1983-09-14

STATEMENTS PURSUANT TO S.O. 21


Mr. Gordon Taylor (Bow River):: Madam Speaker, the avowed objective of Soviet communism is world domination. The Soviet bureaucracy does not care how long it takes or what means it uses to achieve that end. One tactic is fifth column activities. For instance, while the Soviets have been testing and piling up missiles, their fifth columns have been hypocritically and cleverly inducing as many people as possible in the NATO countries to protest the building and testing of missiles. People sincerely interested in peace have been cleverly induced into supporting this Soviet planned unilateral disarmament.
The Soviets have tripled the number of missiles that NATO countries possess, and have been testing and testing, until now their aim is 90 per cent improved over what it was two years ago. Their accuracy was tested when the Korean passenger plane was destroyed with one of their missiles and 269 innocent people, including ten Canadians, were murdered.
Yes, let us work for peace. Let us do everything possible to avoid a nuclear war, but let us be realistic. Canadians do not want a nuclear conflict. Canadians do want a world-wide reduction of nuclear armaments, a reduction that will apply to all nations and one that will be balanced, mutual, and verifiable.


BILINGUALISM
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine East):: Madam Speaker, 1 was extremely pleased yesterday with the readiness of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) to meet with the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Mulroney) and the Leader of the NDP to prepare an all-Party resolution requesting the Legislature of Manitoba to entrench official bilingualism in that Province.
I fully support that initiative and hope that it proceeds quickly. On the other hand, I would like to remind the House that minority language rights are still threatened and under attack in other Provinces in this country.
In Quebec, my Province, the present government will not agree to entrench rights, especially the opting in to Section 23(l)(a) regarding linguistic minority education, which is in the Constitution Act of 1981. Over the years this same government has continually eroded minority language rights in that Province. Let us move ahead in Manitoba, but let us not forget that minority language groups in other Provinces have problems as well, and give them some consideration too.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Fred King (Okanagan-Similkameen):: Madam Speaker, Canadian farmers face extinction. B.C. newspapers have headlined the distressed condition of agriculture in that Province. A thousand Okanagan fruit growers have demonstrated their frustration by rallying with hundreds of tractors, clogging highways on Labour Day.
The cry at the farmers' rally, repeated by the B.C. Minister of Agriculture, seeks imposition of temporary tariffs on imported fruits and vegetables when there is a domestic surplus. The most obvious response thus far from Canada is in a notice that Okanagan farm organizations have been charged under the Federal Combines Investigation Act. This extremely questionable action imposes an additional financial burden on farmers facing personal ruin.
Underlining the crisis, the area August jobless rate reached 14.2 per cent, up from 11.7 per cent a year ago. With unfair foreign competition threatening the demise of the last remaining fruit canning plant in the Okanagan, and with agriculture in disarray, this statistic can only worsen unless immediate action is taken.
Farmers are perplexed to read in their newspapers headlines such as "Auto import curbs hit local dealers". These farmers are simply asking the Government of Canada for treatment equitable to that provided auto and textile workers. They demand that government commit itself to the survival of agriculture, and act in their defence.


POLITICAL PARTIES
[Stage Direction]
September 14, 1983

Hon. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Madam Speaker, there is a particularly iniquitous piece of legislation being considered by a committee of this House, namely, the proposed Bill that will bring about, if passed, changes to the Crow rate. Up to this point the Conservative Party of Canada has been prepared to accept the principle of changes in the Crow rate, something that the New Democratic Party has consistently opposed.
It was remarkably refreshing to learn last night that once again the Conservatives have done a 180 degree reversal in policy and are now prepared, for at least three years, to leave the Crow rate as it is. We hope that after three years passes they will make another three years' extension. We will remain consistent in that position on that issue.
Now that they have made this change, we would like them to support the other arguments of the NDP on this Bill, namely, to split it up into three sections. One dealing with rates-let us get rid of that. The second is on the important question of upgrading rail and port facilities. We should proceed with that immediately. The next portion concerns the resolution of the ownership of an important 50,000 acres of coal land that lie in British Columbia. We in this Party say that that land should go to British Columbia, and we want Tory support on that as well.


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. I am sorry, but the Hon. Member's time is up.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Gaston Gourde (Levis):: Madam Speaker, yesterday evening, the Progressive Conservative Party made another about-face on its position on the Crow's Nest Pass rate. On May 12, 1983, the Member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski) and Progressive Conservative critic for transport said, among other things, that the members of his Party had always taken the position that improvements to the existing statutory rate should be made and that he realized something had to be done to improve the situation. In the same statement on May 12, he also said that most producers were prepared to pay more than the statutory freight rate. Finally, he made a proposal that farmers should be allowed to decide whether payment should go to the railroads or to themselves. Yesterday evening, however, the same Member for Vegreville, speaking on behalf of the Progressive Conservative Party, made a proposal supporting a return to the status quo. This is contrary to what I read
in a letter the New Leader of the Progressive Party sent me in July, in which he supported the position taken by the Member for Vegreville on May 12, 1983, in this House.
In June 1983, in Terre de chez nous, Mario Dumais wrote an editorial under the following headline:
"One party, three policies".
Madam Speaker, from now on, we should say: One party, four policies!"


THE ADMINISTRATION
Hon. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Madam Speaker, I rise to express on behalf of the people of Newfoundland our profound sense of outrage over the events that have transpired since the Hon. Member for Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador (Mr. Rompkey) was so shoddily fired from his post as Newfoundland's representative in the Cabinet. Arising out of the statement in the House by the Hon. Member for Burin-St. George's (Mr. Simmons) on September 12, and the Prime Minister's (Mr. Trudeau) incredible admission in the House yesterday, we now know that the Hon. Member for Burin-St. George's was appointed to the Cabinet without the normal security check.
The Right Hon. Member for Yellowhead (Mr. Clark), prior to making appointments to his Cabinet, submitted a list to the RCMP and the Department of National Revenue. It was only after clearance by these two agencies that appointments were made. That such a practice was not followed in the case of the Hon. Member for Burin-St. George's is, to put it mildly, incredible.
However, the result of this "Mickey Mouse" performance is that Newfoundland is not represented in Cabinet at a most critical time in its history. The fishing industry is in a state of bankruptcy and chaos and talks on the offshore have broken down. These problems are exacerbated by the fact that Newfoundland officially has one in five unemployed, the highest unemployment rate by far of any province.
This is a scandalous and unacceptable situation for which the Prime Minister and his colleagues stand condemned, not only by the people of Newfoundland but by the people of Canada.


VETERANS AFFAIRS
Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops-Shuswap):: Madam Speaker,
I would like to alert Members of Parliament to a very serious example of blatant discrimination that occurs against western
September 14, 1983

Canadians, more specifically against war veterans and their families who live in certain areas of western Canada.
Many war veterans and their families depend upon the War Veterans Allowance, disability pensions, and widows' pensions to meet mortgage, utility and other financial obligations. However, in areas of western Canada these cheques regularly arrive late. In most parts of Canada war veterans and their families receive their federal cheques within two or three days of mailing, yet in certain parts of western Canada the mails result in delays of up to one week for hundreds of veterans and their families. The anxiety, frustration, and in some instances fear that result from these repeatedly late cheques are both unnecessary and unacceptable.
These veterans were prepared to die for our country, and many have suffered for many years as a result of their service. These veterans and their families deserve better recognition and treatment. I urge the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Bennett) to end this act of blatant discrimination, and I encourage all Members of the House of Commons to bring pressure on the Minister and his Department to right this very serious wrong which is being perpetrated against Canadian war veterans who have made their homes in western Canada.


MULTICULTURALISM
Mr. Bill Yurko (Edmonton East):: Madam Speaker, in 1974 on the first Monday in August, the Hon. Horst Schmid, then Minister of Culture in the Alberta Government, officially proclaimed the first Heritage Day in Alberta.
This multicultural event has exploded in Alberta as a day and weekend of celebration of the music, the dancing, the dress, and the food of the various ethnic groups which now form the Alberta society.
This year in Edmonton alone nearly 500,000 people attended the two day heritage festival held at Hawrelak Park to enjoy the music, dance, costumes, and food of the 52 ethnic groups that participated. It was a wonderful expression of the multicultural roots and customs of Canada's diversified peoples and their unique Canadianism.
The time has now come to make the heritage festival a national event. Indeed, it is my intention to bring forth before Parliament a Private Member's Bill to declare the first Monday in August an official national holiday designated as Canada Heritage Day.
Oral Questions



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. John C. Crosbie (St. John's West):: Madam Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of Finance. He will know that the number of unemployed in Canada last month was 1,365,000. He will also realize that the recovery is far from vigorous and it may falter. The recession is still with us.
In view of the fact that Statistics Canada has reported that the incomes of Canadians are shrinking because those incomes have only risen 4.8 per cent in the last year while the inflation rate has been 5.6 per cent, and in view of the need for consumers to spend more in order to encourage employment and investment in growth, will the Minister now eliminate the tax increases and levies that he imposed on the consumer in his April budget? This includes the Canadian ownership special levy, or grab, that he is continuing to levy on oil products, which will take $400 million more from Canadian consumers this year and $900 million more next year which the Minister wishes to turn over to Dome. Will the Minister now announce that he is reversing those impositions on the consumer in order to help the recovery?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of Finance):: Madam Speaker, first of all I should like to wish my critic well in his new functions. I am sure we will have a pleasant time together over the next while. I should like to wish him well in that position, for a very long time indeed.
I should like to say to the Hon. Member that our 1983 forecast is to the effect that the real personal incomes of Canadians will grow next year, and will continue to grow significantly. It is true that they will not grow significantly in 1983 and, indeed, that personal disposable income will be somewhat less than inflation, as has already been the case for part of this year.
I would remind my hon. friend, however, that those who have analysed the situation have indicated that the provincial taxes this year have increased much more than the federal taxes. A large part of the problem for consumers arises from the very significant increases in provincial taxes in the provincial budgets.
If my hon. friend goes to the April budget he will find that there have been practically no federal tax increases this year. If he reads the budget he will find, on the contrary, that there have been measures to alleviate taxes in several respects. The federal tax load for this year is not increasing in a way comparative to that of the Provinces under their various provincial budgets.


John Carnell Crosbie: Madam Speaker, I have the impression that we are in the federal House and not in one of the ten provincial legislatures. We can do nothing about what the provinces do with their tax rates.

September 14, 1983
Oral Questions
By the way, I should like to thank the Minister for his pleasantness. 1 like to choose my own dancing partners, however, Madam Speaker.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


REQUEST FOR ASSISTANCE TO CONSUMERS
John Carnell Crosbie: My supplementary question is directed to the Minister, who just stepped all over my foot. In your budget of April, you did not index the child tax credit threshold which is going to give you more revenue this year. You did not index the tax exemption for dependent children. You put a sales tax on cable TV. You have increased the excise tax on alcohol by 13.3 per cent, and tobacco about 15.8 per cent, and you are still collecting $400 million more for Dome Petroleum.


Some Hon. Members:: Order.


John Carnell Crosbie: My question-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. Order please. 1 wonder if the Hon. Member is ever going to get to a question. The first question was terribly long. I allowed it because it was the lead question. However, apart from that the Hon. Member has to learn to be briefer.


John Carnell Crosbie: Madam Speaker, as 1 was saying, my question is this: will the Minister reverse these steps, to assist the consumer? Will he stop heading for the "hypocrite of the year award" with a 15 per cent increase in the tobacco tax when he has a 6 and 5 program which he is supposed to be carrying out?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, I am very happy to let my hon. friend choose his dancing partners, as long as he lets me call the tune.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Marc Lalonde: I feel the question still deserves an attempt at an honest answer in spite of the allegation by the Hon. Member. The Hon. Member, Madam Speaker, has forgotten to refer to the fact that in the budget of last April we increased our expenditures very significantly in order to help alleviate the situation of the unemployed. We have started a national recovery program which means $4.8 billion of expenditures, half is being used to help the private sector get back on its feet and hiring Canadians, and half is being used in direct government programs of job creation, whether through the launching of a number of national projects across the country or through job-creation programs.
These projects are going on now, and they show up in terms of the number of jobs that have been created. As I indicated yesterday, we are in this country, and have been since last November creating jobs faster than any other industrialized country, including the United States. That is a fact and we want to accelerate, if possible, that process so that we will be
able to alleviate the difficult problems which many, many Canadians are facing.


John Carnell Crosbie: This Government has been calling the tune for 20 years and the Canadian people are paying the piper, with
1,365,000	of them unemployed.


Some Hon. Members:: Question!


John Carnell Crosbie: Oh, yes. You want the question; you will get the question.


SIZE OF GOVERNMENT DEFICIT
John Carnell Crosbie: When is the Minister going to take steps to help the Canadian consumer, particularly in view of the fact that his deficit figures, we are told, are going to be considerably better than has been indicated? And when is he going to give us the new, latest, more modern deficit figures which we have been promised?
[ Translation]


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, this must be the first time I have ever heard a Conservative say that the deficit of the government will be less than I expected. Last year, they were going on nonstop about the fact that the figures I announced were much lower than the actual deficit. This year, they have decided to take another tack. The main thing is that the beneficial effects of the measures we took in the last budget are now making themselves felt. We brought inflation down more than we expected. We are now creating more jobs than was forecast, the Canadian economy is growing faster than we said it would and short-term interest rates in Canada are lower than in the United States. In fact, the bank rate is now at the same level in Canada and the United States, which is something we have been unable to achieve for a very long time, including the period during which the Hon. Member was Minister of Finance, which fortunately lasted only a few months.


INDUSTRY
Hon. Michael Wilson (Etobicoke Centre):: Madam Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce I will direct my question to the Minister of State for Economic Development. The Government report which was leaked this summer, called "The Rocky Road to the 1990s", said that one-quarter to one-half of the existing jobs in manufacturing were going to disappear by 1990. The report sets out a number of impediments to job creation and growth: the Foreign Investment Review Agency, the National Energy Pro-
September 14, 1983

gram, a restrictive tax framework and excessive regulation-a litany of government policy errors in the last 15 years-things we have resolutely opposed on this side of the House for those same years.
Can the Minister give us any hope that the Government recognizes that these massive policy errors are going to be turned around in order to achieve the three million to four million jobs the same report says must be created by 1990?


Hon. Donald J. Johnston (Minister of State for Economic Development and Minister of State for Science and Technology):: Madam Speaker, the document to which the Hon. Member makes reference indeed was leaked and became quite celebrated. It stimulated, I think, a good deal of healthy debate in the community, with respect to the opportunities as well as the challenges which confront society as we move into a new technological era. There are issues raised in that report designed to do that very thing, stimulate debate on some of these issues, but that is only one aspect of the report, the part to which the Hon. Member makes reference.
As I have mentioned a number of times, it was in fact not a study; it simply brought together much of the conventional wisdom of the day and the questions society must confront, issues, 1 might add, which we hope to air in detail at our Canada Tomorrow Conference which will be held in early November, and which I hope a number of Members on the opposite side of the House will attend.
We see the future as providing enormous opportunities, but at the same time we have to recognize we are going through a period of adjustment. That paper raises those issues, and I am glad to see that the Conservative Party, too, is finally addressing some of these matters which are of great concern to some of the people currently in the work place. But we feel those fears are exaggerated and that there are opportunities. Yesterday my colleague, the Minister of Employment and Immigration, made reference to those opportunities on the one hand as against some of the-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. That answer is much too long.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Madam Speaker, it is hard to imagine any healthy debate from the same tired old crowd who have been there for the last ten years and have not changed at all in that period.


PROPOSAL TO ESTABLISH MICRO-COMPUTER FACILITY
Michael Holcombe Wilson: Madam Speaker, let me be more specific about something which has been in front of the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce for the last year. Wang Laboratories have been negotiating without success for over a year for the establishment of a microcomputer facility in Canada. They have not had any success at all because of the DREE/ITC merger, and what has been described by one of the Wang officials as policy cast in jello, and a lack of urgency in addressing the proposal. Will the
Oral Questions
Minister commit to the House that he will act on this proposal with some sense of urgency to bring much needed jobs and new technology to Canada?


Donald James Johnston: Madam Speaker, I will take note of that question on behalf of the responsible Minister. I would not rely at all upon the preamble, and the assumptions and statements made by the applicant company. To my knowledge the applications are treated expeditiously and effectively and to the satisfaction of the constituency that the Department serves. Nevertheless, I will raise the particular case with my colleague.


CANADIAN SECURITY INTELLIGENCE SERVICE
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Solicitor General who is aware of the extraordinary and unprecedented opposition to his proposed security legislation, from civil libertarians, to Attorneys General, to chiefs of police, and now, after months of silence, we even have a few brave Conservative Members of Parliament, much to their Leader's horror, who have expressed some opposition to this legislation.
In the face of the growing opposition to this police state legislation, will the Minister finally acknowledge that this project is in fact totally discredited, and allow the Bill simply to die on the Order Paper?


Hon. Bob Kaplan (Solicitor General of Canada):: Far from it, Madam Speaker. The Bill is now before a committee of the Senate, which is giving it serious attention. The Hon. Member himself had an opportunity, 1 believe, to appear before the Senate committee.
I look forward to the work of the committee, to its report. 1 can assure the Hon. Member and the House that the Bill will not be dropped, but, rather, that the Government will respond in due course to the recommendations of the Senate committee.


SURVEILLANCE OF CANADIAN CITIZENS
Svend Johannes Robinson: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Solicitor General, who should be aware of the fact that any Bill which subverts the rule of law and denies parliamentary accountability will not get through this Parliament without a very tough legislative battle.
How can the Minister possibly justify the inclusion in the Bill of Clause 18, one which would allow the new Security Service to spy on Canadian citizens who, by the Minister's own admission, pose no threat to national security whatsoever?

September 14, 1983
Presence in Gallery
How can the Minister possibly justify the inclusion in the legislation of such a draconian and unwarranted provision?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Madam Speaker, 1 reject the Hon. Member's characterization of the Bill. 1 am looking forward to the very sensible and healthy debate that is taking place in the Senate. I think the Senate has distinguished itself by not having any of the rhetoric of the type in which the Hon. Member has been constantly engaged since the Bill was brought forward. I think that he is way off base, and the work that is taking place in the Senate demonstrates that fact.


ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
Svend Johannes Robinson: Madam Speaker, my final supplementary question is directed to the same Minister. Today the Law Reform Commission released a report recommending the long overdue abolition of writs of assistance and their replacement with telephone warrants or "dial-a-writs" which still, by the way, pose a very serious threat to civil liberties.
Pending the early tabling of a Bill, as promised by his colleague, the Minister of Justice, to abolish writs of assistance, will the Minister at least immediately withdraw all outstanding writs of assistance in the hands of RCMP officers?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Madam Speaker, 1 have indicated that the writs of assistance are required, until some other measure is introduced, for a wide range of drug investigations and operations. I recognize the weaknesses of the writs of assistance, but until some satisfactory substitute is produced I am not prepared to see them abandoned by the RCMP. I think that the war the RCMP is waging against drug trafficking in this country is too important to be dealt with on the kind of political basis that the Hon. Member is suggesting.
I appreciate the good suggestions of the Law Reform Commission, but until they are translated into sensible legislation that is acceptable to this House 1 am not prepared to see drug traffickers profiting from the absence of effective measures for dealing with them.


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF SWEDISH PARLIAMENTARY DELEGATION
Madam Speaker:: I would like to draw the attention of the House to the presence in our gallery of a delegation from the Swedish Parliamentary Standing Committee on Cultural
Affairs, which is headed by Mr. Ingrid Sundberg, its Vice-Chairman.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


SMALL BUSINESS
Mr. Otto Jelinek (Halton):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister responsible for Small Business. While the Liberals, who form the Government, were busily bailing out such corporate giants as Canadair, Dome, Massey Ferguson, Maislin, and others, a recent survey concluded that the small business sector was losing between 350,000 and 400,000 jobs a year, more than all other sectors combined.
First, is the Minister aware of these facts? Second, in fairness, has he recommended to Cabinet, as we would, realistic incentive oriented job creation programs aimed specifically at small business, the largest potential employer in Canada?


Hon. David Smith (Minister of State for Small Businesses and Tourism):: Madam Speaker, I think that the questioner should be appraised of the fact that 65 per cent of the new jobs being created in this country at present are in the small business sector, and that is largely due to the policies of the Government.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Otto John Jelinek: Madam Speaker, that answer is an absolute joke, because the facts speak for themselves.


MINISTER'S POSITION
Otto John Jelinek: Madam Speaker, in view of the fact-and I repeat my original question-that a recent survey indicated that between 350,000 and 400,000 jobs were lost in the small business sector, and I called it the largest potential employing sector in Canada, has the Minister made any recommendations to Cabinet for realistic incentive oriented employment programs, as we would? I asked him that question. He did not answer it. I repeat it. Now please answer that question.


David P. Smith: Madam Speaker, I would like to assure the Hon. Member that I believe in small business. I believe in initiative. 1 believe in hard work; I believe in the work ethic, and so does this Government.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David P. Smith: Madam Speaker, I want to assure the Hon. Member that I will be standing up for small business in this Government.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
September 14, 1983


NATIVE PEOPLES
Mr. John McDermid (Brampton-Georgetown):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. The native peoples, as the Minister well knows, experience the highest rate of unemployment of any group in Canada. They need skills training, and they need jobs. The Task Force on Employment Opportunities for the '80s dealt very specifically with this problem. As a matter of fact it made 11 recommendations in this area.
First, is the Minister aware of the specific recommendations made by the Task Force? If so, which recommendations does he support? Finally, has he had discussions with his colleague, the Minister of Employment and Immigration, with regard to the implementation of any of the recommendations contained in the report?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Madam Speaker, may I take this opportunity to congratulate the Hon. Member on his appointment as the critic for the Department for which I am responsible. I wish him all the best.
1 would say that there has been a great deal done by the Government in collaboration with the Minister responsible for employment and immigration. For one thing, several millions of dollars were set aside and fenced off out of a recent NEED Program to create employment opportunities for the Indian people, and they took full advantage of that, by a marked stimulation, for instance, in the employment generation through the housing area.
As well, in his budget a few months ago, the Minister of Finance indicated an additional $40 million added to the NEED moneys, which then totalled over $60 million in new moneys this year for housing over and above the amount that was already there, $80 million, which almost doubled the entire moneys spent on Indian housing within one year. That created a tremendous number of jobs within the Indian community, as well as addressing one of the most serious social problems facing the Indian people, that being housing which is not adequate in terms of isolated areas where water, sewers and infrastructure and things of that kind are required.
In addition, we now of course have a Minister responsible for the Economic Development Fund, with offices set up in Winnipeg, and now already beginning to consider loans under the Economic Development Fund. Applications from the natives will be coming in very shortly and, 1 think, decisions made.
Therefore, when one combines all these initiatives with many of the other policies that the Indian people cannot-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please.


John Carr Munro: I could have gone on forever, John.
Oral Questions


Madam Speaker:: Ministers will have to make an effort to be more brief. These answers are really too long.


TASK FORCE RECOMMENDATIONS
John Horton McDermid: Madam Speaker, I appreciate getting my briefing on the floor of the House of Commons. The Minister recited, chapter and verse, what he is doing. He did not answer the question. I asked if he was specifically aware of the recommendations of the Task Force on Employment Opportunities for the '80s. None of the subjects which he discussed here on the floor of the House were referred to in this particular report. Specifically, 1 am asking what recommendations from this report with regard to skills training and the education of the native peoples he has come to grips with.


John Carr Munro: Madam Speaker, I think the Hon. Member would agree that the essence of all those recommendations involves the tremendous emphasis which must now be placed on skills training for native peoples so that they can participate on an equal footing with the rest of Canadians in job opportunities as they open up. I have just enumerated some of the policies that we are now adopting. I could refer to others, in the sense of grant moneys for retraining slots in close proximity to hydro-carbon development. In the Territories we are expending $20 million in training for natives. All is in keeping with the spirit and essence of all those recommendations to which the Hon. Member has referred. 1 am prepared to go through each one and send him a progress report.


COPYRIGHT
Mr. Robert Gourd (Argenteuil-Papineau):: Madam Speaker, I would like to take advantage of the presence in the House of a group of Swedish parliamentarians, members of the Committee on Culture, to direct my question to the Minister of Communications.
The Minister is well aware of my abiding interest in copyright matters, and I would like to ask the Minister whether the legislation to revise the Copyright Act will soon be tabled in Parliament, and whether, by any chance, Canadian artists can expect to see this new legislation in the next Speech from the Throne?


Hon. Francis Fox (Minister of Communications):: Madam Speaker, as you did yourself, the Hon. Member mentioned the presence in the House of the Parliamentary Committee on

September 14, 1983
Oral Questions
Culture from Sweden, and I am delighted to see that they are visiting Canada during this international communications year.
The copyright question is clearly an issue that today has international ramifications. It is a matter of concern to many countries, which have started a thorough review of their copyright legislation because of the enormous technological advances that are endangering the author's copyright. The same is true in Canada, and not long ago, I had a chance to discuss this matter quite thoroughly with my colleague, the new Minister for Consumer and Corporate Affairs, and we shall very shortly be submitting a joint position on this question to our Cabinet colleagues.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mrs. Margaret Mitchell (Vancouver East):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Employment and Immigration. The Commission of Inquiry into part-time work has recently confirmed that part-time jobs are increasing as full-time jobs are being phased out and disappearing. Seventy-two per cent of these part-time workers are women, many raising their children in poverty. They earn low wages, receive few benefits, and lack job security. Many do not even have unemployment insurance. Since the Minister apparently cannot provide full-time jobs, will he at least amend the unemployment insurance regulations to cover part-time workers, as the Commission recommends?


Hon. John Roberts (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Madam Speaker, I have not read the report in its entirety but I have looked at a summary of it. I am conscious of the recommendations that have been made to us. I am taking them under advisement and looking at them very seriously.
In some instances there may be some simplifications and exaggerations in the report of the present situation. I am extremely concerned about the possible use of part-time employees by employers in a way which does not provide the kind of basic protection that people employed in Canadian society should have.
We will be examining the report with some considerable care to see if we can act upon recommendations that it makes.


CANADA LABOUR CODE
Margaret Anne Mitchell: Madam Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Labour my supplementary question is directed to his Parliamentary Secretary. Last spring the previous Minister of Labour refused to answer my
question on the necessity to change the Canada Labour Code as it applies to part-time workers until the Commission on part-time work had reported. Will the Minister now amend the Labour Code to extend protection to all part-time workers under federal jurisdiction? As well, will he remove restrictions that deny part-time work to workers in the Government and which denies them the right to unionize?


Mr. Antonio Yanakis (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Labour):: Madam Speaker, as the Hon. Member is aware, the Commission's report was published on Wednesday, September 7 of this year. The Minister has received the report but would like to postpone any specific comments on the Commission's conclusions and its recommendations until he has had a chance to examine the report in greater detail. We know that the Commission identified a number of major problems concerning part-time workers, the most important one being the absence of statutory definitions and also of provisions relating to pension and social benefits. The Minister will therefore proceed to examine these points in detail.


NATIONAL ENERGY PROGRAM
Miss Pat Carney (Vancouver Centre):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Under the National Energy Program's oil import compensation program, Canadian taxpayers have been subsidizing Russian passenger planes which land at Mirabel and buy fuel from Petro-Canada for the return flight to Moscow. Can the Minister tell us whether Canadian taxpayers will continue to subsidize these Russian planes after the 60-day embargo on Aeroflot flights is lifted, considering the fact that ten Canadians were among the 269 innocent people shot out of the skies by the Russians?


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Madam Speaker, I will look into the question. Of course, there are no Russian planes coming to Canada for the next 60 days. What the Hon. Member is asking after that is to keep discriminating or treating the Russians in another fashion than the other airlines, forever. I do not know if it will be six months or forever. It is a question we must look into. However, the embargo is for 60 days and there will be no Russian planes coming into Canada, so the problem is not material at this time.


Pat Carney: I would suggest that a country which shoots commercial aircraft out of the sky possibly could be subjected to special treatment.
September 14, 1983


POSSIBLE AVENUE OF COMPENSATION
Pat Carney: Madam Speaker, considering the fact that the Russians are apparently reluctant to pay compensation for the deaths of these Canadians and others on board the downed Korean aircraft, is there some way in which compensation could be extracted through higher fuel prices, such as the oil export charge on Russian planes refuelling at Mirabel?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Madam Speaker, we certainly cannot do that for the next 60 days.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Hon. Sinclair Stevens (York-Peel):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. He may know that the Soviet Deputy Foreign Minister, Mr. Kornienko, has stated that there will be no compensation payable with respect to the downing of the KAL 007 aircraft. Mr. Kornienko added, "I view the question as irrelevant."
Would the Minister indicate to the House if there has been any response to the note that was delivered to the Soviets and, in the event that the Soviets have said no to compensation, as appears to be the case, what further steps will the Minister be taking to guarantee that there will in fact be compensation?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Deputy Prime Minister and Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Madam Speaker, I think that the Hon. Member's interpretation of the Soviet spokesman's statement may not be fully accurate. The Deputy Foreign Minister said that compensation should be paid, but not by the Soviet Union. What I have read is an acknowledgement by the Soviet Union that there is a liability, an obligation, that must be met.
1 do not think it is unusual to have this response because we had a similar experience some time ago with respect to a claim affecting the Soviet Union when, in the initial stages, the Soviet Union refused to accept any responsibility whatsoever. I never thought that the Soviet Union would come forward very quickly and acknowledge a responsibility and express a willingness to provide compensation. We intend to continue our efforts, and hope to meet the same success as we did in the past.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Surely the Minister is not suggesting to the House that there is any other nation responsible for the downing of this jet than the Soviet nation?
Oral Questions


REQUEST THAT CONTENTS OF DIPLOMATIC NOTE BE TABLED
Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Madam Speaker, would the Minister now table the contents of the note that was delivered to the Soviet Union? There are many precedents for tabling such notes, including the tabling by the Right Hon. Member for Yellowhead of the note with respect to Afghanistan.
Second, would he indicate specifically to the House what the further steps were which he referred to Monday night, when he said that he would be taking further steps to secure compensation with respect to this matter?
Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Deputy Prime Minister and
Secretary of State for External Affairs): Madam Speaker, with respect to further steps, we have begun and will continue consultation with the bereaved families on the question of compensation. I think that process has to be undertaken, no matter how unpleasant it is, particularly for the bereaved families. Once we have completed that process we intend to make a claim in a single presentation to the Soviet Government. That is our bilateral approach. Other nations as well, including the United States, have indicated that they will be making a claim; the South Korean Government has done the same thing. I believe that we will all have to proceed bilaterally and keep pressing forward the legitimacy of this particular compensation claim.
I want to correct the Hon. Member if he concluded from my statement that I inferred that the Soviet Union had no responsibility or that another nation or the airline had responsibility. It is quite the contrary. I believe the Soviet Union has full responsibility which it has not yet acknowledged. But what the Soviet Union did, or its spokesman, in the statement was to admit that compensation should be paid. In this case, if I read correctly, they viewed that it should be paid by somebody else, not the Soviet Union.


FISHERIES
Miss Coline Campbell (South West Nova):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. Due to the recent financial collapse of a major East Coast fish company, can the Minister assure the House that the groundfish inventories presently held by the bank's receivers will not be dumped at lower than market prices on the existing market, and therefore avoid a fish price war among East Coast companies?


Hon. Pierre De Bane (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans):: Madam Speaker, 1 am happy to report to the Hon. Member that there is no evidence to suggest that fishing companies are engaged in a price war. I would even add that it would be most irresponsible to suggest that because this is what-

Oral Questions


John Carnell Crosbie: The Bank of Nova Scotia is.


Pierre De Bané: This is exactly what I think is most reprehensible, to give a signal to the buyers in the United States that our sellers are engaged in a price war. What an irresponsible statement.


Mr. Scott (Hamilton-Wentworth):: She asked the question.


Pierre De Bané: I am happy to report that our companies are behaving responsibly. When we saw a weakness in the market this summer, the Government immediately established a program to buy the cod stocks. The market has firmed up. At the moment the price of cod blocks in the United States is $1.16 to $1.18, while last year it was $1.08. At this moment our major competitors in Europe are short of stock. This means that there is also an upswing for Canadian exporters in the European market.


LABOUR RELATIONS
Mr. Sid Parker (Kootenay East-Revelstoke):: Madam Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Labour whose office indicated he would be here this afternoon, I would like to direct my question to his Parliamentary Secretary. The Canadian Airline Employees Association approached him in late July to ask for ministerial consent to lay a charge of bad faith bargaining against Austin Airways Limited before the Canada Labour Relations Board. Prompt attention to this request might have prevented the necessity of a strike which began on August 23, a month after the Minister was contacted. Could he tell the House if the Minister intends to help resolve this situation by permitting the Canada Labour Relations Board to hear the charge and, if so, when will his consent be given?
[ Translation]


Antonio Yanakis: Madam Speaker, I wish to take the Hon. Member's question as notice, and I shall advise the Minister accordingly.


CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD
Mr. Vic Althouse (Humboldt-Lake Centre):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister who speaks in this place for the Canadian Wheat Board. He will know that a poor corn crop in the United States has pushed up world barley prices by more than 30 per cent, which means that there is now room for an increase in the initial price for barley. Since higher initial payments will be received by farmers,
September 14, 1983
there will be increased economic activity right across the country. Can the Minister tell the House if a recommendation for a higher initial price has been made to Cabinet, and when farmers will know whether that will be forthcoming?


Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Transport):: Madam Speaker, in response to the Hon. Member's question 1 would like to confirm that the Canadian Wheat Board brought forward an assessment about the changing conditions in the feed barley market. I am happy to report to the House that the market has substantially improved during the latter part of the summer, so we might be in a position to do a full assessment. However, I would not want to move on a matter as important as this until I have had the opportunity to consult with the Minister responsible for the Wheat Board who is presently abroad and should be back shortly. We will be meeting as soon as he returns. I hope we will be able to bring forward a recommendation to Cabinet so that we can take advantage of the new barley prices and give a further payment to farmers in that area.


EMPLOYMENT
Mr. Jack Shields (Athabasca):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Employment and Immigration. Canada Employment Centres have established a policy that denies functional illiterates with grade six or less education admission into Manpower programs supported under the Skills Training Act. Why is this policy in place when there is absolutely nothing in the Act denying access to functional illiterates or people with below grade six education?


John (Moody) Roberts: Madam Speaker, I thank the Hon. Member for his question. I will have to check and give him a detailed answer at a later date.


EXCLUSION OF INDIANS FROM EDUCATIONAL PROGRAMS
Jack Wendele Shields: Madam Speaker, while the Minister is checking into that I wonder if he could also check into why treaty Indians are being denied access to academic upgrading programs in exactly the same way under the same Act, with the statement by Manpower officers that this is being covered under Indian Affairs funding, when Indian Affairs funding for Alberta is $85,000 to cover academic upgrading for 40,000 adult Indians? Could he also check into that?


John (Moody) Roberts: Madam Speaker, I will check to see if the assertions of the Hon. Member are accurate, and reply to him directly.
September 14, 1983


CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD
Mr. Stan Schellenberger (Wetaskiwin):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister who answers for the Canadian Wheat Board in the House. His previous answer causes great difficulty for farmers in western Canada because open market prices are so low. If the initial price is not increased directly, they will find that the profits they should be taking this year will not be there. 1 hope the Minister will say that he will act quickly in increasing the initial price so that western farmers can finally take advantage of some better markets.


Lloyd Axworthy: Madam Speaker, I thought my answer clearly indicated our intention to take the Wheat Board proposal and act upon it with a recommendation to Cabinet as soon as I have had the opportunity to consult with the Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board. 1 should point out at the same time that the Wheat Board has already extended the quota for feed barley on the export market, which provides a further delivery for farmers in that area. We are already taking action through the Wheat Board to respond to the improved conditions in the world market.


Stanley Kenneth Schellenberger: It is important that that price increase come quickly.


FARMERS' CASH REQUIREMENTS
Stanley Kenneth Schellenberger: Madam Speaker, since last year's barley pool is not closed yet, and since there will certainly be losses in that pool, will the Minister assure western farmers that they can in fact assume that the Government will fulfill its obligations under the Canadian Wheat Board Act to cover the loss so that they can get some desperately needed money into their hands from this year's better prices?


Lloyd Axworthy: Madam Speaker, there is no question that the opportunity to improve the financial position of farmers because of improved markets is one to which the Government will respond with a great deal of speed. The methods and techniques of doing it will be based upon the consultations I have and the recommendations we make to Cabinet, but there will be action in that area. I can assure the Hon. Member that it is a matter of extreme and critical importance to us, and that we will respond as soon as we possibly can.


CONSUMER AND CORPORATE AFFAIRS
Hon. Walter Baker (Nepean-Carleton):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Consumer and
Petitions
Corporate Affairs. It concerns the fact that Texaco, a major oil company, is reputed to be increasing the price for gasoline by between one cent and four cents per litre, or by as much as 18 cents per gallon, in the Ottawa area and throughout the Ottawa Valley. There are indications that other companies will likely follow suit. In fact, that is the history. Is the Minister aware of this? If not, will she make herself aware of it? Also, will she examine the question from the point of view of the Combines Act as to whether there is an offence and, as the protector for consumers, whether this increase is justified, as was done when examinations were made by her in other capacities?


Hon. Judy Erola (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Madam Speaker, I am sure the Hon. Member is aware that such an investigation is under way. Because of the circumstances I am unable to comment, but I can assure the Hon. Member that my Department is keeping a very close watch in this area.


COST TO CONSU M ERS
Walter David Baker: Madam Speaker, I thank the Minister. I have a supplementary question with respect to her position as the protector of consumers. If the increase is justified by the companies because of circumstances with which they satisfy the Minister, will the Minister consider consulting with the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources to see whether the surplus that exists in the Petroleum Compensation Fund, or the surplus which now exists in the Canadian Ownership Account with the Government, might be used to reduce the cost per litre to consumers of gasoline?


Judith A. Erola: Madam Speaker, of course I accept the Hon. Member's representation, but he is pre-supposing a judgment, and I am not in a position to make that judgment at the moment. Certainly, as the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, I am very concerned about the fluctuation of gasoline prices in this country.


PETITIONS
Madam Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that the petitions presented by Hon. Members on Tuesday, September 13, 1983, meet the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.
Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act



ELECTORAL BOUNDARIES READJUSTMENT ACT


Madam Speaker:: It is my duty to inform the House that an objection signed by the Hon. Members for Kitchener (Mr. Lang), London-Middlesex (Mr. Bloomfield), Guelph (Mr. Schroder), Lac-Saint-Jean (Mr. Gimai'el), Cochrane-Superior (Mr. Penner), Thunder Bay-Nipigon (Mr. Masters), Red Deer (Mr. Towers), Calgary North (Mr. Wright), Ontario (Mr. Fennell), and Scarborough Centre (Mr. Kelly) has been filed with me pursuant to Section 20 of the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, Chapter E-2, R.S.C. 1970, to the Report of the Electoral Boundaries Commission for the Province of Ontario.
1 would like to apologize to the Hon. Members who signed this objection since, through an administrative error, this objection was not announced to the House when it resumed its sitting on Monday. However, I am assured by the Hon. Member for Kitchener that these objections were filed within the time limit. Therefore, with the permission of the House, we will proceed with filing these objections. If the House agrees, I would suggest that we follow past practice and print the text of the objections as an appendix to this day's Votes and Proceedings.


Mr. Nielsen:: Madam Speaker, 1 am afraid that in the hubbub that followed the Question Period and while you were making that statement from the Chair, I did not hear it all. With the permission of the House, you might provide me the courtesy of reading what you said and providing any necessary consent or observations tomorrow.


Madam Speaker:: These are objections signed by the Hon. Members for Kitchener, London-Middlesex, Guelph, Lac-Saint-Jean, Cochrane-Superior, Thunder Bay-Nipigon, Red Deer, Calgary North, Ontario and Scarborough Centre. They have been filed with me pursuant to Section 20 of the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, Chapter E-2, R.S.C. 1970 to the Report of the Electoral Boundaries Commission for the Province of Ontario.
I apologized to Hon. Members because these objections were not tabled in the House on the day that the House resumed its sitting. Apparently the objection was filed with the Clerk or with the Table, but for some reason that document was not seen by anyone. We were, therefore, not aware on the first day of the sitting that we had this particular document in our hands. The Hon. Member for Kitchener inquired about these objections. Upon research, we found the document.
The Hon. Member for Kitchener tells us that the document was filed on June 30. Therefore, as is customary, we take his word for that. 1 have therefore asked the House if I may file these objections and print the text in today's Votes and Proceedings.
September 14, 1983


Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, I have not seen them. Permit me the courtesy of having a look at them and providing a response tomorrow.


Madam Speaker:: As the Hon. Member wants.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Hon. Yvon Pinard (President of the Privy Council):: Madam Speaker, under Standing Order 46(2), I would like to table the membership list for Cabinet committees. In accordance with recent practice, I also ask that this document be printed as an appendix to today's Hansard.


Madam Speaker:: Shall we have this list of Cabinet committees appended to today's Hansard?


Walter David Baker: Madam Speaker, may I ask the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Pinard) whether there have been any changes as a result of Cabinet changes in the names of acting Ministers and second acting Ministers? If so, will the Minister be tabling that in the House of Commons?


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, there have been changes in acting Ministers.
[ Translation]
If I am not mistaken, we tabled the list in the House a few days ago. 1 will check. However, if we did not, 1 can give the Hon. Member the assurance that the list will be tabled as soon as possible. I think the list was tabled, however. I remember seeing it, and it did contain a number of changes.


Madam Speaker:: Does the House agree?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Madam Speaker:: It is so ordered.
[Editor's Note: For above document see Appendix A.]


Mr. Paproski:: Madam Speaker, 1 would like to ask the
President of the Privy Council a question. Can the Minister please advise the House what Minister is in charge of the new sports pool, not Loto Canada or Super Loto but the new sports pool that we passed just before the recess?


Yvon Pinard: If the Hon. Member has a question on this subject, the new Minister of State for Fitness and Amateur Sport (Mrs. Hervieux-Payette) will be pleased to answer it.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Is she in charge of the pool?

September 14, 1983


LAW REFORM COMMISSION
Hon. Mark MacGuigan (Minister of Justice):: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to lay upon the Table of the House in both official languages a copy of the report of the Law Reform Commission of Canada entitled "Writs of Assistance and Tele-warrants". 1 ask that this report be referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.


PETITIONS
Jack Wendele Shields: Madam Speaker, 1 have the duty to present a petition on behalf of a number of my constituents in the riding of Athabasca. The purpose of the petition, signed by 169 residents of the City of Fort McMur-ray, is to register their dissatisfaction with the quality of service being offered by the Alberta Broadcasting Corporation. This company has removed the parliamentary channel from the lower band, as well as CBC North, to make room for the Pay-TV stations, which must be subscribed to. In addition, due to the increase in the tax on cablevision contained in the April, 1983 budget, the cablevision fees have gone up by 11 per cent. Therefore, not only are my constituents receiving less service, they must pay more for that reduced service.
The nature of this petition is to request that Parliament intervene by persuading cable TV stations to put the parliamentary debates on the lower band so that the citizens of Fort McMurray who do not have converters can continue to view them without being forced to pay for a converter.
The petitioners hope that in Madam Speaker's examination you will find the petition in order, sense the urgency of their plea and that you might use the discretionary powers vested in your office to allow discussion and referral of this petition to the Standing Committee on Communications at the earliest possible moment.


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, 1 rise on a brief point of order. 1 just want to clarify and be more precise. I have checked, and in answer to the question posed by the Hon. Member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker) the list of acting Ministers was tabled last Monday. Therefore, it is in the public record. If the Hon. Member refers to Hansard the list is appended.


Walter David Baker: I thank the Minister.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Order Paper Questions
Mr. John Evans (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Madam Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 4,599, to 4,614 inclusive.


Mr. Dick: Will the Government be contributing more funds to the Eastern Ontario Subsidiary Agreement to assist in the construction of the Mink Green Municipal Drain in the Township of Bromley, which is urgently needed as it will be of great benefit to agriculture in the area, and, if so, on what date'.'


Hon. Ed Lumley (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce and Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: In so
far as the Department of Regional Economic Expansion is concerned:
Assistance to the Township of Bromley for the construction of the Mink Creek Municipal Drain was approved by the management committee for the Eastern Ontario Subsidiary Agreement on December 3, 1982 in the total amount of $64,110 to be cost-shared equally (50/50) by Canada and the Province of Ontario.


Mr. Dick: Will the Government be contributing more funds to the Eastern Ontario Subsidiary Agreement to assist in the construction of the Snake River Municipal Drain in the Township of Bromley, which is urgently needed as it will be of great benefit to agriculture in the area, and, if so, on what date?


Edward C. Lumley: In so
far as the Department of Regional Economic Expansion is concerned:
Assistance to the Township of Bromley for the construction of the Snake River North Tributary Municipal Drain was approved by the management committee for the Eastern Ontario Subsidiary Agreement on December 3, 1982 in the total amount of $46,544 to be cost-shared equally (50/50) by Canada and the Province of Ontario.


Mr. Dick: Will the Government be contributing more funds to the Eastern Ontario Subsidiary Agreement to assist in the construction of the Snake River Upper Harris Municipal Drain in the Township of Bromley, which is urgently needed as it will be of great benefit to agriculture in the area, and, if so, on what date?


Edward C. Lumley: In so
far as the Department of Regional Economic Expansion is concerned:
Assistance to the Township of Bromley for the construction of the Snake River Upper Harris Municipal Drain was approved by the management committee for the Eastern Ontario Subsidiary Agreement on December 3, 1982 in the

September 14, 1983
Order Paper Questions
total amount of $233,180 to be cost-shared equally (50/50) by Canada and the Province of Ontario.


Mr. Dick: Will the Government be contributing more funds to the Eastern Ontario Subsidiary Agreement to assist in the construction of the Snake River South Fork Municipal Drain in the Township of Bromley, which is urgently needed as it will be of great benefit to agriculture in the area, and, if so, on what date?


Edward C. Lumley: In so
far as the Department of Regional Economic Expansion is concerned:
Assistance to the Township of Bromley for the construction of the Snake River South Fork Municipal Drain was approved by the management committee for the Eastern Ontario Subsidiary Agreement on December 3, 1982 in the total amount of $160,760 to be cost-shared equally (50/50) by Canada and the Province of Ontario.


Mr. Dick: Will the Government be contributing more funds to the Eastern Ontario Subsidiary Agreement to assist in the construction of the Cull-Donohue Municipal Drain in the Township of Bromley, which is urgently needed as it will be of great benefit to agriculture in the area, and, if so, on what date?


Edward C. Lumley: In so
far as the Department of Regional Economic Expansion is concerned:
At this time, Canada is not considering an appropriation of supplementary funds and the Province has expressed, in writing, a similar position on this issue. Assistance for the Cull-Donohue Municipal Drain will be subject to the availability of surplus funds within the present total funding limit of the Agreement.


Mr. Dick: Will the Government be contributing more funds to the Eastern Ontario Subsidiary Agreement to assist in the construction of the Rice Municipal Drain in the Township of Bromley, which is urgently needed as it will be of great benefit to agriculture in the area, and, if so, on what date?


Edward C. Lumley: In so
far as the Department of Regional Economic Expansion is concerned:
At this time, Canada is not considering an appropriation of supplementary funds and the Province has expressed, in writing, a similar position on this issue. Assistance for the Rice Municipal Drain will be subject to the availability of surplus funds within the present total funding limit of the Agreement.


Mr. Dick: Will the Government be contributing more funds to the Eastern Ontario Subsidiary Agreement to assist in the construction of the Ready-Cahill Municipal Drain in the Township of Bromley, which is urgently needed as it will be of great benefit to agriculture in the area, and, if so, on what date?


Edward C. Lumley: In so
far as the Department of Regional Economic Expansion is concerned:
At this time, Canada is not considering an appropriation of supplementary funds and the Province has expressed, in writing, a similar position on this issue. Assistance for the Ready-Cahill Municipal Drain will be subject to the availability of surplus funds within the present total funding limit of the Agreement.


Mr. Dick: Will the Government be contributing more funds to the Eastern Ontario Subsidiary Agreement to assist in the construction of the Cahill Municipal Drain in the Township of Bromley, which is urgently needed as it will be of great benefit to agriculture in the area, and, if so, on what date?


Edward C. Lumley: In so
far as the Department of Regional Economic Expansion is concerned:
At this time, Canada is not considering an appropriation of supplementary funds and the Province has expressed, in writing, a similar position on this issue. Assistance for the Cahill Municipal Drain will be subject to the availability of surplus funds within the present total funding limit of the Agreement.


Mr. Dick: Will the Government be contributing more funds to the Eastern Ontario Subsidiary Agreement to assist in the construction of the Graham McLeod Municipal Drain in the Township of Ross, which is urgently needed as it will be of great benefit to agriculture in the area, and, if so, on what date?


Edward C. Lumley: In so
far as the Department of Regional Economic Expansion is concerned:
At this time, Canada is not considering an appropriation of supplementary funds and the Province has expressed, in writing, a similar position on this issue. Assistance for the Graham McLeod Municipal Drain will be subject to the availability of surplus funds within the present total funding limit of the Agreement.
September 14, 1983

Order Paper Questions


Mr. Dick: Will the Government be contributing more funds to the Eastern Ontario Subsidiary Agreement to assist in the construction of the Cotnam Municipal Drain in the Township of Cotnam. which is urgently needed as it will be of great benefit to agriculture in the area, and, if so, on what date?


Edward C. Lumley: In so
far as the Department of Regional Economic Expansion is concerned:
At this time, Canada is not considering an appropriation of supplementary funds and the Province has expressed, in writing, a similar position on this issue. Assistance for the Cotnam Municipal Drain, which is located in Pembroke Township will be subject to the availability of surplus funds within the present total funding limit of the Agreement.
HEALY MacPHERSON MUNICIPAL DRAIN


Mr. Dick: Will the Government be contributing more funds to the Eastern Ontario Subsidiary Agreement to assist in the construction of the existing Healy MacPherson Municipal Drain in the Township of Elmsley, which is urgently needed as it will be of great benefit to agriculture in the area, and, if so, on what date?


Edward C. Lumley: In so
far as the Department of Regional Economic Expansion is concerned:
At this time, Canada is not considering an appropriation of supplementary funds and the Province has expressed, in writing, a similar position on this issue. Assistance for the Healy MacPherson Municipal Drain will be subject to the availability of surplus funds within the present total funding limit of the Agreement.


Mr. Dick: Will the Government be contributing more funds to the Eastern Ontario Subsidiary Agreement to assist in the construction of the McNeely-Lightbody Municipal Drain in the Township of Montague, which is urgently needed as it will be of great benefit to agriculture in the area, and, if so, on what date?


Edward C. Lumley: In so
far as the Department of Regional Economic Expansion is concerned:
At this time, Canada is not considering an appropriation of supplementary funds and the Province has expressed, in writing, a similar position on this issue. Assistance for the McNeely-Lightbody Municipal Drain will be subject to the availability of surplus funds within the present total funding limit of the Agreement.


Mr. Dick: Will the Government be contributing more funds to the Eastern Ontario Subsidiary Agreement to assist in the construction of the Glen Elbe Municipal Drain in the Township of Elizabethtown, which is urgently needed as it will be of great benefit to agriculture in the area, and, if so, on what date?


Edward C. Lumley: In so
far as the Department of Regional Economic Expansion is concerned:
At this time, Canada is not considering an appropriation of supplementary funds and the Province has expressed, in writing, a similar position on this issue. Assistance for the Glen Elbe Municipal Drain will be subject to the availability of surplus funds within the present total funding limit of the Agreement.


Mr. Dick: Will the Government be contributing more funds to the Eastern Ontario Subsidiary Agreement to assist in the construction of the Greer Municipal Drain in the Township of Elizabethtown, which is urgently needed as it will be of great benefit to agriculture in the area, and, if so, on what date?


Edward C. Lumley: In so
far as the Department of Regional Economic Expansion is concerned:
At this time, Canada is not considering an appropriation of supplementary funds and the Province has expressed, in writing, a similar position on this issue. Assistance for the Greer Municipal Drain will be subject to the availability of surplus funds within the present total funding limit of the Agreement.


Mr. Dick: Will the Government be contributing more funds to the Eastern Ontario Subsidiary Agreement to assist in the construction of the Lyn Pettem Municipal Drain in the Township of Elizabethtown, which is urgently needed as it will be of great benefit to agriculture in the area, and, if so, on what date?


Edward C. Lumley: In so
far as the Department of Regional Economic Expansion is concerned:
At this time, Canada is not considering an appropriation of supplementary funds and the Province has expressed, in writing, a similar position on this issue. Assistance for the Lyn Pettem Municipal Drain will be subject to the availability of surplus funds within the present total funding limit of the Agreement.

September 14, 1983
Order Paper Questions


Mr. Dick: Will the Government be contributing more funds to the Eastern Ontario Subsidiary Agreement to assist in the construction of the Creek Road Municipal Drain in the Township of Front of Leeds and Lansdowne, which is urgently needed as it will be of great benefit to agriculture in the area, and, if so, on what date?


Edward C. Lumley: In so
far as the Department of Regional Economic Expansion is concerned:
At this time, Canada is not considering an appropriation of supplementary funds and the Province has expressed, in writing, a similar position on this issue. Assistance for the Creek Road Municipal Drain will be subject to the availability of surplus funds within the present total funding limit of the Agreement.


John Leslie Evans: Madam Speaker, if questions Nos. 4,800 and 4,962 could be made orders for returns, these returns could be tabled immediately.


Madam Speaker:: The questions enumerated by the Parliamentary Secretary have been answered. Is it the pleasure of the House that questions No. 4,800 and No. 4,962 be deemed to have been made orders for return?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Howie: 1.	For the program year (a) 1980 (A) 1981 (c) 1982 (d) 1983 to date, what amount was expended under the provisions of the Community Services Contribution Program in (i) Fredericton (ii) New Brunswick?
2.	For each year, what were the names of the projects supported and what was the amount awarded to each project?
Return tabled.


Mr. Benjamin: I. With regard to the Farm Credit Corporation and its operations in the Province of (a) Manitoba (A) Saskatchewan (c) Alberta, for the required review of loan applications and/or loan agreements between farmers and, or through, the Corporation, which individuals and firms are authorized to perform legal services, give legal advice or opinions, review applications and/or agreements, or to act in any other legal or review capacity on behalf of and/or for (i) the Corporation (ii) clients of the Corporation (iii) individuals attempting to or actually negotiating loans or other agreements with or through the Corporation?
2.	For each of the (a) individuals (A) firms (i) on what date did they first become eligible to do this work or perform this service (ii) for how long a term are they eligible?
3.	Was the individual or firm appointed for a fixed term and. if so (a) what was the term (A) on what date and for how long has the term been renewed and, if not renewed, for what reason (c) how often and on what date has the eligibility been reviewed?
4.	Was the individual or firm appointed for an indefinite term and, if so (a) for what reasons (b) are reviews made and (i) if so, how often and on what date (ii) if not, for what reason?
5.	What are the (a) general (A) specific criteria for the selection of these individuals and/or firms for the performance of, or the eligibility to undertake, these duties?
6.	What are the review criteria, if any?
7.	Are reviews undertaken and (a) if not, for what reason (A) if so (i) how many individuals and firms have been reviewed (ii) as a percentage of total eligible and total reviewed, how many have not received renewals (c) how has each individual and firm met, failed to meet and/or surpassed the eligibility criteria?
8.	For each individual and firm, broken down by (a) local area (A) town and/or city (<[DOT]) region (d) FCC region (e) province (Manitoba. Saskatchewan, Alberta) (/) the three provinces in total and for (i) actual dollar amounts, and as a percentage of the total actual dollar amount, by grouping (ii) actual number of clients and/or transactions, and as a percentage of the total number of clients and/or transactions, by grouping, what was/is the amount of work carried out. worked on, and currently in progress?
Return tabled.
[ Translation]


John Leslie Evans: I would ask, Madam Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Madam Speaker:: Shall the remaining questions be allowed to stand?


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Madam Speaker, as this is the third parliamentary secretary I have had to deal with, I would like to give him a challenge. Question No. 2,042 asked by myself on January 29, 1981, with respect to the total cost of the Prime Minister's December, 1980-January, 1981 world tour and what percentage of the total cost of the trip will be paid by Canadian taxpayers has not been answered to date. As this is information that every Canadian should be entitled to, I would implore the Parliamentary Secretary to do whatever has to be done to come clean with the Canadian public.


John Leslie Evans: Madam Speaker, 1 realize the urgency of the Hon. Member's question and I certainly will look into that immediately. 1 should note, however, that to this date, 4,244 questions have been answered, it being almost 85 per cent of all of the questions that have been asked of the Government.
[ Translation]


John Leslie Evans: 1 would ask, Madam Speaker, that all notices of motions for production of papers be allowed to stand.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
September 14, 1983


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Shall all orders listed under Private Members' Public Bills preceding Order No. 207 be allowed to stand by unanimous consent?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



CRIMINAL CODE


Mr. Bill Clarke (Vancouver Quadra) moved: that Bill C-407, an Act to amend the Criminal Code (cruelty to animals), be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.
He said: Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to stand at last and say a few words about this Bill to the House. It is one that had its first reading over three years ago on May 2, 1980, and I hope that it is not a measure of the esteem that the House has for our friends from the animal kingdom that it has taken over three years to arrive at this debate.
I should say at the outset, Mr. Speaker, that this Bill does not touch upon laboratory testing or experimentation with animals. Great advances have been made in medical research through the controlled laboratory testing of and experiments on animals. This important aspect of the situation was discussed in some detail this week by a well-known columnist, none other than Ann Landers. In reference to the alleged cruelty to animals in research laboratories, that well-known columnist observed, probably speaking about the United States of America, that 13 million dogs and cats alone were destroyed in shelters in that country last year because no one wanted them. As well, Mr. Speaker, she pointed out that:
Animal experimentation made it possible to immunize millions of children, all over the world, against polio, diphtheria, mumps, measles, hepatitis, etc. Add to that list every person who receives an antibiotic to fight infection, insulin for diabetes, anti-inflammatory agents for arthritis, chemotherapy for cancer, medication to control hypertension and drugs for the treatment of mental illness.
Every person who has undergone the replacement of-a joint, or the reattachment of a severed finger or limb, kidney dialysis, heart surgery or organ transplantation owes a debt to animal experimentation.
Those procedures are carried out under controlled circumstances, and I point out again that they are not the subject of the debate today. We should recognize that the alternative to using animals in laboratories is of course the use of humans, which use I have not heard advocated. 1 quote now from the Bill:
The purpose of this Bill is to enlarge the scope of subsection 402(1) of the Criminal Code prohibiting cruelty to animals. This is done in three ways; first, it expands the application of these provisions to anyone who causes wilful or negligent injury to an animal. Second, it provides that an owner cannot permit negligent or wilful damage to an animal or bird and, third, it imposes a duty on the part of owners and those in control of animals to provide them with suitable maintenance.
Cruelty to Animals
This will mean that owners and others who are keeping animals will have to provide a standard of care such that the animals' health cannot be impaired by the actions of that person or of strangers. Moreover, this expansion of the subsection will make it more enforceable as it will clearly encompass negligent as well as wilful behaviour in regard to the care of animals or birds.
Now, the present Section 402(1) of the Criminal Code does list a number of offences, but some of the definitions are too skimpy. In order to detail the proposed changes, I would like to read the first three paragraphs of Subsection 402(1), which read as follows:
Everyone commits an offence who
(a)	wilfully causes or, being the owner, wilfully permits to be caused unnecessary pain, suffering or injury to an animal or bird,
(b)	by wilful neglect causes damage or injury to animals or birds while they are being driven or conveyed,
(c)	being the owner or the person having the custody or control of a domestic animal or bird or an animal or bird wild by nature that is in captivity, abandons it in distress or wilfully neglects or fails to provide suitable and adequate food, water, shelter and care for it.
Those are the first three paragraphs, Mr. Speaker, of Subsection (1) of Section 402.
The proposal that I make in Bill C-407 is a very simple one and it is that those three paragraphs be repealed and be substituted by three subsections which would read as follows:
(a)	wilfully or negligently causes unnecessary hardship, privation, suffering or injury to any animal or bird,
(b)	being the owner or a person having custody or control of any animal or bird, wilfully or negligently permits unnecessary hardship, privation, suffering or injury to be caused to such animal or bird,
(c)	being the owner or a person having custody or control of any animal or bird, abandons it in distress or wilfully or negligently fails to provide suitable and adequate food, water, shelter and care for it.
To summarize, Mr. Speaker, the comparisons are that the old Code refers to pain, suffering or injury, whereas the clause I am proposing uses the terminology "hardship, privation, suffering or injury". After all, pain is a matter of subjective definition and hardship and privation would extend that definition.
The word "negligently" has been added in all three paragraphs because wilful action was the only provision made in the old wording. The original provision referred to wilful neglect while being driven or conveyed. That is now eliminated because it is included in the new definition of hardship, privation, suffering or injury.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, the new wording expands the definition of animal or bird by the use of the word "any". This means that now the animal concerned does not have to be a domestic or wild animal but would be any animal or bird.
1 ask the support of the House for this Bill which will be to the benefit of our furred and feathered friends. I hope all Members of the House will feel as charitably about this as I do.


Mr. Jack Masters (Thunder Bay-Nipigon):: Mr. Speaker, I think we all appreciate the concern of the Hon. Member for

September 14, 1983
Cruelty to Animals
Vancouver-Quadra (Mr. Clarke) in bringing this Bill forward, and I should like to make a few comments on it.
The Bill under consideration proposes to make minor amendments to the Criminal Code provisions dealing with cruelty to animals. The proposal's key feature is to make a negligent act of cruelty to an animal a criminal offence. Very few negligent acts with respect to human beings are governed by the criminal law, so I do not see why we should afford more protection to animals than we do to people.
A criminal offence generally requires an actus reus and a mens rea. The act must be committed plus the person committing the act must have the required intention. Where a person does not intend the consequences of his act or does not have the necessary mental state to understand that the act is wrong, he is generally not punished by the criminal law. There are few exceptions to this rule.
The Criminal Code currently defines criminal negligence in Section 202(1). The Section states:
Everyone is criminally negligent who
(a)	in doing anything, or
(b)	in omitting to do anything that it is his duty to do,
shows wanton or reckless disregard for the lives or safety of other persons.
Subsection 202(2) adds:
For the purposes of this section, "duty" means a duty imposed by law.
This same type of recklessness is contemplated by Section 402 dealing with cruelty to animals due to the application of Section 386.
Section 386(1) provides:
Everyone who causes the occurrence of an event by doing an act or by omitting to do an act that it is his duty to do, knowing that the act or omission will probably cause the occurrence of the event and being reckless whether the event occurs or not, shall be deemed, for the purposes of this Part, wilfully to have caused the occurrence of the event.
If Section 402 is read completely and in the context of Part IX of the Code, it is apparent that advertent negligence or recklessness is already included. Further, by the operation of Subsections 402(3) and 386(1), proof of simple negligence is, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, proof of advertent negligence or recklessness.
Subsection 402(3) states:
-evidence that a person failed to exercise reasonable care or supervision of an animal or bird thereby causing it pain, suffering, damage or injury is, in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, proof that such pain, suffering, damage or injury was caused or was permitted to be caused wilfully or was caused by wilful neglect, as the case may be.
Since negligence means the failure to exercise reasonable care, the current Subsection 402(3) would appear to accomplish the intended purpose of the proposed amendment.
The Hon. Member has mentioned that the Government's policy with respect to criminal law is to reserve its use for conduct for which other means of control are inadequate and inappropriate. The Provinces have enacted legislation with respect to cruelty to animals which focuses on protection and rehabilitation of the animal rather than punishment of the owner or custodian.
The Provinces have also enacted legislation imposing certain standards of care where animals are used for research.
The current Criminal Code provisions are more than adequate to deter and punish those who deliberately or recklessly harm animals. There is no need for amendment. The proposed amendments add little to the current law.
May I also point out that it is premature to consider any amendments to the Criminal Code at this time, especially unnecessary amendments. The Members of the House of Commons are well aware that the Minister of Justice (Mr. MacGuigan) is currently involved in a fundamental and comprehensive review of the Criminal Code, in the course of which Section 402 will be considered. The Criminal Code was originally enacted in 1892, and since that date there have been a continuous series of patchwork amendments. The criminal law review is aimed at the enactment of a modern, responsible and effective criminal law for Canada based on consistent and fundamental principles. This review has been undertaken in co-operation with the Ministry of the Solicitor General and in close consultation with the Provinces. The recommendations of the Law Reform Commission of Canada will be reviewed and a detailed examination of all substantive and procedural aspects of Canadian criminal law will be conducted.
Each section of the present Criminal Code will be examined in light of the principles stated in the Criminal Law in Canadian Society which were discussed by the Hon. Member. The sections will also be reviewed with regard to the numerous amendments that have been proposed but not adopted and their intended purpose.
The consideration of minor amendments to seldom used sections at this time is likely to lead to more patchwork legislation. The consideration of Section 402 will be thoroughly dealt with by the House when undertaking its analysis of proposed amendments resulting from the criminal law review process. I would therefore suggest that the proposed amendments be dealt with at that time.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to have this opportunity to support the Hon. Member for Vancouver-Quadra (Mr. Clarke) who presented Bill C-407. I find it somewhat refreshing that after days, weeks, and months of debate on important economic issues, we set aside time for topics that some people may consider frivolous. The Bill before us shows some sensitivity for living creatures other than human beings.
As Parliamentarians we have shown our concern for a quality environment in various pieces of legislation that we have debated over the years. These indicate a genuine interest in the preservation of a quality environment.
There have also been some very strong statements on human rights from both sides of the House, so I find it refreshing that today we are attempting to make changes to the Criminal Code that would provide greater safety and better protection for the animal and bird kingdoms.
I want to use this occasion to extend this debate into an area that goes a bit beyond the intent of the Bill in some respects,
September 14, 1983

and that is the matter of laboratory testing and experimentation and the use of animals for this purpose. I think, perhaps, the most offending industry in this area would be the cosmetic industry. 1 was alerted, and I assume all Members of Parliament have been alerted many, many times, to what many people feel is a questionable use of animals in the testing of items such as cosmetics and toothpaste. 1 flag the attention of Parliament by mention of the Draize test, which is a test used on rabbits, animals which have no tear ducts. Perfumes of various kinds and various kinds of cosmetics are squirted in the eyes of rabbits to see the reaction over a period of time. I suppose this is to see what would happen if, for instance, Chanel No. 5 was squirted in someone's eyes, what they could expect in terms of some physiological reaction.
I simply use this, Mr. Speaker, as as example of the kind of tests through which we put various kinds of animals in our experimentation with all sorts of technologies and substances and the like. I would like to draw the attention of Parliament to the efforts of a particular group called, "The International Wildlife Protection Association". This is an international organization based here in Canada which takes this argument a little further, saying that if Parliamentarians are indeed concerned about protecting animals and birds from neglect, from various sorts of hardships, then perhaps we should give some attention to wildlife in that same vein. The International Wildlife Protection Association has for years raised the question with respect to the killing of wild animals for pleasure, such as trophy hunting, and it has written to Members of Parliament and has asked us on many occasions to question that kind of behaviour in a country such as ours.
I remember very distinctly, as a young man growing up in the Kamloops area as a hunter at the time, taking advantage of the abundance of wildlife in our area. We would go out hunting in the evenings and normally have occasion to encounter many, many deer. Yet as the years pass there are fewer and fewer wildlife of all sorts to be seen. I do not believe there is any question but that in many cases indiscriminate hunting practices have resulted in the reduction in many of our wildlife species. 1 simply flag this issue on their behalf for Parliamentarians, that indeed if we are as serious as this Bill would indicate about domestic animals and their protection, we should give that same consideration to wild animals and question the matter of hunting and killing of wild animals for pleasure only. 1 am not questioning the concept of taking the lives of wild animals for food by those who need it and use it in their traditional lifestyle, but I do want to question the matter of the killing of wild animals for pleasure, particularly as emphasized by the trophy hunter.
I would also like to mention, Mr. Speaker, that this Bill touches on a very critical question for those who are interested in the animal world and the need for their protection. There is one other aspect of this issue having to do with kangaroos. I know that kangaroos are not usually a topic we get into here in Canada, but we do import kangaroo products into our country, both in terms of hides and meat, as well as various decorations
Cruelty to Animals
made, presumably, from kangaroo feet and ears, and the like. In Australia three million kangaroos are killed annually, legally. In other words, they are killed by using proper hunting techniques and in appropriate seasons. What I would like to flag, Mr. Speaker, is the fact that three million kangaroos are killed illegally in Australia and, to a large extent, I believe that Canada is a recipient of this illegal trade, the hides and paraphernalia associated with the killing of kangaroos.
I applaud the Hon. Member for Vancouver Quadra for bringing this Bill forward. I support it, together with my colleagues, and will say that perhaps this is just the beginning of a much longer debate around the topic of protecting both domestic and wild animals and birds.


Mr. Donald W. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker,
I think the House owes a debt of gratitude to the Hon. Member for Vancouver Quadra (Mr. Clarke) for bringing this matter to our attention. I would like to think that there is a means whereby we could have this Bill, which some might consider defective in certain respects or with certain shortfalls, referred to an appropriate committee for study, improvement and adoption.
I was really quite astounded, Mr. Speaker, I did not believe my ears at first, when I heard the Hon. Member for Thunder Bay-Atikokan (Mr. McRae) say that it was "inappropriate"- I believe that was the word he used-for Members of Parliament to bring forward proposals to amend the Criminal Code at this particular stage because, he went on, the Government was already revising the Criminal Code. Where else, Mr. Speaker, from which quarter, should proposals to amend the Criminal Code come if not from this House?
The Law Commission, 1 agree, should certainly make its proposals. However, to suggest that Members of Parliament should be muzzled or be told to sit down and be quiet because the Government is coming forward with a complete revision of the Criminal Code is, to my way of thinking, just typical of the arrogance of this Government! 1 listened in disbelief that anyone in this House would suggest that we should not bring forward matters of concern to us.
The date on this particular Bill is May 2, 1980. This Bill is three years old. How long has the Criminal Code been under revision? 1 venture to say it has been under revision for a long time, and if the comments made during this debate cannot contribute to the revision of the Criminal Code, Mr. Speaker, we are wasting our time here and we are receiving messages from the other side of the House that that is exactly what we are doing. This House has no relevance in the eyes of the Government, otherwise an Hon. Member would not stand up and read such a speech, which was prepared for him-because I cannot believe that that particular Member would have written that speech himself, honourable Member that he is. 1 cannot believe that he would put those words together in his own mind. It must have come from some official in the Public Service who wanted that message put across, "Don't worry us. We've got the Criminal Code under control. Now, don't you upset the Criminal Code cart because we are busy with it and

September 14, 1983
Cruelty to Animals
we will come up with the appropriate amendments when the time comes. You just sit back and think about something else."


An Hon. Member:: "We will do what is good for you."


Donald W. Munro: That is right. I did mention some of the shortcomings of this particular Bill. None of us are particularly keen, I am sure, about reptiles. There may be some who like lizards, some who like boa constrictors, and that kind of thing. However, 1 believe we should broaden the meaning of term "animal", because a reptile is not an animal according to the proper dictionary definition. We should, perhaps, broaden the meaning because 1 am sure this is what the Hon. Member for Vancouver Quadra had in mind. This is a humanitarian Bill for the animal world. I suppose that is about the best way I can put it at the moment. 1 am sure the Hon. Member would want the provision he is trying to have included in the law cover reptiles as well as birds and animals.
I think it is an excellent notion to include those who, through negligence, cause harm to animals, birds or reptiles. We have no provision within the rules, as I understand them, for proposing amendments to these Bills but 1 do feel that if it could be taken to committee, that particular amendment might be added.
1 was very pleased to hear the comments of the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis). He revealed a completely new aspect of his attitude towards the living creatures of this world in his comments just a few minutes ago. I was delighted that he should think of those frightful experiments which are carried out on wild animals by the cosmetic profession.
1 cannot let this occasion pass, Mr. Speaker, without making some comments about killer whales. There is a school of do-gooders, I guess you call them, who feel that no animal should be kept in captivity. No animal should be subjected to the spectacles that we all enjoy such as circuses. We enjoy watching trained horses, trained bears, and we enjoy learning about killer whales. They are amazing animals, Mr. Speaker, and we had one out in Victoria which suffered a fate too horrible to mention in ordinary circumstances, but 1 feel compelled to mention it now.
Some of these do-gooders, to the best of my knowledge, tried to release that killer whale from its pool in Sealand in Victoria. They went down as divers to cut the wires at the bottom of the pool so this killer whale could gain his freedom in the Strait of Juan de Fuca. Something seemed to have disturbed them or they did not get the dimensions of the killer whale right. The killer whale went down, nosed around, got his head caught in the wire and was unable to come up to the surface to breathe. That whale drowned because of the deliberate act of some vandals who claim to be concerned about the welfare of wild animals.
How can we know how to treat wild animals if we cannot study them and see what they can do in performances and how grateful they are for the care that is given to them? That there
should be no wild animals in captivity is a nonsensical notion. They have to be properly cared for, and no zoo that I know of would dare open to the public without proper zoologists and people trained in animal care. We have a very special team of people at Sealand in Victoria who know how to deal with these sea mammals, and I cannot express too deeply the horror that struck me when I heard that that animal had been drowned. There was this great creature to which 1 had the good fortune to actually talk and to stroke and touch, it came up to see me when 1 was down by the side of the pool. It was a magnificent feeling, and some vandals had the audacity to cause that animal to drown.
Attempts are being made to restore that show at Sealand in Victoria and there has been a great furor about people getting killer whales from somewhere else and bringing them to Victoria.
1 see the Hon. Member for Thunder Bay-Nipigon (Mr. Masters) is here now. I hope he is blushing for having suggested that we should not even discuss amendments to the Criminal Code.
To come back to the killer whales, 1 do feel that when care and proper treatment of these wild animals is fully understood, and licensed if necessary, and registered trainers and caretakers of these animals are in place, then it is no offence whatsoever and should not be an offence to have them in captivity.
So, Mr. Speaker, if there is any possibility of making a motion on this particular Bill, with its strengths and defects, I would move, if 1 can without being out of order, that the subject matter of this Bill be referred to an appropriate committee of the House. If so, I so move.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: The summer vacation causes me a problem in the sense of my memory as to the applicable rules. 1 think it is in order, but 1 would require a seconder. I see the Hon. Member for Edmonton-Strathcona (Mr. Kilgour) is so kind as to second the motion. That, I think, is going to be a votable motion. Under Private Members' hour this particular subject matter will continue until 4.13 p.m. Should there be a necessity to advise Hon. Members as to the procedure before that time, 1 will rise again after the next speaker. Otherwise, there seems to be no difficulty as to the procedure proposed by the Hon. Member.


Mr. Stanley Hudecki (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I, too, welcome this opportunity to speak on Bill C-407, a Private Members' Bill put forward by the Hon. Member for Vancouver-Quadra (Mr. Clarke). The intent of the Bill is most admirable. No one can argue against the need to protect animals from unnecessary suffering, and I congratulate the Hon. Member for raising this issue in the House.
1 was particularly concerned that this was another attempt to downgrade and be critical of the work done on animals in experimental laboratories, and I called the Member to ask his feelings on this. I was particularly pleased to hear from him by telephone and in his remarks here today that he appreciated the role animals play in medical research and the contribution
September 14, 1983

they make to a better understanding of medical and surgical problems and the opportunities they give to make very positive contributions to our health and ability to fight disease. 1 can give personal assurance of that having taken part in a great deal of basic research work done on cardiac surgery at the Hospital for Sick Children. I worked there with Doctor William Mustard. A great deal of the duties of a resident is to carry out the various operative procedures on these animals, and I can assure you that the greater part of a resident's life at that time was to provide intensive care for these animals, and throughout the succeeding days after the operation these animals received the very best, most intensive and skilful care. This was to ensure that they would survive and be comfortable and, indeed, to show the efficacy of a number of these operative procedures which have now become standard and which contribute immensely to the welfare of many young patients, changing that aspect of surgery. I therefore congratulate the Hon. Member, the proposer of the Bill, for having had foresight and understanding as far as that particular role is concerned.
The Bill proposes to amend the Criminal Code provisions with respect to cruelty to animals, namely, Subsection 402. The alleged purpose of the amendments is to enlarge the scope of Subsection 402(1) by expanding its application to anyone who causes wilful or negligent injury to animals or birds. I am stressing "wilful or negligent". The amendments also provide that an owner cannot permit wilful or negligent damage to an animal or bird, and imposes a duty on owners or those having care or control of animals to provide them with suitable and adequate food, water, shelter and care.
In my own reading and study of the Bill as it was presented, I thoroughly agreed with the spirit that it represented. However, in studying the Bill with the help of the legal experts of the Department of Justice, I found that the legal implications placed certain problem before me. At the moment, taking into consideration the thoughts expressed by lawyers, I find that the amendments, in comparison with the present Criminal Code, should be considered unnecessary.
A close reading of the current Criminal Code provisions indicates that the type of conduct the Bill seeks to make criminal is already prohibited. For example, subsection 402(3) states that with respect to the present paragraphs, Subsection 402(l)(a) and Subsection 402(l)(b), "evidence that a person failed to exercise reasonable care or supervision of an animal or bird thereby causing it pain, suffering, damage or injury is, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, proof that such pain, suffering, damage or injury was caused or was permitted to be caused wilfully or was caused by wilful neglect, as the case may be". Negligence is the failure to exercise reasonable care. Thus, adding the words "negligently causes" to Subsection 402(1) would be redundant.
Although Section 402 currently uses the word "wilful", the word has a special meaning and is not limited to intentional acts. Section 402 is located in Part IX of the Criminal Code.
Cruelty to Animals
Section 386, also in Part IX, provides that for the purposes of this Part of the Code, certain types of conduct are deemed to be "wilful". The Section provides that "everyone who causes the occurence of an event by doing an act or by omitting to do an act that it is his duty to do, knowing that the act or omission will probably cause the occurence of the event and being reckless whether the event occurs or not, shall be deemed, for the purposes of this Part, wilfully to have caused the occurrence of the event". Thus, recklessness is covered by the provision and "recklessness" means advertent negligence.
Very few crimes carry responsibility for simple or civil negligence. It is not clear what type of negligence is being proposed. Again, from a legal interpretation and legal study, one finds that the Criminal Code defines "criminal negligence" in Section 202 as follows: "(1) everyone is criminally negligent who (a) in doing anything or (b) in omitting to do anything that it is his duty to do, shows wanton or reckless disregard for the lives or safety of other persons". Subsection 202(2) states: "for the purposes of this Section, "duty" means a duty imposed by law". This duty must arise by virtue of a statute or a common law. There is no reason to impose a higher standard of care for animals than for human beings. Nevertheless, whether the negligence sought to be made criminal by the proposed amendments is advertent negligence, that is, recklessness, or simple inadvertent negligence, both types of conduct are already adequately covered by Sub-sections 386(1) and 402(3).
The proposed amendment also seeks to change the wording of paragraph 402(1 )(a) from "unnecessary pain, suffering or injury" to "unnecessary hardship, privation, suffering or injury". It is impossible to determine what constitutes "hardship" for an animal by any objective standard. Of more importance, however, is that "privation" is defined in the Oxford dictionary as "want of the comforts or necessaries of life". How can we determine what the "comforts of life" are for an animal, as opposed to "necessaries"? There is no objective test.
Animals, by their very nature, can take care of themselves if left alone. We have raised the standard of life for animals by bringing them into our homes, feeding them, grooming them and taking them on family vacations. It cannot be said that a farmer who lets his dogs and cats run free and sleep outside is cruel. Animals and birds are equipped to provide themselves with the necessaries of life. People cannot be said to be negligent if they fail to do so. Furthermore, upon whom is the duty to provide the necessaries of life to animals imposed? Wild animals and stray domestic animals have no owner or custodian to be responsible for them. The question raised is: "Am I my neighbour's dogkeeper?"
Furthermore, do we wish to make it a crime punishable by a maximum fine of, say, $500 and/or six months' imprisonment for failing to provide "comforts" to an animal as opposed to "necessaries"? Not even in respect of humans is it a criminal offence to fail to provide the comforts of life. Under Section 197 of the Criminal Code, it is only an offence not to provide the "necessaries of life."

September 14, 1983
Cruelty to Animals
In any event, the current wording, "pain, suffering, or injury", should encompass the type of discomfort sought to be prohibited. In addition, Paragraph 402(l)(c) states that "everyone commits an offence who, being the owner or the person having the custody or control of a domestic animal or bird or an animal or bird wild by nature that is in captivity, abandons it in distress or wilfully neglects or fails to provide suitable and adequate food, water, shelter and care for it". Thus, it is already an offence to fail to provide the necessaries of life for an animal. There is no need to impose any higher standards.
The wording of the proposed amendments is very similar to many provincial statutes dealing with cruelty to animals. The provincial statutes are designed to prevent cruelty to animals and protect and relieve animals from such cruelty. The owners or custodians of animals can be ordered to change their practices or the animals can be taken from them. The purpose is to protect the animal and not necessarily to punish the owner or custodian. For example, the Ontario Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act has as its object the prevention of cruelty to animals and their protection and relief therefrom. For the purpose of the enforcement of any law or statute in force pertaining to the welfare of or the prevention of cruelty to animals, every inspector and agent of the society or an affiliated society has the powers of a police officer. An inspector or agent of the society may obtain a warrant to search a building or place for animals in distress, or where he observes an animal in immediate distress he may enter without a warrant any premises or building or place other than a dwelling house. Other Provinces have similar legislation.
If our concern is for the animal, then the provincial provisions are sufficient. The Criminal Code should remain unchanged in focusing its concern upon the moral culpability of the actor. Therefore, the proposed amendment is considered unnecessary.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Before 1 recognize the Hon. Member to speak, may I indicate that the Hon. Member for Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Munro) has made a proposal, the effect of which is that the Bill be withdrawn and the subject matter be referred to a committee. 1 want to put that in the formal language of the House simply so that we can proceed in the proper fashion.
Accordingly, Mr. Munro, seconded by Mr. Kilgour moves an amendment thereto
That the motion be amended deleting all the words after the word "that" and substituting the following therefor: "Bill C-407, an Act to amend the Criminal Code, cruelty to animals, be not now read a second time but that the order be discharged, the Bill withdrawn and the subject matter thereof referred to the Standing Committee on Justice".
In the usual fashion I would ask the House whether it is the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
May 1 remind Hon. Members that at 4.13 p.m. this segment of Private Members' hour will be completed. Should debate on the amendment collapse between now and then, I will put the
question. If, at 4.13 p.m. the Hon. Members are still pursuing debate on the subject of the amendment or on the main motion, there would then be no opportunity to put the question and we would proceed on to the next order of Private Members' Business.


Mr. Jim Schroder (Guelph):: Mr. Speaker, as a person who has spent most of his working life concerned with the care and welfare of animals, I am pleased to have an opportunity to speak in this debate. I would like to compliment the Hon. Member for bringing to the attention of the House and therefore to the attention of the Canadian people the fact that there is a sensitivity to the welfare of all animals.
I would also like to bring to the attention of the Hon. Member who proposed this Bill when he said in his opening statement that the only alternative to using animals in testing and experimentation is to use the human that this is not exactly the case. There are many alternatives now being studied which would replace animals in experimentation. I am thinking of such things as tissue culture, microbial units and biochemical test. Of course, we now have the simulator and the computer.
I would like to point out to the House that experimental institutions which perform animal experimentation and various organizations which are concerned with animal welfare are vigorously pursuing the use of these kinds of alternatives. As a person who has spent quite a bit of my life doing and supervising animal experimentation, there is nothing that I, and 1 am sure many of my colleagues, would like better than to see the day when we would not have to use animals at all for experimentation. However, until such time I think we have to look at what is available to us and, up to this moment, we must use animals because they are the only biological model which we presently have. I would like to reiterate that there is nothing I would like to see more than the time when we can completely exclude living animals from experimentation.
I would also like to bring the thought forward to the House that it is man himself who demands safety tests, which makes it necessary for us to use animals at the present time. Of course, we look to the idea of replacing this with other kinds of models in the future.
For those in the House who are not familiar with what a simulator or a computer can do, it is now quite possible by way of computer to develop a model which is completely representative of the respiratory system or cardiovascular system. Therefore, instead of having to use innumerable live animals, it is quite possible to develop a computer program which allow us to make variations in our experimental design which could be measured on this simulator. For example, it is possible for medical students today to have a computer which they can program to determine what will happen if they use a certain drug. Previously, they would have to had to use a patient and decide to inject this drug into the patient or wait until a suitable patient with that certain cardiovascular defect came into the clinic before having the opportunity to treat that patient.
September 14, 1983

Computers can now be designed to simulate that patient. If the medical student's treatment does not work and he receives a signal that the patient died, it is only the program that did not work. One can imagine the possibilities for replacing animals by experimentation by this type of computer.
I would also bring to the attention of the House the fact that we are not allowing animal welfare to fall into disrepute without some kind of surveillance or control. There are two areas with which I am concerned. One is animal experimentation. Canada has the only volunteer organization which is composed of people who are controlling animal experimentation. It is called the Canadian Council on Animal Care. A question presently being asked is whether things should be regulated by law or whether people should be educated so that they recognize their responsibilities and do not need laws to guide them. I believe that if people are properly informed and can decide on that information, it is quite often evident that the rules they establish for themselves are at an even higher level than those established by the law. When laws are made it must be kept in mind that they must be enforceable. With respect to animal welfare, a law which was passed to control how animals are treated would have to be enforceable. People would simply abide by the minimums of the law. In my experience they have said that what they are trying to do requires a much higher level than that established by the law. This is the kind of surveillance we have with the Canadian Council of Animal Care in scientific institutions in Canada. I am quite convinced that this is working and will continue to work to the betterment of animal welfare.
Of course, the second group of animals with which we are concerned are domestic animals, pets, wild animals, animals in zoos; in other words, animals in general that are not covered by the group which controls animal experimentation in scientific institutions. At this point I would like to draw the Canadian Federation of Humane Societies to the attention of the House. It is an umbrella group with which other humane society units in the country are allied. Its major concern is to look after the welfare of animals. It has a very close relationship with the federal Government when it comes to looking after animals being slaughtered, animals in transit or any animal which falls under the control of the federal Government. It is also concerned with animals in exhibitions. It is interested in animals being slaughtered, what happens to them when they are being transported to slaughter houses and at the time they are being slaughtered.
What interests me about the Canadian Federation of Humane Societies is that it has a great interest in education, an area through which sensitivity can be developed starting in elementary schools and through the secondary school system. Certainly I remember in elementary school Humane Society Day which occurred once a year. We were given buttons to wear which read, "Be kind to animals". We were given pictures of animals, and very often someone visited our school to tell students about the need to care for animals. This is the basis for the development of sensitivity. All the laws in the
Blood Samples
world will not ensure that animals are properly cared for, but if we can develop such a sensitivity in young people in the early stages, by the time they reach the point where they own animals, view animals in zoos or, if they are professionals, use animals for experimentation purposes, they will have that sensitivity and laws will not be needed to govern their activities.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Order, please. I am sorry to interrupt the Hon. Member, but as I indicated earlier, it is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 24(2) to interrupt the proceedings at the hour of 4.13 p.m.
Moving to the next order of Private Members' Business, shall all orders listed under Private Members' Public Bills preceding order No. 425 be allowed to stand by unanimous consent?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.




Mr. Robert Wenman (Fraser Valley West) moved: that Bill C-625, an Act to amend the Criminal Code (power to take blood samples), be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this Bill is to allow for the testing of blood samples for blood alcohol levels in the case of motor vehicle accidents. Drivers are not now subject to blood alcohol testing when suspected of driving while impaired.
I would like to read the following excerpt from a letter of Mr. John Steward:
My son is dead! Peter Graham Steward, aged 23 years, three months and 11 days has been killed. A boy entering adult life, a boy with a blameless life, hard working, reliable and essentially good right through. This lad, my youngest son, was murdered by an unthinking and totally uncaring man, a man who had so soused himself in whisky and beer that he had shed all vestige of manhood, amounting to an uncontrolled and dangerous state of mental awareness.
The boy whom we had loved from the moment of birth, our youngest son, so full of promise and love himself for his Mum, Dad, brothers and sisters was no more, gone forever, gone to the world from which he came to us all, leaving behind broken hearts and numbed minds asking why, why? His fiancee and impending marriage plans destroyed, his brothers and sisters, hopelessly trying to find comfort in each other, Mum and Dad, with an ache that is beyond comprehension by those who have never suffered such a loss.
It continued:
The police hands are tied, the doctors under threat of prosecution, and the guilty one, a host of lawyers will defend him, and without proof, clinical proof, the murderer goes free.
The time has come that no government should tolerate such inequity in laws. Too many are dying on Canada's roads, and many are victims of protected murderers with large and terrible weapons of destruction on four wheels.
I appeal to the Government to right this appalling injustice.
The murderer in this case has continued to drive freely on our highways ever since that tragic day in 1977.

September 14, 1983
Blood Samples
I could quote figures from many jurisdictions throughout Canada, but I will just take one to indicate the volume, and scale of tragedy, sorrow, anger and pain. In the Province of British Columbia alone in 1982 there were 24,000 accidents with injury or death. There were 600 deaths and 34,000 injuries. In 20 per cent of all accidents with injury, one or more drivers were drinking. In 40 per cent of all accidents with death, one or more drivers were drinking, and 10 per cent to 20 per cent of all drivers injured in accidents had been drinking. Studies by the Attorney General's office showed that in the evenings 6 per cent of all drivers legally impaired had over .08 per cent blood alcohol levels and 6 per cent who had been drinking had between .05 per cent and .08 per cent blood alcohol levels.
When parents and families suffer such a loss, first comes the anger, then comes perhaps even revenge, but ultimately they say that above all they want justice and that anything which we enact must be enacted with that motive. They have indicated this to me, so it makes somewhat of a difference that justice be applied.
In 1980 a study of 1,500 cases involving drinking drivers showed an over-all conviction rate of 87 per cent. When blood alcohol testing was involved, 90 per cent admitted their crime and pleaded guilty. When no testing was involved, only 70 per cent pleaded guilty. We are talking about 20 per cent more people. It has been demonstrated that blood alcohol testing will, hopefully, save lives. It certainly saves time and brings these matters before our courts and through to justice.
Where does concern for this particular area start? I suppose we want to lay blame first of all. Maybe blame is where it does start. Certainly blame should first be placed on the social disease of drunken driving. Second, and equally important, there must be accountability and restitution. That should be the result and responsibility of the person who perpetrated the crime, who bent his arm one time too many.
As a result of this tragic incident, I drafted Bill C-625 before us today. I have named it the Steward amendment. I do not have a right to put a name on the Bill, but I am naming it that because it was his personal tragedy that struck me so deeply that I felt we must begin a course of action.
This is not just in Canada. It is also in the United States. President Reagan has declared war on drunken driving and has formed a presidential commission. Across Canada, citizens' groups have been provoked to action by their horror of such wanton carnage. They have been formed to lobby for such legislative changes, not just in this House of Commons, but in the Provinces across the country. One such group which many Members have heard from is Sally Gribble's MADD organization, "Mothers Against Drunk Drivers". On their behalf I presented this year a petition signed by 7,000 Canadians who want to see the law changed and see justice found in this area.
Since 1978 when the Bill in its first form was presented by me as Bill C-428, substantial and significant support has been
building for it across the country. Many organizations have expressed support in principle for this Bill. As long ago as 1978 I received letters from the Attorneys-General of British Columbia, Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Ontario. Also in support have been the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, The Canadian Medical Association, the Australian Medical Association, the Salvation Army, Casabello Wines and the Canadian Automobile Association. Since that time many other groups have begun to express their opinions. They have been expressing concern over this Bill and its ramifications. Taking compulsory blood samples from drunken drivers who kill is a legal, moral and social problem with legal, civil libertarian and medical aspects. It is not an easy problem to legislate, but there are some small steps that we can take. This Bill is one of them. The Government of Canada's avowed policy on criminal law, as stated in its recent publication "The Criminal Law in Canadian Society" embraces the following, and I quote:
The purpose of the criminal law is to contribute to the maintenance of a just, peaceful and safe society through the establishment of a system of prohibitions, sanctions and procedures to deal fairly and appropriately with culpable conduct that causes or threatens serious harm to individuals or society!
With this promise and commitment, a loophole in Canadian law exists that allows drunken drivers involved in accidents to escape detection by breathalyzer and thereby escape prosecution. Drivers often feign injury to avoid taking the breathalyzer. As the President of the Canadian Medical Association notes:
It's becoming a common dodge. People who are in the know, know that they can feign injury and avoid the test.
If they feign injury in an accident, they are sent to hospital, thereby avoiding the drunken driving breathalyzer test.
The attitude of civil libertarians to this issue is that mandatory blood tests would be a violation of individual rights. That maybe so to some small extent. However, I feel strongly that the taking of an innocent human life is a far greater violation not only of an individual right but also of the most sacred principle of natural and positive law, the right to life of that person who died as a result of the actions of another person.
Legislators and the legal profession have recognized this fact. This study, which was begun in the mid-1970s, has resulted in the Law Reform Commission publishing working paper 29, "The General Part Liabilities and Practices", which included a proposal to change the Criminal Code to create a new category of offence called criminal intoxication.
Three years ago the Conservative Government of Manitoba actually enacted such a Bill. The Social Credit Government of British Columbia has legislation due to be proclaimed October 1 to institute mandatory blood alcohol tests for suspected drunk drivers involved in accidents. The Saskatchewan Conservative Government Vehicles Act, 1983, Section 168(1), provides that a medical practitioner, registered nurse or qualified lab technician may be allowed to take a sample of blood if the police officer, on reasonable and probable grounds, believes a person had consumed alcohol or drugs and was operating a motor vehicle within the preceding two hours.
September 14, 1983

It is not just our Provinces or this country which have been acting in this sphere in the last five years. The California vehicle act, Section 13353, provides that, and I quote:
-any person who drives a motor vehicle upon a highway shall be deemed to have given his consent to a chemical test of his blood, breath or urine for the purpose of determining the alcohol content of his blood if lawfully arrested for any offence allegedly committed while the person was driving a motor vehicle under the influence of intoxicating liquor.
Some people ask about the constitutional validity. The constitutional validity of taking blood samples to determine impairment was upheld in the Constitution of the United States in the case of Schmerber v. California. In Western Australia, the Road Traffic Act, Section 66 (2), provides that a patrolman can allow a medical practitioner to take a sample of the offender's blood for analysis.
In light of recent legislation by Provinces, increased public awareness, intensified legal interest and further study, I would like to recommend that it is well past time for action by this House of Commons on this subject.
This is not new. We are not plotting new ground. We are responding to a reality of lifestyle and a reality of tragedy. As 1 mentioned, in one Province alone there have been 600 deaths, 240 related to drunken driving. What is the delay in this legislation? Since I first proposed this legislation, which has sat around for a long time, I have received a lot of constructive advice. For example, I received from Ernie Hawrish, a lawyer friend in Saskatoon in whom I have great faith, a suggestion that perhaps this Bill needs further amendment and suggestions. He says that perhaps there needs to be a section for appropriate fines and imprisonment as well as an extension of the range of persons qualified to take such tests. Others have suggested that the question of the use of the material gained in such a test as evidence needs further discussion.
It is my request to this House of Commons today that this Bill, which is an idea, be referred to the standing committee. I would like to hear testimony. Let us hear from MADD and the Stewards about the tragedy of the victims. Let us hear from those who cannot have returned what has been taken. Why would the Government not grant this? Why would the Government not want this for Canadians? This is the initiative of a Private Member but it should have been an initiative of the House of Commons of Canada. This is not a bipartisan political issue, it is a human issue. Why does the Member on the Government side who is told to respond to this matter not get on to it right now? Do not delay it three months or six months or three years or five years while people die all over our highways.
Whoever has been assigned to respond to this Bill should stand up right now. Do not talk it out. That person knows how to make a simple reference of the subject matter now. He has the necessary information. He should make this reference now. Do not talk it out. No more talk is required, only action is required. It could be your son, it could be your daughter, it could be your family, it could be you.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
Blood Samples


Mr. Gilbert Parent (Welland):: Mr. Speaker, one cannot help but be moved by the words of the Hon. Member for Fraser Valley West (Mr. Wenman). I may say that I too am struck by contradictory feelings as much as anyone else in the House. I can speak from the position of having suffered through a personal tragedy when my own son was killed in a car accident. I suppose in a sense it was fortunate that the driver of the car who killed my son was not impaired. I am no stranger to tragedy as it involves car accidents. I myself some 30 years ago was involved in a car accident which left me paralysed.
The Hon. Member said not to talk this Bill out, to do something about it now. Like him, my first reaction is, of course, to respond by saying: Yes, it should be done now; yes, it should be done quickly. I say to my dear colleague that my heart is with him in principle and that my heart is also with the Steward family and the many others that he mentioned during his discourse.
It would probably be appropriate to call this amendment the "Steward" amendment, and perhaps some place in the legislation that name could be mentioned as testimony to the tragedy that this family has suffered needlessly. How many other families are there like this across Canada?
To proceed right now in the light of the information that we have would be the expeditious things to do. It could very well be that this Private Member's Bill should go through immediately and that Parliament should act today.


Some Hon. Members:: Let us do it.


Gilbert Parent: I say that, Mr. Speaker, with full knowledge of what has gone on and what could continue to go on. Yet I truly wonder if all of the information that we could have has been gathered. We can study things until they virtually just dry up and go away, but this type of thing will not dry up and will not go away.
The Hon. Member mentioned some things that are happening in the different legislatures across the land as well as in different countries. During my brief remarks I hope that the information I bring forth will add weight to that information which he has already presented to the House.
In southern Ontario, there is a program called "RIDE". I wish that I knew the precise meaning of those four letters, but it means something to the effect of rid impaired drivers from the roads of our Province.


Mr. Darling:: Maybe "entirely" is the last word.


Gilbert Parent: That would be a good word to have there. From time to time we read in the newspapers that we will be infrining upon the individual rights of the people of Canada. I stand shoulder to shoulder with Hon. Members and say, what about the rights of the victims? What about the rights of the grieving families that are left behind? What about the young lives that are snuffed out because some men and women consider it more important to drink themselves into a stupor than to care for their fellow man?

September 14, 1983
Blood Samples
The Minister has told us, Mr. Speaker, that it is his intention to introduce legislative changes dealing specifically with blood sampling and impaired driving in the very near future. I wish there could be a date upon that introduction. I am of the opinion that it would be wise to wait until we gather all of the information that is necessary so that we can proceed together to draft legislation dealing with this matter. One might say that this afternoon is the time to do this. I think perhaps we would get better legislation if it were indeed discussed in committee. I for one would be more than happy to take part in such discussions.
Let me address myself, Mr. Speaker, to some recent developments which have occurred at the provincial level regarding blood sampling. My colleague, the Hon. Member for Fraser Valley West, mentioned that to date some Provinces have introduced bills dealing with blood sampling. He mentioned Manitoba, British Columbia and 1 believe Saskatchewan. In the case of British Columbia, the provisions have been proclaimed and will come into force in a matter of a few weeks. 1 would like to quote directly from Section 220.2 of Bill 69 which provides that, where a peace officer on reasonable and probable grounds believes that a person has:
(a)	within the preceding two hours driven a motor vehicle or had the care and control of a motor vehicle on a highway or industrial road, and
(b)	consumed alcohol
he may require that a person provide a blood sample.
Section 220.3(1) provides that a person who without reasonable excuse fails or refuses to comply with a demand commits an offence.
My colleague, the Hon. Member for Fraser Valley West, suggested that one of his lawyer friends would like to add certain fines to that. 1 believe that that could possibly be a good way to proceed.
Section 220.2(2) states that where a person is incapable due to physical or mental trauma of comprehending the nature of a demand, a blood sample may be taken from that person without a demand being made. I agree with that. I agree that at the very least that should be done.
Public outcry in Saskatchewan has been sustained since the major traffic disaster at Webb in the summer of 1980 in which 22 lives were lost and breath samples could not be demanded from the dirver because of his physical condition. Bill 81 with the amendments to the Vehicle Act received third reading and Royal Assent by the Legislative Assembly of Saskatchewan on June 2, 1983. In many ways that law is the same as the law of British Columbia.
Section 168(3) makes provision for a case where a peace officer, on reasonable and probable grounds, believes that a person has consumed alcohol or drugs. The drugs that are being used today are not an entirely new phenomenon and perhaps this should be included in the proposed legislation. It also provides that where the officer believes that a person within the preceding two hours has driven or had the care and control of a motor vehicle and is incapable of providing a
sample of his breath, the peace officer may, subject to Subsection (4), by demand made to that person, require him or her to provide sufficient sample of blood that, in the opinion of the person taking the sample, is necessary to enable a proper analysis to be made to determine the proportion, if any, of alcohol and/or drugs in the blood and to accompany the peace officer for the purpose of enabling the sample to be taken.
Section 168(4) states that where a person is, in the opinion of the peace officer, incapable of understanding the nature of a demand for a sample of his blood, the peace officer may cause a sample of his blood to be taken without a demand. I agree with that.
Section 168(5) makes it an offence for any person without reasonable excuse to fail to comply with a demand to provide a blood sample.
James Garner, Saskatchewan Minister of Highways and transportation, has stated that the Saskatchewan provisions would be proclaimed into force on October 1, 1983.
Both of these Bills raise questions-which could be answered if we had the information available-as to whether they are constitutional in light of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Let us look at the situation in some other countries. The Hon. Member for Fraser Valley West dealt with the law in California where I believe he said that anyone who drives on the highways there, by the mere fact of driving an automobile, consents to having a blood test.
He also referred to Australia. Each of the Australian states has a provision for a screening test of blood alcohol concentration. The purpose of this test is the same as our roadside testing provision in Section 234(1) of the Criminal Code. Persons "passing" the test are generally released from the obligation to undergo breath analysis or a blood test, whichever may be appropriate, for evidentiary purposes. Each state law in Australia contains a provision for the determination of blood alcohol concentration by the use of a breath analysing instrument. It is the primary means of ascertaining blood alcohol concentration in each Australian state and territory. The police in each state may require a person to submit to a breath analysis if it appears from the screening test that the percentage of alcohol in blood exceeds, or in some cases equals, the prescribed limit. It may also be required if a person refuses or fails to provide a sample for a screening test. Although the primary means of ascertaining blood alcohol concentration throughout Australia is by breath analysis, there is provision in each state for blood tests in certain circumstances.
The Hon. Member did not mention that in the United Kingdom recent amendments were made as a result of the recommendations in the Blennerhassett Report in April, 1976. Breath tests are now accepted for evidentiary purposes as the principal means of determining the blood alcohol concentration of drivers. Prior to the amendments, breath samples could be required solely in connection with a preliminary screening
September 14, 1983

test; only the results of blood or urine analysis could be adduced as an evidentiary sample.
Enforcement of this legislation proved difficult, particularly as it related to the screening tests. Blood or urine tests of many accused were clearly over the limit, yet legislative loopholes allowed them to continue to drive undeterred. Changes sought effective enforcement and the whittling down of technical defences. The power of the police to require a breath test was extended to cover persons who had been in charge of a motor vehicle. In addition, it attacked the "hip flask"defence so that drinking after an accident could not be used to disguise impairment before the accident. It is almost incomprehensible to me in this day and age that people, having been in an accident where other individuals were maimed or killed, would have the effrontery or would be so heartless as to drink more alcohol so that it could not be proven whether they were drunk before or after the accident.
Their Road Traffic Act of 1972, as amended, makes provision for a constable to demand that a person submit to a breath, blood or urine test in addition to a preliminary breath screening test. Section 8(1) of the legislation provides that, in the course of an investigation whether a person has committed an offence under section 5, which is driving, attempting to drive or being in charge while under the influence of drink or drugs, or section 6, which is driving, attempting to drive, or being in charge with blood alcohol concentration above the prescribed limit, that is .08, a constable may require him to provide two specimens of breath for analysis by means of an appropriate device, or to provide a specimen of blood or urine for laboratory test.
The amendments permit the result of a breath test to be used for evidentiary purposes. When the roadside screening test proves positive, a second breath test, rather than a blood or urine sample, is the normal means of providing evidence at the police station. This change was supported by medical experts who proposed that blood or urine sampling should be replaced by breath analysis. The new breath-testing provisions enable police officers to determine the alcohol content of blood within minutes and removes the need to send for doctors to administer blood tests.
Section 8(4) of that legislation states that if the provision of a specimen other than a specimen of breath may be required, the question whether it is to be a specimen of blood or urine shall be decided by the constable, except that if a medical practitioner is of the opinion that for medical purposes a specimen of blood cannot or should not be taken, it shall be a specimen of urine. Section 8(7) provides that a person who, without reasonable excuse, fails to provide a specimen when required to do so, is guilty of an offence.
Section 8(8) provides that, on requiring any person to provide a specimen, a constable must warn him that failure to provide it may render him liable to imprisonment, a fine, and disqualification. That is precisely what the Hon. Member's lawyer friend said might be done. If the constable fails to give the warning, the court may direct an acquittal or dismiss the charge, the issue being whether prejudice had resulted from
Blood Samples
failure to give a warning. Some of our friends claim that individual rights are being trampled upon, but at least they have access to the courts which is more than the victims of the accident have.
The subsection obviously contemplates that a person may be convicted though no warning is given, so the warning cannot be a requirement of the offence. However, if a person is charged with failing to provide a specimen, absence of a warning is relevant to the issue of reasonable excuse.
Section 9 gives additional protection to hospitalized persons. It provides that, while a person is at hospital as a patient, he shall not be required to provide a specimen of breath for a breath test or to provide a specimen for a laboratory test unless the medical practitioner in immediate charge has been notified and that it shall be for the provision of a specimen at the hospital. However, if the medical practitioner objects on the ground that it would be prejudicial to the proper care and treatment of the patient, the requirement shall not be made.
It seems abundantly clear, Mr. Speaker, from what has been said by my colleague and myself, that there are a number of options available regarding the acquisition of blood, and this House and the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs should have the benefit of the comparative review of blood sampling legislation which is being carried out by the Minister of Justice (Mr. MacGuigan) and the officials within his Department before embarking upon proposals to amend the Criminal Code in this area.
It seems that Hon. Members on the other side are taken with the fact that we are taking time to discuss the Bill as it is now. I suggest to them that the proper place for discussion of this Bill and the principle of this Bill-and I say this with all respect to my colleague, the Hon. Member for Fraser Valley West-could best be done in committee. If it does go to committee I, for one, will gladly support it there.


Ms. Lynn McDonald (Broadview-Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by expressing my sympathy, through the Hon. Member for Fraser Valley West (Mr. Wenman), to the Steward family who so tragically lost their son through impaired driving. The slaughter on our highways by drunk drivers is a terrible thing and our laws are certainly not tough enough. I, like many Canadians, have lost a close family member through drunk driving. A cousin of mine at the age of 17, on his high school graduation, was killed in an accident caused by drunk driving, so I know very personally the tragedy which this causes to families.
We do know some of the very specific technical problems which result because of the loopholes in our current laws. There are drivers who are unconscious after an accident and avoid a breathalyzer test which would end up in their being convicted. This reduces the chance of obtaining convictions. There are also people who seek to evade criminal responsibility by faking unconsciousness. This is another loophole with which we have to deal. Our laws do need considerable revision. I take

September 14, 1983
Blood Samples
this problem very, very seriously and 1 believe we do have to address some of the objections which have been raised by people who take a different approach. 1 do not agree with them all, as I will point out; however, I feel their objections have to be considered. Civil liberties associations, for example, have raised protests on grounds of self-incrimination through blood analysis. 1 do not accept this objection because I feel that driving is a privilege not a right. When one goes to get a driver's licence one does not receive the right to drive under all circumstances. You accept certain obligations and I believe one of them is, obviously, not to drink. Another is to subject yourself to laws which ensure that drunk drivers are kept off the highways.
That being said, it does not mean that a blood test is the best means of dealing with the problem which we have to face. There is a possibility of using different kinds of equipment, for example, new equipment which will enable a breathalyzer test to be taken from unconscious persons. There is a possibility that saliva and urine samples can be used to give adequate information. Certainly, if these means can be effectively developed, and there are technical questions about them, they would be a better means of dealing with the question than using blood samples. We have to consider the problems, for example, of hemophiliacs and of infection caused by taking blood samples. We do not want to add to the list of victims in our search for a solution.
I would agree, then, with the intent and the spirit of this Bill. However, to give it second reading as it now stands would be to give agreement in principle to a particular method of control, that is, with blood tests, and that would be to prejudge the technical question as to what is the best method of obtaining the necessary information. Blood tests may be the answer, and if that is shown I would be quite willing to support compulsory blood tests in those cases. 1 would agree, then, to reference of the subject matter to committee, but not the Bill itself. I believe this would be an effective thing to do.
Further, Mr. Speaker, I would like to argue that we need to take a more comprehensive approach to this problem. The Hon. Member's Bill deals with obtaining a conviction after the fact. Of course, we want justice to be done, but surely the more important problem is to get drunk drivers off the roads. We do have laws now. We do have punishments, although they are not tough enough. But there are other things we can do to see that the punishments we mete out are successful. Something we could be doing, for example, on conviction for impaired driving, would be to impound the motor vehicle, not just take away the licence. We have the problem of people who are convicted once and who, therefore, are identified as problem drivers, as drunk drivers, but they continue to go out and do it again.
There are other means which we really must be considering in dealing with the actual problem of getting impaired drivers off the road. To do that, Mr. Speaker, we need a whole array of amendments, not just this Bill. 1 do have some concrete proposals to make. 1 am studying this problem and I feel we must address it in a very serious way.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I would support reference of the subject matter to committee, not the actual Bill itself. In the alternative, I look forward to dealing with it when the Minister of Justice (Mr. MacGuigan) brings in his amendments which will, of course, be referred to committee. He has promised amendments to the Criminal Code this fall on impaired driving.


Mr. David Kilgour (Edmonton-Strathcona):: Mr. Speaker, I too salute the Hon. Member for Fraser Valley West (Mr. Wenman). I believe this is a Bill which is doing all Canadians a service and I feel we should all be very grateful to him for bringing it here today. The Hon. Member referred to some statistics, Mr. Speaker, but I do not believe he mentioned the figure of 18,000 Canadians killed by drunk drivers in the previous six years. Another figure is that 50 per cent of automobile accidents which occur involve a degree of liquor. The Hon. Member might well have indicated that the OECD has pointed out that Canada has the second highest fatality rate of the 24 member countries. We are exceeded only by France in that regard. The record in Canada is absolutely deplorable.
The Hon. Member gave us the case of the Steward family. May I very quickly mention a case of a constituent in an adjacent riding to mine whose daughter, aged 22, was riding in a vehicle on a divided highway. A car came down the wrong side of the divided highway and there was a head-on collision which killed this girl. The driver of the other vehicle was ultimately charged with impaired driving. The tragedy was that the girl's body was taken away for autopsy. This mother had no rights whatsoever with respect to her daughter's body. The man driving his car down the wrong side of the divided highway was not required to take a breathalyzer test.
Numerous speakers have referred to that type of situation and it seems to me this case, like the one mentioned by the Hon. Member for Fraser Valley West, underlines dramatically what is wrong with the law at present. I speak as somebody who has been involved with impaired driving cases, both as a Crown attorney and as defence counsel, on many, many occasions.
Up to 1976, Sir, we had essentially just the impaired driving section. The problem with that was that once 1976 came along and we brought in the breathalyzer sections, some, and to be fair not all, of the judges took the view that the impaired driving section had in effect become a "dead letter". There have been cases, I think it is fair to say, where people who have been falling down drunk have been found not to be impaired. Therefore, all of the problems have fallen back on the breathalyzer sections. As has been pointed out here today, those sections are inadequate because you simply get up after an accident and say you are sick or you banged your head. Without plugging this loophole the law will remain grossly defective, so I submit it is high time we did so.
Many references have been made to legislation in Saskatchewan, British Columbia, Ontario, Manitoba and Alberta. I
September 14, 1983

quote from the Toronto Star of August 26, where we have the Minister of Justice (Mr. MacGuigan) reported as saying:
Some people are against it because they think it is an unwarranted interference with the human persons. But it's the only way we have, when a person is unconscious or perhaps feigning unconsciousness to avoid a (breath-analysis) test, of actually getting a reading of the blood-alcohol level.
He also indicated that he favours mandatory blood tests for drivers who refuse or are unable to give breath samples.
The question I would put to my good friend, the Hon. Member for Welland (Mr. Parent), is: Why is it that all of the information is not in? This Bill can, of course, be amended in committee, so why can it not be referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs, which 1 remind him has nothing to do, at the moment at least. There is no reason why it could not take this reference, presumably starting next Tuesday; no reason why the matter could not be considered by them.
What is more important than this matter of impaired driving, in particular the defects in the present legislation? The Minister told us that we must waif for the department to study the matter. Sir, the Hon. Member for Fraser Valley West has been studying this matter for six years and there is probably not a Member in this House who has not had a victim of impaired driving come and see him or her. I submit that the matter has been studied to death and it is time to do something rather than continue to talk about it. This is absolutely crucial to people in all parts of Canada, to groups like Parents Against Impaired Drivers, MADD and many other organizations which have been formed recently because of the slaughter of Canadians as a result of impaired driving.
If the figure is correct, 64 per cent of Canadians think Parliament is unimportant. We can do no greater service for Canadians as a whole, and for the victims of impaired driving in particular, by actually doing something instead of talking and talking and talking about this problem.
So without further ado, Sir, bearing in mind that if someone gets up on the Liberal side after I am finished, knowing the time available, and talks this Bill out, then I think they will be doing a disservice to their fellow citizens, and bearing in mind the comments of the Hon. Member for Welland that we can refer the subject matter of the Bill to the committee, I therefore move:
That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word "That" and substituting the following therefor:
Bill C-625, an Act to amend the Criminal Code, be not now read a second time but that the order be discharged, the Bill withdrawn and the subject matter thereof referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.
I urge Members opposite, in particular the person who has been assigned to get up and talk the Bill out, to reflect on what they are doing and to refer the subject matter to the committee. They have nothing to lose, Mr. Speaker, and the Canadian people have everything to gain if they will do this on behalf of their fellow citizens.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
Blood Samples


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Some Hon. Members:: The Government said no.


Mr. Robert Daudlin (Essex-Kent):: Mr. Speaker, I find it interesting that my friends on the other side of the House, who constantly suggest the Government is somehow trying to muzzle them, would in turn suggest that a Member on this side of the House should not have an opportunity to speak after they have had the opportunity to do so.


Mr. Huntington:: You are just talking out the Bill.


Robert Mose Patrick Daudlin: May I suggest through you, Mr. Speaker, that with respect to the motion which has been made, for all of those reasons which I know can or might be supported by Members on all sides of the House, I and many other Members of this chamber have been involved in another Private Member's Bill which was sent to a committee which 1 had the privilege of chairing. I refer to the Hon. Member who sponsored Bill C-653, the Farmers and Creditors Arrangements Act, which has the declared support of all Members of this House but which has given an enormous task to the committee because in fact we did not have the opportunity or the benefit of having a ministry do the kind of work-up that is done on all of these Bills in a totally non-partisan manner in order that we can reflect properly and carefully before we come up with legislation.
I am satisfied, Mr. Speaker, that all of us could emotionally support the urgent and pressing nature of the arguments which have been made by the Hon. Members who preceded me. But I would prefer, having had the kind of experience to which I allude, to have the benefit of all possible examination and work-up of legislation in advance of our giving it to committee as opposed to tying up Members almost ad infinitum in trying to do the kind of work done behind the scenes for us.
In addition, I might try to add a few words with respect to the comments made by my friend, the Hon. Member for Welland (Mr. Parent). He started to point out some of the difficulties in which we might find ourselves were we to proceed too quickly. Might I suggest that as far back as 1952 the United States Supreme Court, when dealing with the case of Rochin v. California, indicated that a search of a suspect's stomach for concealed narcotics by forcing an emetic agent down his throat, causing him to regurgitate, violated the due process clause of the fourteenth amendment. The court likened the search to a coerced confession, focusing on the police brutality evident in the search. The opinion cast doubt on the validity of any unconsented search extending below the surface of the body.
Because that happened in the U.S., Mr. Speaker, it can obviously have little authority, other than persuasive, in Canada. But it does commence to point out that in fact there

September 14, 1983
Blood Samples
may be different ways and means of achieving the ends which the Hon. Member who commendably brought this Bill forward sought to achieve.
The State of New York passed the first implied consent statute in 1953. It was conceived as a means of facilitating the cause of chemical evidence in driving while intoxicated prosecutions and, at the same time, avoiding any constitutional limitation that might apply to the tests. The statute provided that anyone driving a motor vehicle in New York was deemed to have consented to a chemical test for intoxication at the direction of any police officer who had reasonable and probable cause to believe that the driver had been or was intoxicated. There was no requirement for arrest, and in the event that the driver refused to submit, his driving privilege would be revoked.
The new law tested in New York Supreme Court the following year in Schutt v. MacDuff. The facts were straightforward. The New York Commissioner of Motor Vehicles revoked the plaintiffs licence when he refused to submit to a blood test requested by a police officer following the arrest. After his acquittal on the drunk driving charge, the plaintiff brought an action challenging the revocation of his licence and the validity of the implied consent statute on four grounds: in the first instance, that it violated his right against self-incrimination; in the second, that it violated his right against unreasonable search and seizure; third, that it violated his right to due process of law; and finally, that it violated his right to equal protection. The last ground was rejected without hesitation, but the court held that the implied consent law did not infringe the plaintiffs privilege against self-incrimination. The court agreed with the legislature that the privilege or qualified right to drive could be conditioned upon waiver of the right against self-incrimination.
Since the statute permited the suspect to refuse testing, he could choose either to waive his privilege against self-incrimination or forfeit that privilege to continue driving in New York. Concerning the waiver by a person who is presumably drunk, the court held that the right against self-incrimination was inapplicable because the chemical evidence was non-testimonial.
The court further rejected the plaintiffs contention that the test constituted an unreasonable search under the fourth amendment. Since the officer had arrested him before directing the test, the search administered through the test would be reasonable as incidental to lawful arrest. The court further reasoned that any search conducted under the statute would be a consensual search because it permitted the driver to refuse. The ability to refuse obviated the need to inquire whether the test would be administered without actual consent.
The court did, however, uphold the plaintiffs claim that his driver's licence had been revoked without due process of law
and found the statute to be unconstitutional on that ground. The finding of unconstitutionality rested, in effect, on two defects in the legislation; first, that it lacked the requirement that a person be under lawful arrest at the time he refused the test; and, second, that it lacked any provision for a hearing on the grounds for revocation.
The defects cited by the court were subsequently remedied and the following year the New York Supreme Court upheld the statute in Anderson v. MacDuff.
In 1954, the United States Supreme Court, in Breithaupt v. Abraham, held that a blood test conducted on an unconscious driver did not violate the due process clause of the fourteenth amendment despite the suspect's lack of consent. The court distinguished the stomach search in Rochin by noting that a blood test was a minor intrusion into the body to which many people voluntarily subjected themselves each day. Unlike the search in Rochin, the blood test was not brutal and offensive and did not constitute conduct that shocks the conscience. On the authority of Breithaupt, chemical tests were thought to be permissible as long as police did not use excessive force in administering them. Both those cases, Rochin and Breithaupt, were decided before the court held that the fourth and fifth amendments were applicable in respect of state proceedings. The court clarified the fourth and fifth amendment issues in Schmerber v. California in 1966, which is now the leading U.S. constitutional authority on chemical tests for intoxication.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Order, please! Pursuant to Standing Order 24(2), it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings.


Mr. Dick:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I believe that the third Bill which was to be discussed this evening has been withdrawn. If there is unanimous consent, I suppose this debate could be continued up until the hour of six o'clock p.m.


John Leslie Evans: Mr. Speaker, there were discussions earlier among the three Parties as to what should happen at this point in time, given the fact that the Hon. Member for London West (Mr. Burghardt) has decided not to proceed with his Bill at this time. The agreement at that time was that the Chair should call it six o'clock.


Mr. Forrestall:: I think, Mr. Speaker, that you will find consensus for calling it six o'clock at this time.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Order. Is the House disposed to call it six o'clock?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: It being six o'clock p.m., this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at eleven o'clock a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 2(1).
At 5.15 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.



September 14, 1983



APPENDIX A

[Stage Direction]
(Seep. 27106)

[Stage Direction]
Communications		Government Operations
[Stage Direction]
Chairman
[Stage Direction]
Mr. J. Roberts
[Stage Direction]
Chairman
[Stage Direction]
Mr. Y. Pinard
[Stage Direction]
Vice-Chairman
[Stage Direction]
Mr. S. Joyal
[Stage Direction]
Vice-Chairman
[Stage Direction]
Sen. FI. A. Olson
[Stage Direction]
Members
[Stage Direction]
Mr. A. J. MacEachen Sen. H. A. Olson Mr. A. Ouellet Mr. R. LeBlanc Mr. G. Regan Mr. M. MacGuigan Mr. D. Johnston Mrs. J. Erola Sen. J. Austin Mme C. Hervieux-Payette
[Stage Direction]
Members
[Stage Direction]
Mr. A. Ouellet Mr. R. LeBlanc Mr. J.-J. Blais Mr. M. MacGuigan Mr. P. Bussieres Mr. C. Lapointe Mr. S. Joyal Mr. B. Campbell Mr. R. MacLaren
[Stage Direction]
Economic and Regional Development
[Stage Direction]
Labour Relations
[Stage Direction]
Chairman
[Stage Direction]
Mr. D. Johnston
[Stage Direction]
Chairman
[Stage Direction]
Mr. Y. Pinard
[Stage Direction]
Vice-Chairman
[Stage Direction]
Mr. J. Chretien Mrs. J. Erola
[Stage Direction]
Vice-Chairman
[Stage Direction]
Sen. H. A. Olson
[Stage Direction]
Members
[Stage Direction]
Mr. E. F. Whelan Mr. A. Ouellet Mr. F. Fox Mr. P. De Bane Sen. H. R. Argue Mr. G. Regan Mr. E. Lumley Mr. L. Axworthy Mr. C. Caccia Mr. D. Smith
[Stage Direction]
Members
[Stage Direction]
Mr. J. C. Munro Mr. H. Gray Mr. A. Ouellet Mr. R. LeBlanc Mr. J. Roberts Sen. FI. R. Argue Mr. L. Axworthy Mrs. J. Erola Sen. J. Austin Mr. S. Joyal Mr. R. MacLaren
[Stage Direction]
Foreign and Defence Policy
[Stage Direction]
Legislation and House Planning
[Stage Direction]
Chairman
[Stage Direction]
Mr. A. J. MacEachen
[Stage Direction]
Chairman
[Stage Direction]
Mr. Y. Pinard
[Stage Direction]
Vice-Chairman
[Stage Direction]
Mr. G. Regan Mr. J.-J. Blais
[Stage Direction]
Vice-Chairman
[Stage Direction]
Mr. M. MacGuigan
[Stage Direction]
Members
[Stage Direction]
Mr. J.-L. Pepin Mr. E. F. Whelan Mr. F. Fox Mr. P. De Bane Mr. R. P. Kaplan Mr. C. Lapointe Mr. E. Lumley Mr. L. Axworthy Mr. C. Caccia Mr. D. Collenette
[Stage Direction]
Members
[Stage Direction]
Mr. J. C. Munro Mr. E. F. Whelan Mme M. Begin Mr. P. De Banc Mr. G. Regan Mr. R. P. Kaplan Mr. E. Lumley Mr. S. Joyal Mme C. Hervieux-Payette Mr. D. Smith
[Stage Direction]
*N.B. The Deputy Prime Minister, President of the Treasury Board and Minister of Finance are ex officio members of the Cabinet Committees on Economic and Regional Development, Foreign and Defence Policy, Government Operations and Social Development. All Ministers are free to attend meetings of these Committees.
27126
[Stage Direction]
September 14, 1983
Priorities and Planning Chairman			Mr. R. P. Kaplan Mrs. J. Erola Mr. C. Caccia
	Mr. P. E. Trudeau		Mr. S. Joyal Mr. B. Campbell
[Stage Direction]
Vice-Chairman
[Stage Direction]
Mr. A. J. MacEachen
[Stage Direction]
Mr. D. Collenette MmeC. Hervieux-Payette
[Stage Direction]
Members
[Stage Direction]
Mr. J. Chretien Mr. H. E. Gray Mr. M. Lalonde
[Stage Direction]
Special Committee of Council
[Stage Direction]
Mr. R. LeBlanc Mr. J. Roberts Mr. G. Regan
[Stage Direction]
Chairman
[Stage Direction]
Mr. Y. Pinard
[Stage Direction]
Mr. Y. Pinard Mr. D. Johnston
[Stage Direction]
Vice-Chairman
[Stage Direction]
Sen. H. A. Olson
[Stage Direction]
Mr. L. Axworthy Mrs. J. Erola Sen. J. Austin
[Stage Direction]
Members
[Stage Direction]
Sen. H. R. Argue Mr. M. MacGuigan Mr. P. Bussieres Mr. C. Lapointe
[Stage Direction]
Public Service
[Stage Direction]
Mr. B. Campbell Mr. D. Collenette
[Stage Direction]
Chairman
[Stage Direction]
Mr. P. E. Trudeau
[Stage Direction]
MmeC. Hervieux-Payette Mr. D. Smith
[Stage Direction]
Mr. R. MacLaren
[Stage Direction]
Vice-Chairman
[Stage Direction]
Mr. Y. Pinard
[Stage Direction]
Treasury Board
[Stage Direction]
Members
[Stage Direction]
Mr. A. J. MacEachen Mr. J.-L. Pepin Mr. H. E. Gray Mr. M. Lalonde
[Stage Direction]
Mr. H. E. Gray
[Stage Direction]
Chairman
[Stage Direction]
Mr. D. Johnston
[Stage Direction]
Vice-Chairman
[Stage Direction]
Mr. M. Lalonde
[Stage Direction]
Mr. S. Joyal
[Stage Direction]
Members
[Stage Direction]
Mr. J.-L. Pepin
[Stage Direction]
Security and Intelligence
[Stage Direction]
Sen. H. A. Olson Mr. A. Ouellet
[Stage Direction]
Chairman
[Stage Direction]
Mr. P. E. Trudeau
[Stage Direction]
Mr. B. Campbell
[Stage Direction]
Vice-Chairman
[Stage Direction]
Mr. A. J. MacEachen
[Stage Direction]
Alternates
[Stage Direction]
Mr. C. Lapointe 1st Alternate
[Stage Direction]
Mr. R. MacLaren
[Stage Direction]
Members
[Stage Direction]
Mr. J. Chretien
[Stage Direction]
Sen. H. R. Argue
[Stage Direction]
Mr. M. Lalonde
[Stage Direction]
Mr. P. Bussieres
[Stage Direction]
Mr. J. Roberts
[Stage Direction]
Mr. D. Collenette
[Stage Direction]
Mr. J.-J. Blais
[Stage Direction]
Mr. J.-J. Blais
[Stage Direction]
Mr. M. MacGuigan Mr. R. P. Kaplan Mr. Y. Pinard
[Stage Direction]
Western Affairs
[Stage Direction]
Sen. J. Austin
[Stage Direction]
Chairman
[Stage Direction]
Mr. L. Axworthy
[Stage Direction]
Social Development
[Stage Direction]
Members
[Stage Direction]
Mr. J. Chretien
[Stage Direction]
Chairman
[Stage Direction]
Sen. J. Austin
[Stage Direction]
Mr. J. C. Munro Sen. H. A. Olson Mr. E. F. Whelan
[Stage Direction]
Vice-Chairman
[Stage Direction]
Mr. J. C. Munro
[Stage Direction]
Mr. J. Roberts
[Stage Direction]
Mr. M. MacGuigan
[Stage Direction]
Mr. P. De Bane Sen. H. R. Argue
[Stage Direction]
Members
[Stage Direction]
Mr. J.-L. Pepin
[Stage Direction]
Mr. G. Regan
[Stage Direction]
Mr. R. LeBlanc
[Stage Direction]
Mr. E. Lumley
[Stage Direction]
Mr. J. Roberts
[Stage Direction]
Mr. D. Johnston
[Stage Direction]
Mme M. Begin
[Stage Direction]
Sen. J. Austin
[Stage Direction]
Mr. F. Fox
[Stage Direction]
Mr. D. Collenette
[Stage Direction]
Thursday, September 15, 1983