchase land for the purpose of full or part-time farming or commercial fishing. The financial assistance received would be repayable in the same way a mortgage would, save that title to the property would be held by the director of the Veterans' Land Act until such time as the veteran had repaid the loan.
Subsequent amendments to this act extended its provisions to include veterans of the Korean war and to assist those veterans wishing to construct their own homes.
By making funds available to veterans to acquire land, the Veterans' Land Act enabled some 144,000 of our veterans to re-enter civilian society quickly and productively. Indeed, in 1980 there were still over 40,000 veterans covered under the act.
With the passage of time it became necessary for Parliament to commence the phasing-out of this program. As a
result, in March, 1977, loans under the act came to a halt, meaning that we have entered the final phase. Once all loans have been repaid and all titles to the various properties transferred, the Veterans' Land Act will for all intents and purposes have completed its job. This is expected to occur in the year 2007, 26 years from now.
Over the years since its enactment in 1942, the administration of the Veterans' Land Act has been excellent. The Auditor General's report spoke highly of the program and, to my knowledge, the Royal Canadian Legion has never had a serious complaint with the administration of the program. Hence, it is to the credit of the department that we can attribute the success of the Veterans' Land Act. All of which is not to say that updating amendments are not necessary, and it is to the legislation before us that I would now like to direct my comments.
Bill C-79 will be welcomed by many segments of our society. Lawyers will be happy to see the end of the cumbersome and long forms of agreement they were never able to explain to veterans. By virtue of the changes in this bill, veterans will be enabled to acquire title in their own right to the land which they occupy by way of deed. They will be able to show whatever debt or encumbrance is registered against those lands by way of charge or mortgage, just as any other person can do.
Spouses of veterans, most of whom are women, will welcome the bill, bringing as it does today's concept of spousal rights in property that she probably spent years in assisting to improve. This was a major recommendation of the Progressive Conservative Party and this minister's predecessor in office, the hon. member for Victoria (Mr. McKinnon). Only in one area do I have a question, and that question relates to Clause 7 which repeals former Section 24 and substitutes a new Section 24. This section refers to the sale of lands held by the director under a contract with the veteran and where, as a result of that sale, there are moneys owing to the veteran, a surplus if you will, after the payment of debts and costs accruing to the veteran. That surplus is due and owing to the veteran.
The section goes on to provide that where the sale is made on a term basis, the director may make payment to the veteran, as the director determines payment to be warranted. I know what is intended here. It is that payment cannot be made to the veteran until payments under that term agreement are received by the director. However, it seems to me that the section could have been phrased differently to avoid what appears to be an absolute discretion in the director to pay over the surplus moneys dues and owing to the veteran, at a time when the director at his own discretion feels payment is warranted. The clause could even go on to say that the director should make payment to the veteran as payments are received by the director, and I trust that the minister will find time to take the opportunity to give the House some assurance on that particular point.
As I stated earlier, the Veteran's Land Act was a singularly good one, as has been its administration. The long-standing
July 8, 1981

complaint of the Conservative party, that the act did not address itself to the rights of the spouse, has now been answered and, as such, we are happy to lend our support to the bill.
It would be remiss of me, however, amid all the magnanimity, not to say that, with the spirit of co-operation which the government now sees from the Conservative party, we expect additional veterans' legislation to follow. Specifically, given the advancing age of our veterans, the phasing-in period of the provisions of Bill C-40 regarding widows whose husbands were in receipt of less than 48 per cent disability pensions should be shortened. The lengthy pension application delays are fast approaching the level of a national disgrace and we would expect the government to act quickly on this matter.
Further, the payment of prisoner of war compensation should be changed to add to, not subtract from, disability pensions veterans might be seeking. It is ridiculous to speak of prisoner of war compensation when in fact the resultant payment is not better or worse than a disabled veteran would ordinarily receive.
Finally, in these troubled financial times pension increases should be based on a meaningful index that will reflect current inflation rates, not the government's chimerical hopes. We hope the amendments presented will remedy some of those complaints. Bill C-79 is a good bill. It is one that follows the recommendations of this party and I look forward to the introduction of those further amendments in the very near future. I thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I thank the minister through you.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to indicate our full support for Bill C-79 which is now before us. If it is possible to be happier still, that is what I shall be in a day or two when we have before us Bill C-82. It will be a day to which I look forward.
My hon. friend, the hon. member for St. Catharines (Mr. Reid), expressed a hope about Bill C-82. The only advantage I have over him is that it got first reading today and I have seen it. I notice he was asking for the phasing-in period to be shortened. It has been wiped out altogether. That is not related to this bill, Mr. Speaker, but it is pretty important news and that bill will get speedy passage in this House of Commons.
What is before us now is Bill C-79 which has to do with the Veterans' Land Act. Like the minister who spoke in introducing this bill, like the hon. member for St. Catharines who spoke in support of it, I too want to say this has been a very important piece of legislation, passed back in 1942, the year I was first elected to this House, though it was passed before I got here. It has been of great benefit to veterans and their families across the years.
We were pleased during a certain period in the life of this Parliament, 1972 to 1974, known as the minority period, that we were able to get an extension to the lifetime of the Veterans' Land Act. We wish we could have had it extended longer, but at least it did delay a bit the cutting off of the benefits under that act.
Veterans' Land Act
As the minister has pointed out, there are still 38,000 cases where the title is still in the hands of the director, and that makes the two changes which are presented to us today very important.
The first one makes this a great day for veterans. It also makes it another great day in a series of days that it seems to take to achieve equality between men and women. We make speeches about needing equality. We want it right away, but the facts of life are such that we have to take a step at a time. This is an important step, and I was glad to hear the minister say that not only had he been in consultation with the Legion and other veterans' organizations, but he had also been in consultation with women's groups as well.
One understands that 40 years ago the legislation provided for the land to be that of the veteran without any special rights for the spouse, especially if there was a breakdown in marriage or if the spouse was left a widow. But times have changed and it is good that we have caught up with one of those changes. In other words, the main thing this bill does is to establish for spouses of veterans, so far as the ownership of the land is concerned, the same rights in respect of VLA land that apply in the province to properties held under civil contract. This means that if there is a breakdown in marriage the spouse who has put a good deal into the development of the property can claim her share of it. It also means that if the veteran dies and leaves the spouse a widow, her rights to that property are continued.
The other main aspect of the legislation is to provide that for a veteran who is alone, or a veteran and a spouse, the ownership of the property, instead of continuing as though he or they were just tenants on land owned by the director, would have the conventional mortgage relationship, so that a veteran or the survivor could make a sale or use the value of the VLA holding in planning the estate, planning retirement or transferring it to somebody else, and so on.
All told, this is a good piece of legislation. Though the motion before us calls for the bill to be referred after second reading to the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs, I am sure I speak for all of us in the House when I say I would be quite happy to have it go into a Committee of the Whole in order to complete the full passage of this bill at this time.
I say again how important the Veterans' Land Act has been as a piece of veterans legislation. We are glad we are making these improvements to it. As the last speaker said, there are other matters still to be dealt with. We will deal with one of them when we get to Bill C-82, whether tomorrow or Friday. Then there are other questions, such as the speeding up of the handling of cases by the Canadian Pension Commission, and the fundamental issue of tying the rate of the 100 per cent war disability pension to the level of those five designated categories so that the increase of those pensions is automatic.
Those matters are not before us today, but the last thing I would want to do would be to give my friend the Acting Minister of Veterans Affairs the impression that the job is

July 8, 1981
Veterans' Land Act
done. He has done well to have these two matters before us now, second reading of this bill and first reading of Bill C-82 on the same day, but there are other things to do. I am sure he has the interests of veterans and their families at heart and, when we get these bills out of the way, we will be ready to move on.
As I say, we are quite prepared that this bill now be given second reading, that it be considered in Committee of the Whole and that it be given third reading this afternoon.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Pursuant to the suggestion made by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), I understand there may be a disposition in all parts of the House that this bill proceed through all stages immediately.


Walter David Baker: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I join with my friend, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). We are anxious to see the matter completed and sent to the Senate as quickly as possible.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: With the unanimous consent of the House the minister's motion will be altered so that Bill C-79 will, by unanimous consent, be referred to the Committee of the Whole. Is there unanimous agreement?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and, by unanimous consent, the House went into committee thereon-Mr. Blaker in the chair.
On Clause 1-
Gordon Edward Taylor: Mr. Chairman, I would like to direct a question to the minister. Could the minister tell us when these various clauses come into effect? Is it upon proclamation or immediately upon Royal Assent?


Mr. Lamontagne:: As soon as Royal Assent is given.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 2 to 8 inclusive agreed to.
On Clause 9-Priority of Director over mechanics' lien and other liens
Mr. Neil:: Mr. Chairman, I have a question in connection with Clause 9. I would like to ask the minister whether, by virtue of Section 37(2), the rights of a mechanics' lienholder are defeated. In other words, does the order that a wife or a dependant obtains in court giving her a claim to a property give her priority over the rights of mechanics' lienholders and thus defeat those rights?


Maurice Lamontagne: Mechanics' liens apparently do not apply until the court order is made.


Douglas Charles Neil: It seems to me that if there are mechanics' liens registered against the title and then a wife or a dependant gets a court order against the veteran husband, then by virtue of subsection (2) the rights of the mechanics' lienholders are wiped out. I want to find out if that is correct.


Maurice Lamontagne: When a spouse goes to court, only her property is involved in this court procedure.


Mr. Lambert:: Mr. Chairman, there is a little difficulty here since property rights are a provincial matter. There is nothing in the federal act which could defeat, for instance, a spouse's dower rights in a property occupied by a veteran and his spouse, although the property was in the name of the director. I am confirmed in that.
Subsection (2), appearing at line 28 says, and I quote:
Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, an order made or a judgment rendered by a court of competent jurisdiction to recognize or enforce the rights, interest or estate of the spouse or a dependant of a veteran in land that is the subject of a contract of sale, mortgage or hypothec under this Act applies to and is binding on the land subject to the rights, interest or estate of the director in the land.
So therefore those dower rights and what have you are not wiped out. The director has an interest in them, just like a mortgage company has an interest in land which is ahead of dower rights, provided the spouse has signed her consent under dower legislation. In any event, with the greatest respect, I cannot see how any federal act dealing with land could affect property rights in any of the provinces. Therefore, such spouse interest that arises under a dower act, as in the province of Alberta, my own province, could not be defeated by any legislation in this House. However, there is, in my humble opinion, no such attempt here. The legislation here only confirms what is in existence.


Maurice Lamontagne: According to officials the hon. member's reasoning in the way he states it is not exactly correct. It does not change anything because at the moment the wife has no recognized interest in the property itself. However, this will give her a right with respect to the property, so it is completely changed instead of retaining the status quo.


Gordon Edward Taylor: Mr. Chairman, the new provisions in this particular bill will be advantageous with respect to current cases and cases in the future, but our veterans are largely from the Second World War. It has been quite a while since 1946, and there has been a number of cases in which these provisions were not applicable because they were not in the law. Is there any provision whereby these provisions, which would have been applicable had they been the law, could now be made applicable to such persons?


Maurice Lamontagne: Would the hon. member repeat his question so that my official can understand exactly his meaning?


Gordon Edward Taylor: I would be glad to, Mr. Chairman. The provisions of this bill now make certain benefits available to spouses. These benefits have not been available to spouses since 1946 and will not be until this bill becomes law. Conse-
July 8, 1981

quently, there have been some very sad cases. Is there any provision in this bill which would make it possible to go back and rectify some of the things which have happened?


Maurice Lamontagne: Mr. Chairman, there is no retroactivity, but the cases which are in court now can come back in new court cases under the new bill.


Gordon Edward Taylor: But any case not in court now is out?


Maurice Lamontagne: Yes, it is out.


Gordon Edward Taylor: That is rather sad because the bill comes in just about 30 years too late to help many people. I do not know whether the minister and his officials are aware that there may only be a handful, but there have been some cases which have been very unfortunate and sad.
We like to treat our veterans and their spouses in a way we can be proud of. Since almost 40 years have gone by since the end of the war-there are very few veterans left from the First World War-it seems to me that where there is definite evidence that something has been done which should be rectified, if that could be done it would certainly be appreciated by veterans all over Canada who do not have any particular interest in this bill at the moment.
In many cases civilization is recognized by the way we treat our senior citizens and our veterans, particularly our veterans, because they are a particular class in this country. All veterans offered their lives to the country and so they are in a particular group. Their wives and children have suffered in a particular way over the years because many veterans left part of their lives on the battlefields. I realize retroactivity is difficult, but I would greatly appreciate it if the minister could at least look at some of these cases to see if something can be done for the very sad cases that occurred because these provisions were not available.


Maurice Lamontagne: Mr. Chairman, I can assure the hon. member for Bow River that I will see if any cases can be treated with compassion. Being a veteran and former POW myself, I can appreciate his concern and I assure the hon. member I have the same concern for these cases.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Chairman, coming back to the question I raised before, I wonder if the minister has considered the situation of a mortgage, for instance, or any transfer from a veteran to the director on a financing transaction. If in the province of Alberta it did not contain a consent under the dower act, I am afraid the director would have been in very serious trouble. There is no way a federal law could unilaterally set aside that right of dower. That applies to anyone and everyone.
I may come back to that question because I do not think, in essence, there is very much difference now. If there had not been consent by the spouse under the dower act, or if the veteran was single at the time he sold or financed the property,
Veterans' Land Act
with the director, then possibly the law is now being changed somewhat, but not that much.
The other very interesting point, one that no one has yet raised, is in clause 9 at the top of page 7, the definition of "spouse". Perhaps the minister would like to indicate there whether this is recognizing the, shall we say, social consideration of the so-called common law spouse in that there is provision that if her interest is recognized under the laws of a province concerning land, then naturally such an interest is recognized under the Veterans' Land Act. I think that is a step forward, although I must say I have taken grave exception, and still do, to the changes in the Veterans Insurance Act and other veterans' benefits. A veteran living common law for, in one case, one year, in other cases for three years, can set aside all the rights of a legitimate spouse who has raised a family and lived with the veteran for many years. Then the veteran for one reason or another decides to cultivate greener fields and perhaps recycle himself with a younger woman, and thereby defeats all of the legitimate interests of his spouse. I was absolutely astounded that my good friend, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, did not raise an objection. I voted against it as I would right now if it were up to me because I think this is an absolute disgrace in our veterans legislation.
There are two areas of disgrace in our veterans legislation. One deals with the interests of the legitimate spouse of a veteran. Under the disability act, the Veterans Insurance Act and possibly one other act, a veteran living with a woman who is not his legal spouse gives her rights which extinguish the rights of the legal spouse. I think this is bad law, and I would hope some time to have the opportunity of discussing this with the minister so we can go back to what it was before, namely living together openly for seven years. That made it much more difficult. Frankly, right now far too much of it is open to what I might call gold digging, if that is worth anything.
I hope when we get to Bill C-82 that the minister, a former prisoner of war, will see the grave injustice done to POWs under the prisoners of war compensation act, more than 70 per cent of whom are pensioners and who find themselves disentitled either to a portion of their disability pension or of their compensation. The two are supposed to be separate, yet in the minds of the department they have been melded for these years. I hope we will have an opportunity to discuss that.
In this particular instance I think there has to be a consideration. There is no indication as to the time involved in this common law arrangement, or under what circumstances it would apply. That interpretation is left to provincial law. I think I would like to have an explanation of this. Of course, in some provinces this would not be allowed. In others it would. I suppose it is a case of the federal statute bowing before provincial jurisdiction in property and civil rights, but I wonder if I can have an explanation of the circumstances in which this definition of "spouse" is applicable.

July 8, 1981
Veterans' Land Act


Maurice Lamontagne: As far as the definition of spouse or dependant goes, I think, as we say in French "autres temps, autres moeurs". As the hon. member for Edmonton West has mentioned, we are living in another time and today "common law wife" is often defined by the courts. In cases where veterans have some problems regarding the question of marital status, we must go to the provincial court which will decide on a solution to the problem. In other words, we submit ourselves the provincial court which will eventually decide these cases.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clause 10 to 12 inclusive agreed to.
On Clause 13-Persons qualified to participate
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, since this is the last clause of this bill there is one other word I should like to say. We welcome this bill because of the recognition of equal status between men and women. I think we should add to that that the equality set out in this bill really goes all the way. For the most part we have talked about the spouse as though in all cases the spouse were female. As a matter of fact, it works both ways. If the veteran is the female then the spouse is a male and he draws the same benefits as would be the case the other way around. In other words, in this piece of legislation we have taken equality all the way. I hope we will do that in some of the other cases. I hope we will reach the point where the survivor's pension, when it involves a female, will be the same as when it involves a male. I am grateful for this provision. I can tell by the smile on the face of the hon. member for York-South Weston that she is agreeing.
As I said earlier, we welcome every step toward equality and I am glad the minister in charge of veterans affairs has taken this important one today.


Gordon Edward Taylor: Mr. Chairman, I wish to make two comments. It is too bad that the present minister was not the minister 25 years ago, since a lot of heartache would have been avoided. It is nice to have a minister who has gone through the toughness of war. I think it does something for a person. I would like to commend the minister on his very compassionate views on veterans and others.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Gordon Edward Taylor: There is one other point I would like to add. The minister is also very interested in veterans' children and other people's children who do not have money enough for a holiday. I would like to thank the minister personally for the part he has played in helping some 150 boys last year, and again this year, to have a holiday. We appreciate that very much.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.

J. Gilles Lamontagne: that Bill C-81, to amend the Official Residences Act, be read the second time and, by unanimous consent, referred to Committee of the Whole.


Mr. Raymond Savard (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I sponsor today Bill C-81, to amend the Official Residences Act. Since the act was implemented in its amended form in 1970, the Department of Public Works has been responsible for providing the services required for the official residences, and the National Capital Commission has been in charge of the maintenance and improvement of the grounds on which these residences are located. As parliamentary secretary, and speaking on behalf of the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Cosgrove), who is also responsible for the National Capital Commission, I believe that Bill C-81 contributes to reinforce the truly democratic parliamentary process which has long attested the strength of Canada.
Throughout the years, parliamentary proceedings have dragged on because of the increasingly complex issues brought before Parliament. In the past, sessions were shorter and recesses longer. However, our country's business now requires a total commitment on the part of parliamentarians.
The present government believes, and I am sure that all members here will agree, that the task of governing the country is a source of ever-increasing pressures and requires a greater involvement in terms of time and energy from all of us. The government also believes that one of those who has the most difficult task to perform is the Leader of the Official Opposition. In order to ease the problems associated with his office, the government has introduced this bill.
This bill, to amend the Official Residences Act, deals with many issues which I would like to address. First of all, it provides for the establishment of a summer residence for the Leader of the Official Opposition. Other amendments deal with the provision of the residence, on land allocated by the National Capital Commission, and of furnishings as well as with the maintenance and repair of such residence; second, the bill provides for the appointment of a steward or housekeeper and up to three other employees for Stornoway, the residence of the Leader of the Official Opposition.
Section 6 of the existing act would be amended to provide for the appropriation of moneys by Parliament for the pay-
July 8, 1981

ment of the remuneration of persons so employed and the payment of other expenses related to their employment. This measure was discussed in detail and unanimously approved by the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates. I am confident, Mr. Speaker, that members on both side of the House will be happy with this move and will give their unanimous support to this bill.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, as the parliamentary secretary has pointed out, this bill deals with the allocation and refurbishment of a summer residence for the Leader of the Opposition together with a provision for staffing Stornoway, which is in the City of Ottawa, the Village of Rockcliffe.
By way of background, it is useful to note that at the request of the Privy Council Office the National Capital Commission has conducted a survey of properties within its inventory which could be considered appropriate for such purposes. The National Capital Commission has been looking at this project for some time and the present government has now seen fit to take the sponsorship of this project with respect to the Leader of the Opposition at this particular point in time.
I guess I should point out that it will be up to the government to make an assessment, and that will be another matter again, with respect to the kind of facility and the location which will be decided upon. It is exclusively within the prerogative of the government to make that kind of assessment, and it will be a matter which I suppose members of Parliament will have an opportunity to examine in the course of committee considerations. However, I assume that prior to making any decision the government will consult the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark).
The parliamentary secretary mentioned that Clause 3 of the bill provides for the appointment of a steward or housekeeper and up to three other employees to be employed at Stornoway. 1 think it will be also helpful to note that prior to the 1979 election no staff was provided for the Leader of the Opposition at Stornoway. When the present Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) was Leader of the Opposition, he made a request through an emissary to the present Leader of the Opposition, who was then the Prime Minister. The request was granted and the staff provided to him. This bill, therefore, regularizes that arrangement on behalf of the present Prime Minister when he occupied the position of Leader of the Opposition.
I will not succumb to the temptation to suggest that the government is bringing forward this legislation in order to ensure that the leader of the Liberal party, after the next election, will have a suitable residence somewhere in the Gatineau Hills! I will not succumb to that particular temptation.


An hon. Member:: Wishful thinking!
Diplomatic Immunities


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: I will only say that we, of course, have no objection to this bill proceeding, and we will consent to the matter going through all stages, including Committee of the Whole stage and third reading today, so that the matter can be referred to the Senate.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, considered in committee, reported, read the third time and passed.

J. Gilles Lamontagne: that Bill C-14, to amend the Diplomatic and Consular Privileges and Immunities Act, be read the second time and by unanimous consent, referred to Committee of the Whole.


Mr. Louis Duclos (Parliamentary Secretary to the Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, the bill which is before the House this afternoon deals with the establishment and operation of proposed embassies or consulates in Canada by persons not representing a sovereign state or not representing a government recognized by Canada.
The new legislation would make it an offence to engage in such conduct, enabling the courts to prohibit the representation of such premises as a diplomatic mission or a consular post. Actually, this bill seeks to resolve a sensitive problem which may occur at any given time and create for Canada some embarrassment on the international scene. Furthermore, such a situation would most likely create tension in Canada's bilateral relations with the country concerned.
I should point out that the Vienna conventions on diplomatic and consular relations annexed to the Diplomatic and Consular Privileges and Immunities Act are declaratory of customary international law and have the force of law in Canada. It is clear in the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Regulations, Article 2:
the establishment of diplomatic relations between states and of permanent diplomatic missions takes place by mutual consent.
Article 4( 1) of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations provides that
"a consular post may be established in the territory of the receiving state only with that state's consent."
It would certainly be consistent with the spirit of Canada's obligations under the Vienna conventions to take the necessary measures to prevent the opening of such so-called embassies or consulates when they are opened without Canada's consent, and when they purport to represent a country or a government not recognized by Canada.
Let me point out, in conclusion, that the legislation is not directed against any particular group by name. It therefore should not affect the present representation of Baltic States in Canada.

July 8, 1981
Diplomatic Immunities


Hon. Flora MacDonald (Kingston and the Islands):: Mr. Speaker, Bill C-14, an act to amend the Diplomatic and Consular Privileges and Immunities Act, has the support of members of my party. We would like to see speedy passage accorded to it through all stages of legislation. The bill has emerged several times on the legislative docket in previous Parliaments, and, indeed, was introduced into the other place by the Clark government as Bill S-ll and given first reading on November 29, 1979.
The major thrust of the bill is to make it an offence to establish or to continue the operation of an embassy or consulate in Canada by persons not representing a sovereign state or a government recognized by Canada. From time to time, as we are aware, political groups and movements emerge which claim the right to full diplomatic recognition by other states and all the perquisites and prerogatives which accompany such an action.
It is proper that Canada state in legislative terms that no person or group of persons who do not represent a sovereign state shall have those privileges, so that any questions of doubt which linger in the minds of persons or organizations that do not enjoy legislative sovereign authority shall be laid to rest once and for all as far as this country is concerned.
As the Parliamentary Secretary to the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Duclos) has said, the Vienna Conventions on Diplomatic and Consular Relations set out the premises on which missions can be established, and Bill C-14 reiterates those understandings.
We would not want to see diplomatic or consular rights accorded to representatives of other than a sovereign state in this country, and in the same manner we would not tolerate that such recognition be given by other countries to groups or movements which might originate in Canada.
The bill makes it an offence to represent one's country illegally, an offence which is punishable on summary conviction. This bill then, denies diplomatic recognition to those who do not merit such status because they are not representatives of a sovereign state or government. We agree with the premise set out in Bill C-14.
We have been talking about groups to which diplomatic privileges should not be extended. I should like to take this opportunity, because so few opportunities are afforded us, to say a few words in appreciation of the tremendous work done by the person to whom diplomatic and consular status is given.
Canadians serve their country abroad in 117 countries, in positions ranging from high commissioner, ambassador to clerk. They put in long hours, often under difficult and trying circumstances, and in increasingly dangerous and uncertain conditions. They do so exceedingly well. The men and women sent from Canada to whom diplomatic and consular privileges and immunities are extended, generally play an unsung role, though from time to time they receive the well merited thanks of thousands of Canadians who journey to other countries.
Because the good deeds of our diplomatic and consular personnel largely go unnoticed by the majority of Canadians, it was indeed a good thing that an event such as the Canadian caper came along, that is the successful escape of six Americans from Tehran, which was engineered by the Canadian Embassy-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Flora Isabel MacDonald: -so that we can be reminded by an event such as that of the excellent work done by our overseas staff.
In the Iranian Embassy episode, not only the work of Ambassador Ken Taylor can be highlighted, but also that of all those who served in Iran during those days. I would just like to mention their names so that they will go on the record of Parliament. They are: Ken and Pat Taylor, John and Zena Sheardown, Roger Lucy, Mary O'Flaherty, Laverna Dol-limore, Sergeant Claude Gauthier, Sergeant J. G. Edward, Master Corporal George E. Brian, Corporal J. A. Goss and Corporal Allan B. Haley.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Naturally, not all the work undertaken by Canadian government personnel overseas can be quite as dramatic, but it does merit our thanks and commendation, and I take this opportunity to do so.
I notice that a technical error has been corrected in Clause I of the bill. That clause states that if it appears the privileges and immunities accorded to the Canadian diplomatic mission in any country are less than those conferred by this act on the country's diplomatic mission or consular post here, the government may withdraw the privileges and immunities so conferred. In other words, through Clause 1, we are exchanging reciprocal privileges.
But that raises the very real question as to whether reciprocal privileges are, in reality, being accorded to all Canadian missions abroad at the present time, in the same way that privileges and immunities are extended to foreign missions here.
For instance, are there no restrictions on travel within the Soviet Union and perhaps in other Eastern bloc countries imposed on Canadian personnel in a manner that is not imposed on those countries' representatives here? Do all countries where we have missions extend the same opportunities for spouses to be gainfully employed as are accorded in this country? Are there reciprocal arrangements regarding tax exemptions, convertibility of funds, and the right to purchase or dispose of certain personal effects? I not only doubt it, but know that in some cases the same privileges and immunities are not extended to Canadians serving abroad as the host country receives here in Canada, and I would like to hear from the parliamentary secretary during his concluding remarks how strictly the government is going to adhere to the letter of the law.
It is important, both for the morale and convenience of our personnel serving abroad, from whatever department they
July 8, 1981

originate, that they receive the benefit of all the privileges and immunities to which they are entitled.
Having stated that, Mr. Speaker, 1 would indicate that we are in general agreement with the purposes of Bill C-14.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Sid Parker (Kootenay East-Revelstoke):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of our House leader who is at the House leaders' meeting I wish to state that we endorse speedy passage of Bill C-14. This was agreed today at a House leaders' meeting and I have been asked to relay this message.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, considered in committee, reported, read the third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Tuesday, July 7, consideration of the motion of Mr. Chretien that Bill C-53, 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, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: The Chair has no understanding that there may be any disposition-


David Michael Collenette: Mr. Speaker, due to the co-operation received from the other side of the House this afternoon, we have gone through the legislation rather quickly. The hon. member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson) was to reply on behalf of his party on Bill C-53. 1 sent an urgent notice to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs to have him come to the House. 1 understand that he will be here shortly, and 1 hope we could have agreement that if there are other speakers for the Official Opposition, they could speak now and then and extend to the hon. member for Burnaby the normal courtesy when he appears.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: The hon. member for Saskatoon West (Mr. Hnatyshyn) had the floor the last time the bill was being debated.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: I had the floor. The parliamentary secretary was probably not aware of the fact that I was just clearing my throat last night and was getting warmed up for a further dissertation. He is quite right, however. I made an arrangement with the hon. member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson) that the next person to be called, because he is tied up in committee, would be a member from our side. I think the hon. member for Waterloo (Mr. McLean) is on his way over to ensure that there will be a continuation of this debate following my remarks.
Criminal Code


David Michael Collenette: Mr. Speaker, so as not to deprive any hon. members of the right to participate, perhaps we can agree that the hon. member for Saskatoon West (Mr. Hnatyshyn) can continue until the hon. member for Waterloo (Mr. McLean) arrives so that we do not find ourselves in the embarrassing situation of having members wanting to speak on the bill not having the right to do so because the time of the hon. member for Saskatoon West has expired.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: The Chair needs further explanation. It seems to me that the parliamentary secretary is proposing that an hon. member be ordered to continue speaking regardless of his wish.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I am sure that by the time we get over these points of order, the hon. member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson) will have had an opportunity to fly to Burnaby and return. As to the suggestion of the parliamentary secretary, it reminds me of an observation that Sir Winston Churchill once made. He suggested that if someone wanted him to speak for ten minutes, he should be given two weeks' notice, and that if someone wanted him to speak for half an hour, he should be given two days' notice, but if someone wanted him to speak for three or four hours, all that was needed was for that person to stand up on the floor of the House of Commons and suggest he carry on, thus giving him one minute's notice. I believe that is what the parliamentary secretary is suggesting.
However, I think the parliamentary secretary can assess the situation at the appropriate time. If I happen to complete my remarks and it so happens that the hon. member for Burnaby is not here, the parliamentary secretary can think about what he will do then. I do not know whether we can commit ourselves at this time.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: The hon. member for Saskatoon West (Mr. Hnatyshyn).


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I am rather surprised to be speaking again this afternoon. I thought we had a lot of business, and the House has indicated, by passing a number of bills that Parliament does live and that occasionally we do get through many pieces of legislation.
Last night I made a certain observation, and I am sorry that I have to make it again this afternoon in a different context. The fact that the hon. member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson) has finally shown up does not mean I will terminate my remarks now, after all those points of order. I intend to conclude my remarks. This bill is an important piece of legislation, as I said last night. I say it again today and I have said it before. I have said it on a number of occasions, as have other members of our party and other members of Parliament and as has been indicated by many members of the government party. I know that ministers from time to time have obligations and appointments to keep and occasionally they find it impossible to be in the House. This afternoon we have seen examples of parliamentary secretaries coming to the
11342

July 8, 1981
Criminal Code
House on what I would term not major bills, but bills that have received general consent in the House, technical bills on matters of lesser importance in terms of issues, but rarely do we see a situation when a major social or economic bill comes forward and the Minister of Justice (Mr. Chretien) refuses or neglects to be in the House of Commons during the course of the debate. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice (Mr. Irwin) is not even here to represent the minister. I thought it was bad enough last night that the parliamentary secretary led off this debate because there are important issues involved and there are important questions which arise by virtue of this legislation. The minister should be present to get the sense of the representations being made by members of Parliament who are dealing with this matter. I think it is incumbent on the minister himself to be present during the course of this debate.
I see the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice is now entering the House and I will retract my observations of him. But the minister was here today. His parliamentary secretary cannot say that the minister is not in Ottawa. The minister was present during question period. Maybe he is a little cowed or feeling somewhat hesitant about coming back to the House after the way he performed during question period. But the minister should be here for this legislation. I take particular exception to the fact that the minister is ignoring this legislation, and I reiterate that when we are talking about an important bill he should make up his mind whether or not he is interested in this portfolio. If he is not interested, then he should tender his resignation to the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) so that we can have someone on the treasury benches who is interested in the legislation.
Last night when I was interrupted by the bell, I was addressing some of the provisions of the bill before us relating to the amendments to the Criminal Code, particularly Sections
246.1	and 246.2. I was pointing out some of the concerns I had with respect to the operation of those new provisions. I generally support the thrust that is being taken, but I think we have to be careful, in our consideration of this legislation, to make sure that the best possible legislation is produced by the House of Commons and that it is legislation which will have the proper effect in carrying out the intentions of Parliament. I was talking about my concern with respect to some of the definitions and the precision of the definitions within the bill itself.
At the conclusion of yesterday's proceedings I pointed out that the term "sexual assault" is not defined in this legislation. The bill simply says that everyone who commits a sexual assault is guilty of an indictable offence.
There are real questions as to just what sexual assault is. The elements of the offence are not laid out within the legislation. For example, if a person, in an effort to strike another in the stomach, misdirects that blow and it lands in the groin area, how is that defined? Is it sexual assault under the definition of the bill? I point out that the Law Reform Commission's recommendations contain a clearer statement of the requisite mental attitude in committing the crime of sexual
assault. I think that is important. After all, in the context of criminal law we are dealing with the intention of the accused in each instance. That is the general principle we have in criminal law under our system. The commission suggested that the code should read:
Everyone who, for a sexual purpose, directly or indirectly touches a person-
It goes on to say then that that person commits an offence. I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that when we have an opportunity to look at this matter in committee, if that is possible during this session of Parliament, we will have to look carefully at the wording of Section 246.1 when studying this bill.
There is also considerable room for questioning the merits of the way in which the term "aggravated sexual assault" is defined in Section 246.2. This most serious offence comes into play only when a weapon is used during the assault or when serious bodily harm is caused. This formulation ignores entirely the issue of psychological harm as far as the complainant is concerned and it also ignores the conduct of the assailant, short of that which causes serious bodily harm. Let me deal with those two questions.
I think we should consider the inclusion of the notion of psychological harm under Section 246.2. Women are often advised not to resist a sexual attack so as not to suffer physical injury. That is not to say, however, that they may not be injured in a very real sense. An assailant who uses verbal threats or abuse can severely traumatize a victim and cause profound and lasting emotional damage. Statistics indicate that in 70 per cent of the cases that is the situation. It seems strange that an attacker who carries a knife but causes no physical injury would be liable to prosecution under Section 246.2, but an attacker who completely terrorizes a victim with verbal abuse and threats, and perhaps even forces a woman, through these threats, to commit particularly perverse or degrading acts would be liable only to punishment under Section 246.1.
These problems have to be looked at to make sure that we are not getting ourselves into the preposterous situation where the law is attempting to do one thing but has the consequence of reducing the kind of charge that may be placed against a person in a very serious set of circumstances. The specification of serious bodily harm in Section 246.2 must also be examined. This is a new and novel concept. The code presently uses the phrase "bodily harm" in Section 245. It does not contain any reference to serious bodily harm. This is a new term which takes us into uncharted waters. This is something which should be considered by the committee.
This bill changes the sentence for punishing persons who commit equivalent offences under the existing code. In some instances the penalties are higher under this bill and in some they are lower. For example, rape is now punishable by life imprisonment. Under the new system, sexual assault would carry a ten-year penalty. These are serious matters. I am sure that the members of the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs will want to consider the extent and nature of
July 8, 1981

the penalties and sanctions placed in the code in respect of these offences.
I understand the rationale behind the remarks of the parliamentary secretary and indeed behind the material sent out by the Department of Justice. These are serious offences. We must look closely at them and be able to satisfy ourselves that the appropriate penalty is being placed with respect to each of the offences that are created under this bill and in the subsequent amendments to the act.
Another area of the bill I want to consider today deals with the way in which complainants are dealt with during trial proceedings. As 1 remarked yesterday, rape trials in particular often take on the appearance of being an inquisition into the private and personal life of the victim rather than an assessment of the case against the accused. This situation is most regrettable and no doubt it accounts in large measure for the fact that only one out of eight rape cases are reported.
Victims simply do not want to subject themselves to the trial process. That is understandable. It is a very traumatic experience for many women. They have to go through the process of a lengthy trial. They are placed on the stand. They find this a very trying time, as well as the preliminary investigation where questions are asked by the police and others in positions of authority.
On the other hand, we must not lose sight of the rights of the accused. Sometimes it is very easy to miss the balance that is required in these matters. In attempting to solve one set of problems, other problems are created with regard to the basic and fundamental rights that an accused has traditionally had in this country. A delicate balance must be struck between the right of the accused to have a full and fair defence and the necessity of complainants not to be subjected to degrading or unreasonable treatment.
This bill contains a number of features aimed, to a greater or lesser degree, at the question of protecting the complainant and eliminating unrealistic roadblocks in the path of the prosecution. The bill specifies that corroboration is not required to obtain a conviction for a sexual offence. This provision is found in proposed Section 246.2. There is a further stipulation that no corroboration warning is required. However, subsection (2) makes it clear that a judge can still comment on the credibility of the witness. There are some troublesome problems associated with this proposal. First, it is badly drafted. Some simple but important changes are required to make the section clearer. More important, it is uncertain how this section will affect Section 586 of the code as it now reads. Section 586 states:
No person shall be convicted of an offence upon the unsworn evidence of a child unless the evidence ... is corroborated in a material particular by evidence that implicates the accused.
This section particularizes in the criminal law context the general provision contained in Section 16(2) of the Canada Evidence Act.
The problem is this. Section 586 and the proposed Section
246.3	are not compatible. Since victims of sexual attacks are often children and since attacks often take place in situations
Criminal Code
where there is no corroborative evidence, the corroboration requirements in Section 586 is an onerous one. Since Section 586 is more particular than the general provision advanced in this bill, it may well be interpreted as overriding the amendment proposed in Bill C-53. This issue will have to be taken up and an explanation given. Possibly there should be an amendment by the officials of the department and, hopefully, by the minister, if he sees fit to attend the committee meetings.
The second feature of Bill C-53 that relates to improving the lot of the complainant and streamlining the law to some extent is contained in what would become the new Section 246.4. This section in the words of the minister's information paper "abolishes" the doctrine of recent complaint. The section itself uses the word "abrogate". We must look closely at subsection (3) of Section 246.4. It provides that in certain proceedings where consent is an issue and where by virtue of subsection (2) evidence of a complaint could still be heard, a judge "is not required" to give the jury any direction respecting the lack of a complaint. There is a real possibility that this subsection will resurrect the present state of affairs whereby the fact that no complaint was made immediately after the incident can lead to an inference of consent.
The third matter I want to deal with in this part of my remarks concerns questions posed at trial about the previous sexual conduct of the complainant. Under the common law a denial of sexual contact with others by the complainant precluded any further inquiry into what was considered a collateral issue. It was also open to an accused to ask questions as to the complainant's general reputation for chastity as a matter going to credibility and consent. The accused was entitled to bring evidence to contradict an accusation of lack of chastity.
In 1976 the government attempted to put limits on questions about the complainant's sexual relations with persons other than the accused. Section 142 of the code was introduced to achieve this end. It provided for notices of questions and an in camera assessment by a judge as to whether the questions should be asked in open court. However, the Supreme Court of Canada's decision in Forsythe v. The Queen (June 27, 1980) had the effect of making Section 142 much less effective than had been hoped. Under the terms of the Supreme Court's ruling, an accused can now force a complainant to answer questions in open court and can adduce evidence to contradict her answers.
This bill contains a section which is aimed at narrowing the scope of questions about a complainant's conduct with persons other than the accused. Section 246.5 would require written notice of questions and would require that a judge assess their merit at an in camera hearing at which the complainant would not be a compellable witness. Questions could only be asked in certain specified situations.
I think that these are welcome changes. They do, however, raise an issue which will need to be canvassed. It has been suggested that a complainant's sexual activities with persons other than the accused should be facts that are simply not admissible. The argument is that a person's activities with third parties are quite irrelevant to the question of consent with the accused. I am sure that this is a matter that will be

July 8, 1981
Criminal Code
convassed not only on the floor of the House, but also in the course of the committee hearings.
Another issue that has sparked a good deal of public debate in recent times concerns the defence of mistake of fact. In May, 1980, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that the defence of mistake of fact was available to persons charged with rape. That is the Pappajohn case. The Pappajohn case held that an honest belief was sufficient and there was no additional requirement that it be reasonable. The decision prompted many people, women's groups in particular, to declare that Canada's rape laws had been eviscerated.
On the other side of the question, people argued that triers of fact are not so gullible as to believe pure fabrication and that the basic principles of criminal law as delineated in cases like Regina v. Beaver required that an honest belief must be sufficient.
[DOT] (noo)
This bill does not change the law and demand that a mistake of fact be reasonable. Rather, in Section 244(5), it provides that, where the defence is raised, the trial judge shall direct the jury when it determines the honesty of the belief to consider, inter alia, the presence or absence of reasonable grounds for that belief.
It is clear, Mr. Speaker, that we will have to submerge ourselves in the problems and controversies generated by the Pappajohn decision. I would suggest, however, that there are more than just two sides that can be taken. I think we may want to give some consideration to a third option which would involve a reverse-onus clause. Such a position would involve leaving the defence of an honest but unreasonable mistake open, but would force accused persons who want to avail themselves of such a defence to establish the existence of the mistake on a balance of probabilities. This is a middle-of-the-road position. Although it does not give accused persons the benefit of the doctrine whereby criminal offences must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, it does leave the "mistake of fact" defence open, and at the same time it should answer most of the concerns of those who see the Pappajohn decision as a threat. The committee will hopefully consider this option when it grapples with the issue of mistake of fact, which was raised by members of the Senate in respect of this legislation.
As I said at the outset, Mr. Speaker, this bill deals with more than just sexual offences. I want to look now at those parts of the bill which deal with the abduction of children. We are all aware, I think, of the tremendous problems and heartbreak of many parents when a spouse abducts a child during the course of, or after, a custody dispute. Such actions are generally considered by the police to be matters for resolution in the civil courts. As a result, many people are simply left helpless. They lack either the resources or the legal recourse to recover their children by way of civil process.
The code does presently have a provision that covers abduction or harbouring of a child under 14. However, Section 250 is defective because it does not apply to persons "claiming in good faith" a right to possession of the child.
Bill C-53 proposes to deal with the problem of parents abducting children by introducing new Sections 250.1 and
250.2	to the Criminal Code. These provisions make the force of the criminal law available to persons faced with parental kidnapping. I welcome this attempt to combat a problem of growing seriousness in this country.
I should mention that one of my colleagues has taken a leading role in respect of encouraging this House to pass legislation, through many private member's bills, on this particular topic, and I refer to the hon. member for Surry-White Rock-North Delta (Mr. Friesen). Since the time he has been elected as a member of Parliament in 1974, he has continuously pressed the House of Commons through private member's bills to pass legislation which would afford some protection to parents in the case of parental kidnapping. I compliment the member because I am certain that it is because of the persistence he has demonstrated with regard to this particular change that the government has now seen fit to bring forward legislation in the course of these amendments which in effect try to deal with the problem.
I am not going to read Sections 250.1 and 250.2 into the record. However, I do want to point out one matter which should be looked into at the committee. I think we will want to re-word Section 250.1(1). It does not apply in cases where the parent with lawful possession of a child consents to the taking of the child from him or her. In many situations of kidnapping the parent in lawful possession does agree to the taking of the child by the other parent. Visits and outings are common. It is only when the other parent retains custody of the child that the problem arises.
My point is that the word "taking" as it is used in Section 250.1 is arguably not broad enough to cover the situation where a parent obtains permission to have the child for a period of time and then never returns that child.
I now want to speak about the provisions in the bill with regard to child pornography. So-called "kiddie porn" is a major concern in Canada. It is a problem that has been spreading and growing. The Criminal Code has no provisions aimed expressly at preventing the exploitation of children for pornographic purposes.
I am pleased to see that this bill makes an effort to hit directly at the problem. Happily, Mr. Speaker, the bill takes the right basic approach. It focuses on the aspect of exploitation and properly treats the children involved as victims.
This bill, C-53, proposes that a section 168.2 be added to the code. The section would make it an offence to induce, coerce or use a person under 16 years of age for the purpose of producing visual material containing what is referred to as "sexually explicit conduct". The bill would also create offences relating to the sale and distribution of material containing depictions of such conduct.
There is just one point I want to make about these proposals. As I indicated, these changes in the law are welcome indeed. There are, however, some problems 1 wish to point out. The section only relates to conduct of a sexual nature. I think
July 8, 1981

we must deal with the question of violence in this regard. A child can be portrayed as a participant in scenes of violence that are as obscene as those of a sexual nature. Sometimes 1 think we tend to become preoccupied with sexual matters in our society and concerned about that, and not in terms of criminal legislation having regard to the kind of programs now available generally through television and other forms of publication, theatre and movies. It often occurs to me, as I am sure it occurs to many other members, that the most repugnant kind of obscenity that can be observed in terms of television, theatre, movies and so on, is not necessarily that with a sexual connotation, strangely enough, but in terms of violence now being portrayed in our country in this way, and easily available and accessible to our children. This is something to which we may want to turn our attention to see whether there is something which can be done in this area in terms of amendments to the Criminal Code. We might address ourselves to what I consider to be an equally disturbing aspect affecting our society today.
The bill before us is, indeed, a very important one. I want to sit down soon in order that my colleague, the hon. member for Waterloo, can carry on in accordance with an agreement made in the House earlier and address his remarks to the House.
I simply want to reiterate the fact that the bill has been the product of good intentions. The fact is, as I have tried to point out on a number of instances, and occasionally in some detail, there are some very serious problems in terms of the draftsmanship and in terms of accomplishing the best legislation which has to be looked at by the committee. There are some very serious questions about some of the provisions of the bill which cause concern to members on both sides of the House. The parliamentary secretary pointed out yesterday that he has some concerns at this stage, and that the government has had some concerns that will cause the government to propose some amendments to this legislation.
I am very much concerned that what is happening here is somewhat of a charade. The government has introduced this bill in the dying moments of this part of the session, late at night, an afterthought after a number of less important bills have been dealt with and disposed of or debated, as the case may be. Under all the circumstances, I really wonder whether this will get the attention it should get in terms of the public media. It is important that there be public input into the provisions of this bill and a public understanding as to what is being attempted. 1 personally have tried to communicate with a wide range of interest groups across the country in my role as justice critic for the Official Opposition. 1 have tried to hear from them as to what their attitudes are with respect to this legislation. Many of the points I have made in my presentation today are the result of direct representations and observations made by people involved in this area either through counselling, involvement in child welfare or involvement in the administration of justice generally. In this latter respect I refer to lawyers and bar associations. 1 want to extend to them publicly my appreciation. I have received excellent co-opera-
Message from the Senate
tion from many people across the country who have taken the time either to come and see me and my colleagues in my party or to write to me about this legislation.
I think we will be faced again with the prospect of having this bill debated on the floor of the House of Commons, referred to a committee and stacked up with other legislation which is now before the committee or awaiting conclusion of consideration by the committee. The point is that the bill will not in the course of this session of Parliament receive the full attention of the committee. We will be faced again with a new Speech from the Throne and a new Parliament and with starting again the process of trying to get this bill brought forward so that we can have the legislation dealt with, improved and passed. I simply say to those who may be following this debate by watching it or reading Hansard that my concern is that we may have just started on the first leg of a journey. I am under no illusions that there will be a conclusion of the consideration of this bill. I am very disappointed in the way it has been handled and in the lack of priority. 1 am disappointed that the minister did not even think it important enough to appear in the House at any time that this matter has been discussed or to participate directly and listen to some of the suggestions made. I and other colleagues will be speaking further about the bill. It is a terribly important bill to which we want to give careful consideration.
1 simply say to the government that I am disappointed very much in the way in which this has been handled and in the ad hoc arrangements the government has made with respect to the introduction of the bill. I simply tell the minister that if he does not appear before this debate is over in the course of the committee deliberations-if we are able to have those-he does not know what trouble is, uranium cartel or no uranium cartel.


MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: I have the honour to inform the House that messages have been received from the Senate informing this House that the Senate has passed the following bills without amendment:
Bill C-50, an act to amend the Customs Tariff and to repeal the Irish Free State Trade Agreement Act, 1932, the Union of South Africa Trade Agreement Act, 1932, and the United Kingdom Trade Agreement Act, 1937.
Bill C-57, an act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Excise Act and to provide for a revenue tax in respect of petroleum and gas.
Bill C-70, an act to amend the Animal Disease and Protection Act.
Bill C-71, an act to amend the International Development Association Act.
Bill C-72, an act to amend the National Housing Act.
Bill C-73, an act to amend the Atlantic Region Freight Assistance Act.
Bill C-74, an act to authorize financial assistance to be provided to certain international financial institutions.

July 8, 1981
Criminal Code CRIMINAL CODE


AMENDMENTS WITH RESPECT TO SEXUAL OFFENCES AND THE PROTECTION OF YOUNG PERSONS
[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. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak about Bill C-53, which is certainly one of the most important bills to come before this House. It is a bill for which the women of Canada have been waiting far too long.
Before getting into the substance of my remarks I would like to associate myself with the concern expressed by the hon. member for Saskatoon West (Mr. Hnatyshyn) about the absence from this House of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Chretien) during consideration of this important bill. There is no question that that is regrettable and is an indication, unfortunately, that the minister does not take seriously the fact that this is a bill of considerable substance to the women of Canada. It is such not just to the women of Canada but to all Canadians.
I would also say as a preliminary matter, speaking as the justice critic of the New Democratic Party, that we believe this bill should be dealt with quickly in the House and referred to the committee where it can receive the very careful study and consideration it needs. While we support the principles underlying Bill C-53, there is no question that there will have to be improvements made in the committee. Having said that, I should note that we have agreed that we should be prepared to see this bill go to committee after one speaker from our party-namely me-has spoken, and in view of the fact that the hon. member for Saskatoon West has recognized the importance of the bill, I certainly hope he will permit this bill to go to committee where it might be considered at an early date.
I note that the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs is presently involved in consideration of freedom of information legislation and also, as I understand it, it will be dealing with legislation respecting young offenders, but I hope we will see this bill go to the committee at an early date and that following the needed amendments to the bill we will see it passed into law.
As I said, Canadian women have been waiting for some time for changes to archaic laws with respect to sexual offences. Hon. members will know that there have been two bills in the past three or four years, Bill C-52 and Bill C-51, and in addition, in the fall of 1978 there was a very comprehensive report on the subject of sexual offences issued by the Law Reform Commission. That report made a number of important recommendations, some of which are reflected in the content of Bill C-53. Others, unfortunately, are not. I will note just a couple of matters which, unfortunately, are not dealt with in the bill. There is no reference whatsoever in this bill to the
important issue of sexual harassment. This has become increasingly prevalent in Canada in recent months and years. The Canadian Human Rights Commission in its most recent annual report urged the goverment to take action quickly to deal with concerns about sexual harassment and particularly sexual harassment on the job. Unfortunately, the federal government has remained silent and has not responded to these concerns about sexual harassment in the workplace. There has been some indication that perhaps there may be changes to the Canada Labour Code, but there is no question that until legislative steps are taken, Canadian women will be subjected to sexual harassment. There must be an end to this practice very quickly.
I also note that there is no reference in this bill to Section 179(1) or Section 193 of the Criminal Code. These are sections of the code dealing with laws respecting what are known as common bawdy houses. I urge that in the context of our consideration of this bill, a bill which should deal comprehensively with sexual offences and matters relating to sexual offences, we review these provisions of the Criminal Code. Unfortunately there appears to have been a sweeping abuse of this law recently in the city of Toronto, in the city of Edmonton and elsewhere. When we review these provisions of the Criminal Code with respect to common bawdy houses, we should examine very carefully the definition of a common bawdy house and particularly whether the concept of an act of indecency-whatever that may be; it may very well be an act which is entirely legal in private-should continue to be included in the definition of a common bawdy house.
Finally, a matter which has been touched on only peripherally in the context of Bill C-53 is the matter of prostitution. This bill purports to attempt to equalize provisions of the Criminal Code and bring sexual equality to bear in the Criminal Code with respect to sexual offences. However, there is still a glaring inequity in the area of prostitution. While on the one hand a woman who is deemed to be pressing and persistent in attempting to seek a sexual liaison can be charged, a man, the prospective John as he is called, is immune from prosecution. So a man who harasses persistently and pressingly a woman going about her business, asks her if she wants to have a good time or solicits her for the purposes of sexual relations, is not covered by the provisions of the Criminal Code relating to prostitution. Surely that kind of double standard must be addressed in a bill purporting to bring equality to this area of the law.
I note there is a single reference to prostitution in the legislation which would clarify that the prostitute can be either a man or a woman. That is as it should be if there is to be equality in the law. At the same time we must recognize that the behaviour of a man who pressingly and persistently bothers a woman for the purposes of prostitution should be covered.
As I said, Mr. Speaker, the bill attempts to overhaul a number of areas of the Criminal Code, not just with respect to sexual offences. The first major provision of the bill is with respect to the sexual exploitation of young people and child
July 8, 1981

pornography. There are changes with respect to the gross indecency provision and others of a similar nature. There are changes relating to child abduction by a parent, indeed by another person. Of course we all know the great anguish that can be caused in circumstances such as this. There are changes with respect to evidentiary provisions in trials of sexual offences. Finally, and most important, there are changes with respect to rape laws, namely, a redefinition of the offences of rape and indecent assault. I say without hesitation that we welcome the changes to redefine rape as a crime of violence and aggression, not one of lust or passion. It is a violent crime, and to the extent this law recognizes that, the changes are welcome.
I also note a very significant change from earlier bills submitted by the Liberal government, a change in response to representations from many groups and individuals across Canada. That is the removal of the so-called spousal immunity, the doctrine that says a wife cannot be raped. In this day and age we must recognize that marriage should not mean forced sexual submission and to the extent that this bill removes spousal immunity from the law, we welcome the principle.
This bill, Mr. Speaker, also deals with certain archaic and, in many ways, sexist provisions of our rape laws. It gets rid of the outdated notion that rape can only take place if the penis penetrates the vagina and that a man can only rape a woman. It recognizes that as a sexist provision and that there can be a variety of forms of sexual assault.
Now I would like to return to some of the areas I dealt with in passing earlier. Naturally I will be elaborating in detail on some of the important aspects of the bill which require amendment if it is to reflect truly the views and concerns of all Canadians, not just of women. All members of the House will welcome the general thrust of the provisions concerning the sexual exploitation of young people. We recognize it is necessary to eliminate the sexist nature of the present law. There are many archaic notions in the Criminal Code with respect to sexual offences against young people, such concepts as the notion of a previously chaste character and others which discriminate on the basis of sex. However, there are still a number of problems with respect to the government's proposals in this area. The key concept is that of sexual misconduct. What is meant by that? Nowhere in the bill do we find any definition of sexual misconduct, whatever that may be. The Law Reform Commission suggested, for example, that the that concept of sexual contact should be invoked. By that they meant we would be referring to any touching of the sexual organs of another, or the touching of another with one's sexual organs that is not accidental. At least there we have some specific definition.
Of course, there may be problems with that as well. One can question, for example, whether we might wish to prohibit certain other conduct that does not involve specific contact of sexual organs, such as what has been known as french kissing, and other forms of sexual contact. In any event, there is no definition of this central concept of sexual misconduct. We will
Criminal Code
be seeking further clarification of it in committee. Similarly, Mr. Speaker, clause 167(2)(d), the reference to young people between the ages of 14 and 16 being, and I use the words of the clause, states:
-less responsible than the complainant for the sexual misconduct that took place.
What does this concept mean? This is a new concept in our law and one which may unfortunately involve in many cases, in effect, the placing of the young person on trial, questioning whether or not a 14 or 15-year old was more responsible for the sexual contact, whatever it may have been, than the older person.
There must be clarity in the law. This would appear to bring into force the old concept of "more to blame" an archaic concept which should be repealed in this day and age. No one questions that there must be tough and effective protection from sexual exploitation of young people. In this regard we welcome the establishment of a study committee on sexual abuse of children to be chaired, I believe, by Dr. Robin Badgley. However, the time-frame of two years for this particular study is far too long. Sexual abuse of children is rampant and widespread in Canadian society and must be put to an end quickly.
In this connection I would certainly hope, Mr. Speaker, that this important study, which hopefully will not take the full two years, will not be cut short the way the study of Corinne Robertshaw was cut short. In a disgraceful act, the hard preliminary work of a group of dedicated experts was brought to an end and Corinne Robertshaw was told to turn over to the government the raw material she had before she had written her final comprehensive report. This kind of contempt of a committee studying the important issue of child abuse must be recognized as such by members of this House. I strongly urge all members to encourage the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin) to permit Corinne Robertshaw to continue her study.
I also note, Mr. Speaker, that the bill does not accept the recommendation made by the Law Reform Commission in 1978, a recommendation endorsed by the National Association of Women and the Law, and a number of other groups, that sexual intercourse with an adult blood relative should not be a criminal offence in this day and age. Without taking a firm position on that question, we will certainly want to hear witnesses as to whether or not it is appropriate that within the Criminal Code we define that kind of consensual adult behaviour in private as being of a criminal nature.
I mentioned the provisions of the bill related to the serious problem-and there is no question it is a serious problem-of child pornography in Canada. All members share the revulsion at the exploitation of children for the purposes of the production of pornography. I would note that in 1978 the unanimous report of the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs recommended toughening the sanctions in this particular area. Without endorsing this time all of those recommendations, 1 would certainly say this is an area we will want to examine further in the committee to ensure that the provisions are

July 8, 1981
Criminal Code
drafted in a way which would effectively meet the very real concerns about this "kiddy porn", as it is known, which is, unfortunately, all too prevalent in Canadian society.
Another area which is touched upon in the bill, although not referred to by either the speaker on behalf of the government or of the Conservative party, is sections of the bill with respect to gross indecency. As the House will know, these provisions are very vague and in many ways archaic. 1 would point out that gross indecency has been judicially interpreted as covering conduct which "violates the general instinctive sense of Canadians as to what is decent and clean as distinct from what is indecent and dirty." Those words are from the leading decision on the subject of gross indecency.
As I have said, Mr. Speaker, that definition is very broad and has been abused in a fashion which really constitutes discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. I would urge that these provisions be repealed, as the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Miss Carney) has urged in this House through a recent bill, that this particular provision be recognized as archaic, and that the behaviour which is attempted to be dealt with in this provision should, indeed, be covered by other sections of the proposed sexual offences legislation.
In this day and age it is most improper that there should be any laws which discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation. I would have hoped that a government, which talked in terms of a charter of rights for all Canadians, would recognize that provisions of the Criminal Code which discriminate on that basis, as does the provision with respect to gross indecency as it is applied in Canada, must be repealed. As I have said before, this is a provision which is archaic and discriminatory. Young people are adequately protected by other provisions in the sexual offences bill. I would urge the government to consider seriously repealing Section 158 of the Criminal Code.
I would like to say that the child abduction section which is included in the bill is a step in the right direction. Many of us are aware of the very serious problems which have been caused, and the great anguish which results, when children are abducted from the lawful custodial parent. They may be taken from province to province or, indeed, out of the country. Naturally, we will want to examine carefully whether the proposed penalties which are contained in this section are not excessive and whether the appropriate response in this area is, indeed, lengthy jail terms or whether, in recognizing that we must combat, and combat effectively, this serious problem of illegal child abduction there are other alternatives and other methods. I look forward to hearing from witnesses from a number of different organizations on this important question.
There are a number of evidenciary changes which for the most part we welcome, such as the overruling of the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in the Forsythe case, which in many ways reverted back to the pre-1976 period and put a woman on trial, treated the complainant, as it were, as essentially being a compellable witness. But the bill does not go far enough. The bill still states that the previous sexual history of
that woman with a person other than the accused should be admissible in evidence. 1 say very clearly that the evidence of a previous sexual history of a woman with a person other than the accused should not be admissible in a court of law when dealing with these sexual offences. Quite simply the issue is: was that woman assaulted on that particular occasion? Her history of sexual involvement with other men on other occasions must not be considered as relevant. Unfortunately, it has been the case on too many occasions that juries, and in some cases trial judges, I suspect, have failed to distinguish between the alleged purpose of such questions, which is allegedly to go to the issue of credibility. There is the general suggestion that somehow because a woman has had other sexual involvement, it was not as likely that she was sexually assaulted on that particular occasion.
Some months ago I raised in the House the case of a woman who was raped here in the Ottawa area. The man who was charged was ultimately convicted of that rape and was given a very light sentence. Mr. Justice Pennell stated that the woman who was raped was a "woman of the world", as he put it, and because she was a woman of the world that fact should be reflected in the sentence. That kind of judicial idiocy must be put to an end.
The doctrine of recent complaint, which is repealed by this bill, should have been repealed a long time ago. We welcome that repeal provision.
Clause 31 of the bill would make spouses competent and compellable witnesses in cases of violence against children. As I said earlier, we recognize the serious problem of the abuse of children. We welcome this change to the evidenciary provisions of the Canada Evidence Act. I hope this provision will cut down on the incidence of child abuse.
There is one final change in the trial procedures which allegedly deals with the Pappajohn decision, a decision handed down by the Supreme Court of Canada in June of 1980. This decision caused a serious setback to all Canadian women. I would briefly like to explain the effect of that decision. What the Pappajohn precedent made very clear was that if a man came into court and claimed that he honestly believed that a woman was consenting to an unwanted sexual assault, even if there were no reasonable grounds for that belief, he must be acquitted. In this decision, the Supreme Court of Canada followed the Morgan decision of the English House of Lords.
I would like to give one example of the devastating effect of the Pappajohn precedent in Canadian law. Shortly after the Morgan decision there was a decision known as Regina vs. Coggin in which a man, Mr. Leek, brought home a friend named Coggin. Both Leek and Coggin had been drinking. Leek's wife was at home and he told her that Coggin wanted to have sexual intercourse with her and that he, Leek, would also have sexual intercourse with her. The husband had sexual intercourse with his wife, after having beaten her, and then he turned her over, as it were, to his friend Coggin who had sexual intercourse with her. The whole time this was going on, Mrs. Leek was sobbing and she tried to turn away from Coggin. Coggin gave evidence at trial that he thought Mrs.
July 8, 1981

Leek had consented because her husband had said she would really enjoy the intercourse. This was the only basis for his belief that she was consenting. He was also drunk at the time.
Mr. Coggin walked out of the courtroom a free man on the basis of his belief, even though it was perverse and without any reasonable grounds, that Mrs. Leek was consenting to this act of violence, even though she put up resistance and cried. He was acquitted. This is the effect the Pappajohn decision will have on Canadian women.
Canadian women have clearly stated that no must mean no when dealing with rape law in Canada. I wish to give credit to the North Shore Women's Centre which has worked together with me to launch a national petition campaign to overturn this very dangerous and regressive precedent. Men and women, women's groups and other organizations, including the Canadian Association for the Status of Women, have signed this petition. Each day more people come into my office to sign it. At last count, there were over 20,000 signatures on the petition which demands that the government take action to reverse the Pappajohn decision.
What kind of impact will this bill have on the precedent? Unfortunately, it in no way changes the Pappajohn decision. I can assure Your Honour that we will be fighting, and fighting hard, on behalf of Canadian women and on behalf of the many organizations and individuals which have urged the government to reverse this precedent to ensure that in committee this kind of change is made and that this regressive Pappajohn precedent is, in fact, overruled.
The final area which is covered by this bill, and which is, in many respects the most important area of the bill, is clause 18. Clause 18 would redefine the crimes of rape and indecent assault as sexual assault and aggravated sexual assault. It would also eliminate spousal immunity, as I indicated earlier, and it would put an end to the sexist nature of this crime. I need give only one example. As it now stands, an indecent assault on a women is punishable by a five-year maximum sentence. An indecent assault on a man is punishable by a ten-year maximum sentence. It is that kind of inequality in our law to which we welcome changes, and this bill does, in fact, move in that direction. So there be no doubt, 1 immediately say that we welcome the changes with respect to the elimination of spousal immunity.
We recognize the important advance in redefining rape as a crime of violence and as a crime of aggression, and not as a crime of passion or a sexual crime. We welcome an end to the sexist nature of many parts of the Criminal Code. It has been said by a number of commentators that as often as every six minutes somewhere in Canada a woman is sexually assaulted. That works out to one out of every five Canadian women who will be assaulted against her will. I am now quoting that figure from an excellent series of articles by a Toronto journalist, Michele Landsberg. That figure does not even include the figure of rape, a crime which is inflicted on one out of every 17 women.
Criminal Code


Walter David Baker: Which series is that?


Svend Johannes Robinson: This was a four-part series written by Michele Landsberg appearing in the Toronto Star in May of this year.
It is also estimated that some 94 per cent of rapists go right on raping and, in fact, are not reported. I would like to give again one example from Toronto about the conviction of rapes in the rape area. In 1979, in Toronto, there were 207 alleged rapes which were reported. Of course, many more rapes occur than are reported. Of those 207 reported rapes, 87 men were charged. Of those 87 men who were charged, only 16 were brought to trial. Of those 16 who were brought to trial, only 12 were convicted of rape or, in some cases, of a lesser charge. Ultimately, out of 207 reported rapes-and, in fact, there is a far larger number of rapes-only 12 convictions were recorded.
To the extent that this bill attempts to encourage women to report rape, and to the extent that it will facilitate the conviction of those persons who are guilty of sexual assaults, we welcome these provisions. However, I urge the government to reconsider seriously the present classification of sexual assaults which is proposed in this bill, namely, only two broad categories: the category of sexual assault, with a maximum of ten years; and the category of aggravated sexual assault with a maximum life sentence.
I would point out that the category of sexual assault includes everything from unwanted grabbing and fondling which, indeed, must be considered to be a criminal offence, to what we now know as rape. Within that one broad, sweeping category there is far too much behaviour which 1 would urge should be broken down into at least three, and preferably four categories. The Canadian Advisory Council on the Status of Women recommended in 1978, and recently repeated the recommendation, that there should be four categories. While these may not be the final categories which are recommended certainly for the record, I would like to put them forward. The council proposes there be a category of sexual assault which would be an electable offence punishable on summary conviction or by indictment; sexual assault while armed with a weapon; sexual assault causing bodily harm; and finally, sexual assault with intent to maim or endanger life which would have a maximum sentence of life imprisonment.
However, in any event, many groups, and many women's groups in particular, have urged the government to change this section of the bill to broaden the category, and not to have only one sweeping category of sexual assault and another sweeping category of aggravated sexual assault.
I would also note that a concern has been expressed, one with which I associate myself, that in amending the Criminal Code in the area of sexual offences, we should not remove the all important right to trial by jury, wherever that right is presently afforded the accused. I would also point out that the bill, as it is now worded, would eliminate the offence of wounding and would rewrite the assault provisions of the Criminal Code. A number of concerns have been expressed to

July 8, 1981
Criminal Code
me with respect to the elimination of that particular offence, and we will want to hear carefully from witnesses, such as the Canadian Bar Association, and other witnesses, as to whether this is a wise course to take.
1 know that there has been some suggestion by some commentators that it is a mistake to change the name of the offence from rape to sexual assault or, indeed, to simple assault. Naturally we want to hear further evidence on this issue in committee, but on balance, though I certainly have an open mind on it, I am persuaded at this point that we should maintain the suggestion that we redefine the offence of rape as a crime of assault, and that in doing so, we call it that and recognize it as an assault.
Therefore, we welcome those changes to the provisions of the Criminal Code with respect to rape and the redefinition of rape. While those changes are important, there are at least a couple of other areas on which I would urge the government to take action, and it does not have to wait for the passage of this bill to do so. The first is with respect to increased education in the area of sexual offences and response to sexual offences on the part of the police and other individuals.
I would urge, as the Canadian Advisory Council on the Status of Women has urged, that specific educational programs be developed for persons involved in the prevention of crimes of a sexual nature, and that there be assistance both to the victims of these crimes and also assistance to encourage people who are involved in them to undertake research to find out what it is that leads people to commit these crimes.
In addition, I would urge that the government consider funding programs which would assist persons who are specifically trained to deal with and provide information to victims of sexual offences, that there be such persons in all police departments, for example, and also that specific education be provided. There is a great mystique around this area, but there should be specific education for other professionals such as doctors and lawyers, to ensure that they are qualified to provide legal, physical and psychological assistance and information needed by victims of sexual assault and, as well, by offenders.
I would urge that there be far greater funding for rape relief centres in Canada. These centres often operate on a shoestring budget, and they do perform a very valuable service in assisting the victims of sexual assaults. I would note that in my own province, for example, the province of British Columbia, there are very few halfway houses which presently assist women in these circumstances, and they cannot even begin to accommodate the demand in this area. Therefore, I would urge the government substantially to increase its funding, on a cost shared basis where necessary, of rape relief centres.
Finally, I would suggest that the government seriously examine a precedent in the United States. In 1976, the U.S. federal government established a national centre for the prevention and control of rape. As we know, rape is the fastest growing violent crime in Canada and in the United States. In view of this, I would urge the government to consider seriously the possibility of establishing such a national centre, a federal
centre, for the prevention and control of rape. The American centre supports research into the causes of rape. It examines laws dealing with rape, laws dealing with the treatment of victims, and the effectiveness of existing programs to prevent and control rape. It involves itself in research and demonstration projects. It assists, through research and demonstration grants, local communities and mental health centres. Finally, it is involved in the dissemination of information with respect to the area of rape.
This is a serious offence. As I say, we welcome the changes in this law to the extent that they will reduce the incidence of sexual assaults of all nature in Canadian society. I would conclude by saying that we strongly support the principles underlying this bill. As I have indicated during the course of my remarks this afternoon, we seek a strengthening of a number of key positions. I mentioned the Pappajohn decision and the repeal of the sections with respect to gross indecency and an end to discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation in all sections of the Criminal Code. I mentioned the strengthening of the provisions on sexual exploitation of young persons and, of course, there are a number of other areas on which we will hear from witnesses at committee.
We want this bill to go through and be improved in committee before the end of this session. The women of Canada have waited far too long for justice and for equity and for an end to sexist race laws.
I challenge the government to take seriously its commitment made in the Speech from the Throne to reducing the incidence of violence against women. In the event that we are not able to get this bill through before the end of this session, and that would be unfortunate, I urge the government to bring back before the House, as a top priority, another, stronger bill containing the same principles, at the earliest possible time in the new session.
This party is prepared to see the bill go to committee now. We have agreed to having one speaker on behalf of this party; we have heard one speaker from the Conservative party and one from the government side. I hope that all parties will recognize the urgency of overhauling the archaic laws of Canada with respect to sexual offences and would be prepared to see this bill go to committee now.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I have listened to the debate and I want to commend hon. members for the high quality of their contribution on a matter of some considerable importance, not just to Canadian women but as well to the evolution of criminal law in Canada.
1 do not want the parliamentary secretary to take any offence at my next remarks because I know the position of parliamentary secretaries. They have to do what their ministers tell them or else they do not get reappointed. There are a number of hopefuls sitting on the back benches who would be quite happy to take their places. In fact, they are waiting for
July 8, 1981

the opportunity to advance if a parliamentary secretary does not do what his minister tells him.
1 think it is rather important that on a matter which is so significant, the Minister of Justice (Mr. Chretien) should present the bill, and that the Minister of Justice be present during the course of the debate. I want to commend ministers who have sat through long debates doing their duty and I want to contrast for members of the House on all sides, what has occurred in the passage of this bill.
In the first place, it was introduced by a parliamentary secretary reading from notes that were likely prepared in the Department of Justice. They may or may not have been prepared for the minister. The Minister of Justice was in the House during Question Period yesterday. His bill was introduced last night but he was not in the House then. He was present during Question Period today and answered questions on the uranium cartel matter which, quite rightly, seems to be engaging the attention of the House. However, rather than remaining to deal with this bill, the Minister of Justice disappeared. I do not know if he has involved himself in the investigations with respect to the uranium cartel, but he does this House, the women of Canada and his own portfolio a great disservice.
I believe I heard a knock from the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod, Mr. Speaker.
Royal Assent



THE ROYAL ASSENT

[Stage Direction]
A message was delivered by the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod, as follows:
Mr. Speaker, the Honourable Deputy to the Governor General desires the immediate attendance of this honourable House in the Chamber of the honourable the Senate.
Accordingly, Mr. Speaker with the House went up to the Senate Chamber.
And being returned:
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I have the honour to inform the House that when the House went up to the Senate chamber, the Deputy Governor General was pleased to give, in Her Majesty's name, the royal assent to the following bills:
Bill C-50, an act to amend the Customs Tariff and to repeal the Irish Free State Trade Agreement Act, 1932, the Union of South Africa Trade Agreement Act, 1932 and the United Kingdom Trade Agreement Act, 1937.
Bill C-57, an act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Excise Act and to provide for a revenue tax in respect of petroleum and gas.
Bill C-71, an act to amend the International Development Association Act.
Bill C-72, an act to amend the National Housing Act.
Bill C-73, an act to amend the Atlantic Region Freight Assistance Act.
Bill C-74, an act to authorize Financial assistance to be provided to certain international financial institutions.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being six o'clock, this House stands adjourned until 2 p.m. tomorrow, pursuant to Standing Order 2(1).
At 6.10 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Thursday, July 9, 1981