1984-12-20

Hon. John C. Crosbie (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada) moved: that Bill C-18, an Act to amend the Criminal Code, to amend an Act to amend the Criminal Code and to amend the Combines Investigation Act, the Customs Act, the Excise Act, the Food and Drugs Act, the Narcotic Control Act, the Parole Act and the Weights and Measures Act, to repeal certain other Acts and to make other consequential amendments, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.


Mr. Kaplan:: Mr. Speaker, before we begin debating the substance of the Bill, I wanted to ask, as a matter of order, whether the Government is prepared to separate out the drunk driving provisions so that they could be enacted before-


Mr. Speaker:: That may well be a matter for negotiation between the Parties, but I really do not think it is a point of order, with respect. I therefore recognize the Hon. Minister of Justice (Mr. Crosbie).


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, in starting the debate on second reading of this Bill I might say that the situation has not changed since yesterday. The Hon. Member for York Centre (Mr. Kaplan) heard me say yesterday, at a press conference which he attended, that I am hopeful that this Bill will go through the House as a whole. There is nothing in it which is strange or startling compared to last year. Most of these provisions were introduced last year in a Bill known as C-19.
We are prepared, of course, to consider that the Opposition is obdurate and for some reason does not want to pass the Bill as a whole. As far as I can see, the provisions in this Bill are largely non-controversial. They are provisions that were introduced last year. The more controversial aspects of the Bill that was introduced last year have been removed. Many of them will be back in the House in further legislation which I hope to introduce in the next session.
I hope to persuade the House that the proposals now before it are not controversial or strange or in any way dangerous to
the public will. I am hoping that the whole Bill will go through because all of the provisions of the Bill are needed. However, if it appears that it is going to take a long time or there is some great difficulty, we are prepared to consider other arrangements. This Bill is not just concerned with impaired and drunken driving. There are many other good provisions changing the law in this Bill that need to be passed by the House. I do not think that we should fasten on only one aspect of this Bill.
I would like to indicate at the start some of the provisions of the giant Bill introduced last year that are not included in this Bill. We have removed from the Bill the areas dealing with sentence reform. Last year's Bill was a 306-page Bill. This is a 172-page Bill. The area of sentencing reform is going to be dealt with in 1985.
I hope to deal with the area of obscenity and pornography when we introduce legislation in February or as early in the year as possible. The area of soliciting for the purposes of prostitution will be dealt with in amendments which will be introduced next year.
The area of contempt of court, which was quite controversial, particularly with respect to the judiciary, will be dealt with. There are going to be changes there. 1 think some of the objections that were put forward by members of the judiciary with reference to those proposed changes had to be considered and dealt with, so that will be dealt with next year. The question of changes with respect to jury trials is another area which I propose to leave until next year.
In the Bill before the House, which I will be describing for the next few minutes, are areas which are largely non-controversial. There are provisions to deal with computer crime. There are provisions to deal with search and seizure to ensure that that area of the law complies with the Charter of Rights and court decisions. In this Bill we are dealing with international conventions which relate to the proliferation of nuclear material. We are dealing with provisions that enable us to carry out our responsibilities under the International Convention on the Physical Protection of Nuclear Material. In addition, there are provisions in the Bill which deal with enabling us to carry out our responsibilities under the Convention to Facilitate the Prevention, Prosecution and Punishment of Acts of Hostage Taking.
This is not just a Bill to deal with impaired driving. It is a Bill to deal with many important areas of the law that need to be changed at the moment, including hostage taking and drug control. There are provisions in this Bill to deal with controlling the medical use of narcotics and controlled drugs.

December 20, 1984
Criminal Law Amendments
When I am finished outlining the provisions that are in the Bill, most of which are not new to Members of the House, having been proposed last year in Bill C-19, I trust and hope that Members of the House will be-


Mr. Prud'homme:: There are 125 new Members.


John Carnell Crosbie: That is right. There are 125 new Members and just about all of the old Members replaced were Liberals. It is a painful memory for the hon. gentleman, but the new Members who replaced the old Members are quick-thinking, intelligent, alert and they can catch up on these things.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Nunziata:: Thank you.


John Carnell Crosbie: It does not take too long for them to catch up on what the old Members had learned.


John V. Nunziata: I agree with you, John.


John Carnell Crosbie: I know that you will want to listen to me in dead silence and not interrupt me.


Mr. Ouellet:: Dead silence?


John Carnell Crosbie: Dead silence is probably the best kind of silence you can have after a caucus party.
With the exception of Bill C-127, which was enacted in 1982 and dealt primarily with sexual assault, extensive amendments have not been made to the criminal law since 1977. Our Bill presents proposals to amend the law concerning impaired driving and other aspects of the Criminal Code. As I have said, many of them were introduced last year in Bill C-19. I do not view changes to the criminal law as being partisan or feel that it should all originate in the mind of one political Party or the other. We are quite prepared to give hon. gentlemen opposite credit for coming forward with these changes last year. That is, of course, why we expect their co-operation in passing this Bill through the House and into committee as we have requested. The parts before the House now are either needed on an urgent basis or are needed and are non-controversial.
I have mentioned some of the main points that we are dealing with in the legislation. First, let us deal with impaired driving. We all know that the consumption of alcohol seriously affects a person's ability to drive. In fact, it seriously affects a person's ability to perform generally. Certainly, the ability to drive is impaired by alcohol. In spite of this, there are tens of thousands of people who insist on driving while their ability to drive is impaired by alcohol.
I remember being extremely impressed during a visit to Switzerland some years ago on a financing deal on behalf of the Newfoundland Government. I can say that I was not visiting my bankers but was there on business for the Newfoundland Government to borrow some money. Arrangements had been made for us to see the president of one of the major
Swiss banks. As it turned out, we could not see him because he was serving a jail sentence for impaired driving. There are no options in that country; there is no namby-pamby option of a fine in Switzerland. If a person is convicted for impaired driving that person goes to jail. It does not matter if you are the president of a bank and earning $500,000 a year. Perhaps we will have to consider that in other years if this legislation does not improve the situation.
Impaired driving is one of our most serious social problems. On any given night, 25 per cent of the drivers on the road in Canada have been drinking, 6 per cent of whom are legally impaired, according to the studies. That is a frightening statistic. If one drives along the Trans-Canada Highway in Newfoundland-believe me, that is the highway on which you need to have all of your faculties at their pitch of perfection in order to survive anyway-when one considers that 25 per cent of the drivers on the Trans-Canada Highway in Newfoundland have already been drinking and 6 per cent are legally impaired, one would turn one's car in and walk from then on.
It is estimated that alcohol is involved in 50 per cent of all fatal traffic accidents and in 30 per cent of all injuries caused in traffic accidents. Drunk drivers take the lives of some 2,500 Canadians each year. I think we all agree that this is alarming and that we must do something to attempt to stop that kind of carnage.
Our legislative response in this Bill focuses on three main concerns: new offences concerning the impaired driver who injures or kills; second, the penalties meted out to impaired drivers; third, the deficiency in the law whereby an impaired driver can, in certain circumstances, avoid a blood test to determine the amount of alcohol in his bloodstream. Such a circumstance could be if he is admitted to a hospital or is suffering in some way.
These are the three areas with which we want to deal. There are offences which address the causation of death. For example, there is manslaughter which is causing death or bodily harm by criminal negligence. However, there is a serious discrepancy between the incidence of fatal or serious collisions and the rate of convictions on those offences. In part, this may be due to the exercise of prosecutorial discretion but there are legal reasons as well.
When dealing with offences based on negligence, proof of impairment of the ability to drive will not support a finding of criminal negligence unless accompanied by extrinsic physical evidence of conduct that shows wanton or reckless disregard for the lives and safety of others. That is why it is difficult to get convictions for motor manslaughter. Therefore, the present provisions applicable to situations where impaired driving causes injury or death are not broad enough to be applied in all instances where death or bodily harm has resulted.
We are introducing new offences in this Bill. In order to expand the scope of liability in cases where the driver's consumption of alcohol or drugs was the cause of the death or the injury, we are proposing that new offences of dangerous driving and impaired driving causing death or bodily harm be enacted specifically to address the causation of death or bodily
December 20, 1984

harm in circumstances which, while amounting to illegal driving behaviour, may not amount to criminal negligence or manslaughter. That is a bit of a tortured way of explaining it but, as Hon. Members know, law and the legal system often require tortured language to try to explain what is being done. We are creating these new offences to apply in circumstances where there has been illegal driving behaviour but it is not perhaps criminal negligence or manslaughter.
There are three reasons for considering whether steps should be taken to increase sanctions against unlawful driving that causes death or bodily harm. First, it is an anomaly that driving offences should explicitly condemn conduct that creates a grave risk to public safety but fails specifically to condemn the conduct when the risk results in bodily harm or death. Second, an alarming proportion of deaths and grievous injuries involving motor vehicles, vessels and aircraft are caused by negligence or dangerousness which can be attributed in large measure to impairment. Third, public opinion is changing with respect to how we perceive criminality and unlawful driving that causes death or bodily harm, especially where impairment is a significant factor.
The opinion of the public is changing. The public no longer regards drunken driving to be merely some kind of offence that can happen to any of us and for which we might all be guilty and therefore should not be punished too severely. That attitude is changing.
In recent years we have seen many organizations of people who are concerned about the rights of victims. I am continually receiving correspondence from organizations or people whose relatives had suffered terrible injuries in automobile accidents caused by an impaired driver and from organizations whose families have had someone die as a result of impaired driving. They are forming groups and organizations and demanding that we do something about this. We are attempting to do that.
In addition, we are proposing that a new offence of driving while disqualified be enacted. We all know dozens of cases of people whose licences have been lifted by the provincial authorities but who drive and are picked up again. We will create a new offence of driving while disqualified. We expect that the wording of the new offence will rectify the problems that were presented by the Supreme Court of Canada decision in the case of Boggs versus The Queen, where the Supreme Court ruled that the current offence of driving while disqualified was ultra vires, "beyond our power", because the criminal sanction could be imposed for the violation of a provincial licence suspension pursuant to a conviction for a non-criminal highway traffic offence.
In order to get around that, the new offence will apply only to violations of a new judicial order of prohibition which is contained in this legislation, upon which I will expand later, and violations of provincial licence suspensions that are imposed pursuant to a criminal driving offence. That will get around this difficulty that the Supreme Court of Canada found.
Criminal Law Amendments
I propose that the penalty for dangerous driving be increased from the present maximum of two years to a maximum of five years. If one is convicted of dangerous driving after this legislation is passed, one can be sentenced for up to five years.
I am also proposing that the offence of criminal negligence in the operation of a motor vehicle be repealed. The distinction between negligent and dangerous driving has troubled the courts for many years. In a nutshell, the controversy arises from the need to distinguish driving that shows wanton or reckless disregard from driving that is dangerous to the public. That has been the problem. The repeal of criminal negligence in the operation of a motor vehicle will eliminate these difficulties.
There is no substantive reason why the criminal law should provide for negligent and dangerous driving as separate offences. They are variations of a single concept of risk creation. The offence of dangerous driving is a broader concept and includes instances where liability could be imposed for negligent driving. Increasing the penalty to five years, which was the previous maximum for criminal negligence when you operated a motor vehicle, will give the courts the discretion to impose heavy sentences where the circumstances warrant. I hope the House will support that.
Research shows that the typical drinking driver appears to be male, single, less than 50 years of age and coming from a bar, and driving a car as opposed to a truck or other vehicle. Let me emphasize the fact that the typical drinking driver is male, single, less than 50 years of age, who is coming from a bar and is driving a car. It is likely that the offender has committed other non-criminal traffic violations, and approximately one-quarter of offenders have previously been convicted of drinking and driving offences under the Criminal Code. This suggests that the penalties imposed on these offenders have not worked in the past. That is an argument for increasing the penalties now. Ninety per cent of the offenders are now fined and the fines for impaired drivers range between $100 and $300, above the mandatory minimum of $50 but well below the maximum fine of $2,000 for a first offence.
Fines appear to vary somewhat by offence and in different parts of the country. They are usually higher in western and Atlantic Canada than they are in central Canada. I do not know why that is but it is a fact. The courts are now prepared to impose fines substantially above the average where circumstances warrant. Depending on the province, 25 per cent to 40 per cent of all Criminal Code matters-and this is interesting, Mr. Speaker; I know this is a bit turgid and heavy-


Mr. Waddell:: And fascinating.


John Carnell Crosbie: Is the Hon. Member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell) fascinated?


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Yes.

December 20, 1984
Criminal Law Amendments


John Carnell Crosbie: Anything that can fascinate the Hon. Member for Vancouver-Kingsway has got to be of some interest to everybody, Mr. Speaker.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Carnell Crosbie: Depending on the province, 25 per cent to 40 per cent of all Criminal Code matters dealt with by the courts are for impaired driving, driving when one has over 0.08 per cent of alcohol in one's blood or for refusing to provide a breath sample. Convictions for those offences account for 20 per cent to 25 per cent of all provincial jail admissions.
There is a noise in the Chamber, Mr. Speaker. Maybe somebody is being taken away now.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Ian Gardiner Waddell: They are calling for you, John.


John Carnell Crosbie: I think there is a Cabinet meeting on, Mr. Speaker.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Carnell Crosbie: The average daily cost of incarcerating an individual-I would have said, had I written this, "jailing" an individual-is approximately $65. The direct cost to the taxpayer is therefore pretty significant.


John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, the Minister just said, had he written what he is delivering. The former Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada on November 9, 1983 delivered a speech to the Victoria Chamber of Commerce in Victoria, British Columbia-


Mr. Speyer:: What is the Hon. Member's point of order?


John V. Nunziata: The Minister has misled this House. He has virtually plagiarized a speech delivered-


Some Hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The Hon. Member does not have a point of order.


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, I was interested in that point of order. It shows the degree of imbecility that one can come across in this House.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Carnell Crosbie: These are notes prepared by the Department of Justice. I am going to use them. If the hon. gentleman wants to say that some Liberal used similar notes a couple of years ago, all I can say is that I hope he delivered them as well as I am delivering them.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Minister should go on with his speech and not argue a point which the Chair has ruled is not a point of order.


John V. Nunziata: This is the epitome of laziness. You liked our Bill so much you took our speeches.


Chris Speyer: There are echo chambers between your ears.


John Carnell Crosbie: The hon. gentleman has just come from Queen's Park. That explains it.


John V. Nunziata: You have had too much to drink.


John Carnell Crosbie: Drinking and driving is perceived by the public to be a matter of concern. There is more public support for tougher drinking and driving legislation. There is some evidence that the desire for heavier sentences has focused particularly on drinking drivers who have been involved in serious traffic accidents and have killed or injured innocent people. The surveys show that a majority of people do not favour a mandatory prison term for a first offence. They prefer instead fines in the range of $100 to $500. A substantial majority appear to support mandatory imprisonment for a second offence. I would be prepared, I think, to consider a mandatory prison term for a first offence, but the public does not appear to favour that yet. However, if the steps we are taking now do not appear to result in a satisfactory response, then the Members of the House can consider that in future years.
The experience also suggests, and this is interesting, that where legislative reforms are introduced with considerable publicity and accompanied by enhanced enforcement efforts, alcohol-related traffic fatalities decrease in the short run but return to their previous levels within a period ranging from several months to a year or two. In other words, when the House passes this legislation and there is publicity and enhanced enforcement, the statistics will show that the number of traffic fatalities from alcohol will go down.
The view is widely held that legislation tends to be effective in the short run because drinking drivers perceive that there is a higher probability of being apprehended and punished. That kind of perception does not continue as publicity dies down and enforcement efforts are relaxed because drinking drivers feel that there is a low probability they will be caught. Therefore, a driver's perception of the risk of being caught is a more critical factor in the longer term than the severity of the sentence.
The most significant implications that might occur would flow from a decision to make more extensive use of incarceration. Experience in the United States suggests that if you introduce jailing rather than fining, those kinds of changes can lead to more plea bargaining, larger numbers of contested trials and increased pressure on prison facilities. The American Bar Association reported that mandatory sentencing for drinking and driving offences caused overcrowding of jails in almost every section of the U.S.
We cannot predict with any precision what the impact on our justice system might be with these possible amendments to the Criminal Code. It is interesting to note that British Columbia officials have estimated that increasing the mandatory minimum period of imprisonment for a second drinking
December 20, 1984

and driving offence from 14 days to 30 days would result in additional spending in that province of $2.7 million because of the increased numbers of people who would go to jail. You can see, Mr. Speaker, that if we introduce mandatory minimum terms of imprisonment on the 90 per cent of offenders currently fined there would be a very significant increase in the number of people jailed and a significant increase in costs.
The legislation proposes that the minimum fine be increased for impaired driving from $50 to $300. That would be a six-fold increase in the minimum fine. This would also bring the minimum fine more in line with what judges are actually imposing.
We are not suggesting an increase in mandatory jail sentences at this time for the reasons that have been suggested earlier. Research indicates that it will not deter impaired driving and might be counter-productive, although I am inclined to the other view.
As Hon. Members know, a sentencing commission has been appointed to examine the whole question of sentencing in Canada. I think it is supposed to spend the next two years on that task. It will be examining the usefulness of effectiveness of all mandatory minimum sentences. That will be included in the report at the end of the period of the commission.
In addition we are suggesting mandatory suspension of driving privileges. That appears to be an even greater deterrent to impaired driving because that sanction causes impaired drivers great inconvenience. The legislation proposes a mandatory judicial order of prohibition from driving. The maximum period of prohibition would be three years and the minimum period would be three months for a first offence, six months for a second offence and one year for a third or subsequent offence.
That prohibition will apply all across Canada. It will be superimposed. It will not depend upon penalties or restrictions which provincial registrars of motor vehicles may impose. They could still impose what penalties or restrictions they like. This will be superimposed over any penalty they may wish to impose. There will be no exceptions to the rule. Every drinking driver will have to be made aware of the risk of the loss of the privilege to drive. No matter what their personal circumstances or occupation may be, there will be a mandatory judicial order of prohibition from driving if they are convicted.
The Bill also proposes a discretionary judicial order of prohibition from driving for all other driving-related offences. There is the mandatory and the discretionary. The maximum prohibition would be for life for those offences which have a maximum sentence of life imprisonment-manslaughter or criminal negligence causing death. In the case of criminal negligence causing bodily harm or causing death or bodily harm by dangerous driving or impaired driving, it will be 10 years, and three years for all other driving-related offences. There will be much greater stress on the suspension of driving privileges.
Criminal Law Amendments
Also it is proposed in the legislation that a judge be empowered-and this is new-to order that any vehicle used in the commission of an impaired driving offence be immobilized for up to one year if the accused is the owner, the holder of a long-term lease or the principal driver of the vehicle. Another possible penalty will be that the vehicle is ordered to be immobilized. That is to ensure that persons, in particular those who do not obey or observe orders of prohibition from driving or licence suspensions, do not drive the vehicle. We all know of many instances where people who were ordered not to drive or had their licence cancelled continued to do so. The judge will be able to order that the vehicles of repeat offenders be immobilized. It will depend upon the province; they can use a Denver boot or whatever other means they want to see that the vehicle is immobilized.
We are informed that research on deterring impaired drivers indicates that the emphasis has to be put on the effectiveness of the sanction, not just how severe or how difficult it is. Some people may feel that the increase in the minimum fine from $50 to $300 is not severe enough to deter impaired driving, but when that is placed in the context of the other penalties which I have just outlined, it is different; then I think the sanctions are tough and effective-to have one's vehicle impounded, be prohibited from driving and so on.
Another feature of the Bill which is very necessary and has to be included with the provisions applying to driving offences is the acquisition of blood samples. In 1969 Parliament reached a compromise. It required a person to provide a breath sample, not a blood sample. That may have been an acceptable compromise at that time. However, since then we are all aware of the fact that fatalities on the highways have risen, the public is more aware of the problem, there are demands for action and more has to be done. We need other tools in addition to the obtaining of a breath sample.
It is difficult to prove responsibility under existing legislation in a number of cases where evidence may become unavailable.


John V. Nunziata: You are just reading Mr. MacGuigan's speech.


John Carnell Crosbie: This is my speech.


John V. Nunziata: It is MacGuigan's.


John Carnell Crosbie: MacGuigan's speech was prepared by the Department of Justice. The same people prepared notes for me. Many of the notes might be the same.


John V. Nunziata: Many, many.


John Carnell Crosbie: So what?


John V. Nunziata: Can't you read your own speech?


John Carnell Crosbie: If the hon. gentleman does not want to listen to me, he does not have to stay in the House. He can leave the House. I would take a blood sample from the Member if I thought I would find any blood.

December 20, 1984
Criminal Law Amendments


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I hesitate to interrupt the Minister, but this is a very important debate, with 2,500 people dying per year. Rather than supercilious heckling from both sides, we should get on with the matter. If the Minister wants to read his speech, it is fine with us. It is a very technical and very important area, and we should get on with it.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I would invite all Hon. Members to listen to the Minister, especially one Member who has been interrupting him.


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, I am quite prepared to wing it, but the information would not be as accurate as the House is getting at the moment. When I finish with these notes, I intend to speak for another couple of hours. I will wing it for a few hours. The Member should put his mind at ease. I can give a speech without notes. I can give a speech for two hours. If he aggravates me, I will do it until the end of the session on Friday.


André Ouellet: That is what we want.


John Carnell Crosbie: To get back to breath samples, there are cases where the present sample is not adequate. What are some of the examples? Sometimes there has been an accident and the driver is unconscious and cannot provide a breath sample. Perhaps the Hon. Member could; he seems to be able to blow on all occasions, conscious or unconscious. Another situation would be where the driver is conscious but has sustained injuries which make it impossible for him to comply with the demand for a breath sample. Or the driver may be conscious but pretends to be seriously injured in order to avoid a breath test. He may be conscious but incapable of comprehending the nature of the demand for a breath sample, or he might be conscious but incapable of providing a breath sample because of his medical condition. He may be suffering from emphysema, asthma, brown lung disease or some other disease which renders him incapable of giving a breath sample. Breath samples are not always satisfactory.
One solution is a blood sample from people suspected of impaired driving. However, we have to balance certain interests, civil liberties or rights, such as the right not to have one's person interfered with. That right has to be balanced against the right of the public to be secure and people to be protected from injuries when on public highways, the rights of society as a whole. One has to be balanced against the other.
What can we do with respect to blood samples? The balancing process has produced the provisions we have included in this Bill. In respect of people who are conscious and can consent to giving a blood sample, we are proposing that a blood sample be taken only if there is consent. Suppose there has been an accident and someone is suspected of drinking. That person will be asked for his or her consent to give a blood sample. If he or she says no to giving a blood sample, then he
or she will not have to give a blood sample. However, if that person does not give the blood sample after having been asked to and is conscious and can make a choice, he or she can be charged with the offence of refusing to give a blood sample and the penalty would be the same as if that person were charged with impaired driving. In other words, that is the same provision that now applies with respect to breath samples.


Mr. Marchi:: What page is he on in the MacGuigan speech?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, that is how it works when a person is conscious.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Carnell Crosbie: If the hon. gentlemen are interested-


Ian Gardiner Waddell: The Liberals are not interested in this Bill.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, what about a situation in which an individual cannot give his consent for reasons that I have mentioned? We are then proposing that acquisition of a blood sample be mandatory. We are proposing that if a person is not conscious, we will be able to take blood sample under certain circumstances through the use of a judicial warrant which might be obtained by means of a telephone or other telephonic instrument. This is to be limited to cases where death or injury has occurred at the scene of an accident. We believe that if death or injury has occurred at the scene of an accident, then the rights of society justify the potential infringement on the civil liberties of the unconscious person. This, of course, can only occur if the person is unconscious.
All of the blood samples, if they are taken, will be taken by licensed medical practitioners or other qualified persons who are authorized by, or working under the direction of, a licensed medical practitioner. A blood sample will not be taken in these circumstances unless a medical practitioner is satisfied that taking a blood sample will not endanger the life or health of the person involved.
In addition, the legislation proposes that the accused be given a sample of his own blood for independent analysis. There are many safeguards in connection with the taking of blood samples. As I recall, the laws of Saskatchewan and British Columbia already provide for the taking of blood samples in similar circumstances.
What, then, is this telephonic warrant or telewarrant? As you know, Mr. Speaker, the legislation will remove writs of assistance. Under previous Governments, the writ of assistance has existed for many years. That writ permits a certain number of RCMP officers who are enforcing the drug or customs and excise laws to enter homes without a search warrant. Many have considered the writ of assistance to endanger basic individual rights of Canadians. A writ of assistance continues to run, has no time limit and can be used by the RCMP member who has it. New writs have not been issued since 1976,1 believe.
December 20, 1984

The British Columbia Court of Appeal has found the writ of assistance to be in accordance with, and not invalidated by, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, while the Ontario Court of Appeal has found the writ of assistance to be invalidated by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. If the House passes this legislation, it would end the matter in any event because the writ of assistance will no longer exist.
As was proposed last year, we are proposing the telewarrant. There is nothing new, strange or startling about the telewarrant, Mr. Speaker. The State of California has had them for a number of years, as has the State of New York, the State of Arizona and the State of New South Wales in Australia. They are in use in other jurisdictions as well. In effect, it is a conventional warrant that is obtained by using the telephone or other means of telecommunication. The person seeking the warrant does not appear in person before a justice of the peace or provincial judge to get a search warrant, but gets it most likely over the telephone. It is done under oath, and reasonable grounds for believing that evidence of an offence may be found at a specific location must still be given.
The person seeking the warrant does not appear personally before the judicial person to obtain it and the judicial officer's signature will not appear on the copy of the telewarrant. However, the judge himself will be filling in the necessary details on his side of the telephone and the police officer will do the same on the document that he has on his side of the telephone. He will then leave a copy of it with the person whose premises he is searching by use of that telewarrant.
Telewarrants are to be used only in cases in which it is impractical to apply for a conventional warrant. In some circumstances they may be used in order to get a blood sample from a person who was in an accident, is suspected of impaired driving and is unconscious. They may be used in a situation such as one which might occur in the Yukon or Northwest Territories in which the RCMP member or police might have to travel 40, 50 or a couple of hundred miles before he could find a person to whom he could apply to receive a search warrant. It is to be used under those kinds of circumstances.
This proposal is similar to a recommendation made by the Law Reform Commission of Canada and, I think, fully protects individual rights. It is fully-[DOT]


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I regret to interrupt the Hon. Minister but the allocated time is up.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, in view of the importance of the subject and the importance of the Minister's having the opportunity to explain it all, I think he ought to have more time, but certainly not the unlimited weeks, days and hours that he implied might be required.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Do I gather that there is unanimous consent for this? I would like to put a limit on the time of 10 or 15 minutes. May I suggest 10 minutes?


Some Hon. Members:: No.
Criminal Law Amendments


John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, perhaps we might ask the Minister how much time he requires in order adequately to introduce the Bill, and then agree unanimously to a specific amount of time.


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, I was under the impression that when introducing a Bill one has unlimited time.


André Ouellet: No, you're not the Leader.


John Carnell Crosbie: We're not talking about what should be. I will certainly finish within 30 minutes, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I gather there is such unanimous consent?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I recognize the Hon. Minister of Justice.


Mr. Deans:: One of the most interesting leadership speeches I've heard in a while.


John Carnell Crosbie: The difference between us and the two opposition Parties is that we do not need any other Leader.


André Ouellet: It took you a long time to say it.


John Carnell Crosbie: It took me a long time to be convinced but now I am convinced.
I had better speed up a bit in order to cover some of the other main sections of the Bill. My parliamentary assistant who, of course, is a real expert in all these areas will hopefully be able to answer any questions that are asked.
The legislation also deals with computer crimes. It covers three aspects of the problems associated with the abuse of computer systems. One of those aspects is already covered by the law, that is, the destruction of hardware and instruments of a computer system. That is adequately covered. However, there are two areas which are not adequately covered. One area is the unauthorized acquisition or destruction of the data in a computer system. The other area which is covered by this legislation is the unauthorized use of computer services.
As all Members of the House will know, with the increased use of computers the instances of abuse are occurring more frequently. People who are not authorized to use computer systems are plugging into them. I do not know how this is done because I am not mechanically minded, but apparently it can be done and it is being done.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Watch the movie WarGames.


John V. Nunziata: Look who's talking! You sanctimonious son of a gun.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!

December 20, 1984
Criminal Law Amendments


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, some people cannot help but let their innate nastiness out.
In order to save time, I would suggest that Hon. Members look at the provisions which deal with computer systems. The legislation will bring the law up to date in that area. If the amendments are passed, it will be an offence under the Criminal Code to wilfully destroy, alter or interfere with the lawful use of data in computer systems. In addition, it will be an offence dishonestly and knowingly, without authority, to obtain a computer system service, intercept the function of a computer system, or use a computer system with the intent to commit any of the above-mentioned offences. That will correct an area of the law which is now lacking. As a matter of fact, a year or two ago there was a committee of the House which examined this area and recommended changes similar to the ones which are included in this legislation.
The legislation deals with the matter of search and seizure. I have already talked about the writ of assistance, but I would like to put on the record that a writ of assistance is a court order issued by the Federal Court under the Customs Act, the Excise Act, the Food and Drugs Act and the Narcotic Control Act. The writ empowers the officers named to search any place, including a dwelling or a house, at any time in the execution of their duties, to enforce the relevant Act. The writ empowers its holders to enter any place without requesting entry, to break open doors, chests, locks and containers. It is valid as long as the holders are officers under the Acts. Obviously, a very broad power is being removed. In removing the power of the writ of assistance, I believe we will have to replace the system with telewarrants. Telewarrants will be of some assistance to the police and the RCMP when they lose the right of issuing a writ of assistance.
I have already described telewarrants. The United States has been using telewarrants for 14 years. They have consistently withstood constitutional challenges. In other words, the system has been found to be in accord with United States law and the Bill of Rights. The system has been held to be a reasonable alternative to the conventional warrant. Telewarrants must be taken under oath and recorded by the justice who issues them. Research has been done in this area, mostly by civil liberties groups, and it has been found that there is broad support for this procedure in the legal community.
The Bill includes restrictions on publicity when searches are made. A search may be made on a certain premises, but there may not be any charges laid. It would seem to be unnecessarily harmful to the persons whose premises had been searched to have their names reported and publicized in the event that a charge is not laid. It could affect their reputations. The amendment would impose restrictions on publishing the facts of the search, unless the persons involved gave their consent or charges were laid.
Another area in the legislation deals with solicitor/client privilege. If documents are seized from the possession of lawyers and they claim that the documents are privileged, the documents can still be seized but they would be placed in a sealed packet and would only be made available to the prosecution if a judge made the finding that the documents were not protected by the solicitor/client privilege.
There is a provision in the Bill which calls for the prompt return of seized property. We have all happened upon people who were quite annoyed because they had suffered a theft or a break-in and their property had to be used as evidence in court proceedings. It often takes months, sometimes years, before that property is returned to those individuals. The proposed amendments will require reviews to be made at each stage of the proceedings, and will require that such property be quickly returned to the owners.
As I mentioned earlier, there are two provisions in the Bill which will enable us to carry out our obligations pursuant to the International Convention on the Physical Protection of Nuclear Material and the Convention to Faciliate the Prevention, Prosecution and Punishment of Acts of Hostage Taking. Both of those conventions require changes in our criminal law.
Canada's jurisdiction over nuclear material offences will be extended to cover instances where crimes are committed in our territory, on board a ship or aircraft which is registered in Canada, where the offender is present in Canada but not extradited, or where the offender is a Canadian national. Although we are a party to that convention, we have not ratified it because the necessary amendments have not been passed.
With regard to the hostage taking convention, the Bill creates a specific offence for hostage taking which includes essential elements as defined in the convention. The legislation sets out a penalty which reflects the grave nature of the crime and gives the courts extra-territorial jurisdiction in connection with the offence and the offender, in accordance with the manner in which the convention sets it out. If the amendment is passed, we will be in a position to ratify that convention and to act in the event of hostage taking incident.
I mentioned earlier that there are provisions in the legislation which will provide more effective control over medical prescriptions which are issued by practitioners who do not observe the law. It will help in controlling the medical use of narcotics and controlled drugs, and people who seek narcotic prescriptions without telling the medical practitioner that they had obtained a narcotic prescription during the previous 30 days. I believe that these steps need to be taken and should be taken quickly. Another amendment in the legislation would clearly provide that the proof of commercial consideration is not an essential element of the offence.
There are a number of other amendments which are designed to improve the administration of justice. They deal with the jurisdiction of provincial courts, appeal procedures, preliminary hearings, the powers of judges at trials, credit card crimes, air safety and motor vehicle odometers.
There are two specific amendments that should reduce the backlog of cases and expedite trials: pre-trial conferences and the disposition of preliminary matters in the absence of a jury. Those amendments are very sensible. Pre-trial conferences would allow the judges to hold those conferences and to call in
December 20, 1984

counsel for both sides to consider various matters which might make the trial more clear or expedite the trial. The value of the pre-trial conference has been proven very amply. In jury trials, pre-trial conferences will be mandatory, if the amendments are passed. The conferences would be held pursuant to the rules of the court. It is done a great deal in Ontario and it has been found to be most valuable.
We are all familiar with the movies and with the fact that arguments often ensue as to whether certain evidence is admissible. The jury must be absent from the courtroom when these arguments are being made. Sometimes the arguments take as long as a day or a day and a half. There was one case in Newfoundland recently where the jury had to be excluded for a couple of days while the admissibility of evidence was argued.
If we pass the amendments which have been suggested to the House, then the judge and the lawyers could decide those kinds of questions before the trial begins so that the jurors are not forced to be absent from the court for hours while these arguments take place. It is time that someone gives some thought to the comfort of jurors. People called upon to serve as jurors lose a lot of their time and it is too bad that they are treated in this way. To exclude jurors from the courtroom while these arguments go on is a waste of time and extremely expensive as well. The provision is included here so that the judge and the lawyers involved can settle these issues before the trial begins.
I believe I have now outlined the Bill, with the help of the Department of Justice which prepared the notes. Most of the important provisions which are in this legislation have been pointed out to the House. I could continue but my Parliamentary Secretary will be speaking and he will be able to address himself to any points which Hon. Members opposite want to raise.
With respect to any suggestion that the Bill should be divided, as I said previously we are not opposed to considering whatever might be suggested. However, I do not believe that to be necessary. These amendments are all necessary and timely. It is long past time they were passed. They do not endanger the common weal of the country at all. They are a step forward and an improvement to the law. While I am anxious that we should deal with the question of impaired and drunk driving as quickly as possible, I believe these other issues should be dealt with as quickly as possible as well.
Considerable work was done on this Bill in order to divide up Bill C-19, which was felt to encompass too much for one swallow by Members of the House of Commons and the Justice Committee. We have attempted to address these provisions which I am sure it will be widely agreed are necessary. I cannot see them as being controversial and I believe we should deal with them, and deal with them expeditiously. There may be-and I am sure there will be-much more need to debate amendments in the other areas I mentioned earlier which we hope to come forward with in February. They will be more
Criminal Law Amendments
controversial and we will need a longer time to deal with them. However, I hope that Members of the House will deal expeditiously with this legislation today and we will be able to refer the Bill to the Justice Committee.
Unless the Opposition is very much impressed it is unlikely that we can pass the legislation in all stages today and tomorrow. Upon looking across the way, I feel it might be possible. But if it is not, then I suggest we have the Justice Committee take a good look at the Bill in January and I can see no reason why it should not be possible to pass it before the end of January.
The Bill, I am sure, Mr. Speaker, is going to be treated in a non-partisan manner since most of these provisions, except for minor changes, were contained in the previous Bill C-19. We know we have the support of the Official Opposition, and from the attitude of the Hon. Member for Vancouver-Kingsway, it is extremely likely that we have the support of the New Democratic Party as well. In any event, we will soon know. Therefore, I commend the Bill and move second reading so that the Bill may be referred to the Justice Committee, unless Hon. Members want to deal with all of it here today by putting it through Committee of the Whole.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, the Minister concluded with some suggestions as to how the Bill might be handled. Perhaps I could begin by talking about some of those suggestions. I gather that the Minister would be delighted to get the whole Bill through all three stages today. However, I do not feel that would be appropriate. I believe that some of the provisions of the Bill, although supported by my Party-I will explain why and the nature of our support-do require some further discussion.
I know that when the former Government brought this legislation forward, part of the contemplation of the Government was that it would go to committee and that the private sector and public interest groups would have the opportunity to come forward, make representations and express views about other particular aspects of the Bill. I believe the Bill could be improved even though, as I say, it had its genesis with the former Government, and it could be improved by the process of committee hearings. I make that observation in general but I want to make an exception of the provisions which deal with drunk driving. Those provisions received instant attention and consideration when they were brought forward by the former Government. As the minister indicated, they have been changed very little from the form in which they were first introduced.
I noted with interest the Minister's observations during the last few months that this law might be in effect by Christmas and the New Year. I know that drinking occurs all year and drunk driving regrettably occurs all year as well. However, it is a special problem at this season and I had hoped, and still hope from what the Minister said, that it might be possible to detach that one portion of the bill, which has had quite a lot of public scrutiny, and see that portion enacted today and tomorrow. I would like to offer the full co-operation and support of

December 20, 1984
Criminal Law Amendments
the Liberal Members of Parliament in order to achieve that goal.
I do not believe it is good enough for the Minister to say, as he did, that it is all important legislation and it should all go forward. I wonder whether there is not behind that statement an attempt by the Minister to force the hand of Hon. Members on this side of the House by indicating that if we want the drunk driving provisions, we are going to have to agree today as well to all of the other provisions. I do not feel that is an acceptable bargain. I put it to the Minister that that is unfair and that the drunk driving provisions can stand on their own. I know that the justice critic for the Conservative Party in the last Parliament put that position forward. That was available all during the year. But now we are reaching a critical time when drunk driving does become a special problem. The Minister should know that, of course, because it is a well known police matter across the country. Provincial Attorneys General would be very much assisted by the gesture of this Parliament in legislating the drunk driving provisions right away. The other provisions could be left for committee study and for the receipt of briefs and hearings.
I can also give the Minister the assurance, as I did when he appeared before committee on estimates, that we will not hold this Bill up. This is a Bill we would like very much to see in the law in general, although certain other provisions will require study. Nothing is gained from the point of view of the Government or the legislative timetable by trying to twist the arms of the Parties opposite by saying we can only give the country the drunk driving legislation by giving it the rest of the legislation. I urge the Minister, perhaps through his Parliamentary Secretary who might speak this morning, to accept that offer before the Senators leave for the Christmas holidays, in order to get these drunk driving provisions into effect.
Let me say in general that I was interested in the length of time it took for the Minister of Justice (Mr. Crosbie) to come forward with the omnibus, "minibus" Bill which is now before us. I had assumed, as the days, weeks and months went by, that the Conservative Government was going to deal in the first omnibus Criminal Code amendment with some of the issues which were current during the election campaign, that there might even be provisions dealing with prostitution and pornography. These are issues in which voters had a considerable interest, as was expressed during the last election campaign. I would not even have been surprised if the Bill had addressed the problem of capital punishment, a high priority issue to many Conservative candidates during the election campaign.
So when the Bill came forward I was disappointed to find that it was actually less than the Bill that was before the House in the last Parliament. I had expected that in that amount of time criminal law reform would be a priority and that this Bill would show it. But what we see is that this Parliament and perhaps the new Government will continue to be governed by the Liberal criminal law agenda. Certainly this
Bill has less than the Liberal criminal law agenda, but I think I can say with some pride that that agenda is still governing this Parliament.
This Government has brought forward some but not all of the very important reforms introduced last year by my colleague Mark MacGuigan, to whom I think this Bill, even in its diminished form, is a tribute. I wanted to begin by noting that and by expressing our approval in general of the Liberal criminal law agenda which this new Conservative Government has seen fit to follow.
I mentioned there were some very sad omissions from the Bill. The Minister has referred to some of them himself. For example, I am very sorry that we have not moved ahead with the contempt of court provisions because Members on our side have been aware of and discussing the problems with respect to wife battering. According to media reports, a number of wives have over this past summer ended up in jail for contempt of court because they did not want to testify, after charges were laid, against husbands who beat them. I think this is an urgent matter. I know it is a difficult matter, but criminal law reform is sometimes difficult. The former Government bit the bullet, made a decision and put forward provisions which would have helped in that situation. I wish they were in the law now because there would be less battered wives going to jail for not testifying against their husbands. Yet this Government has taken a step backward and said it will not act, that it will leave things the way they are until it can have further discussions and give it some further thought.
I place in the same category the problems of pornography. The House has been discussing those problems in Question Period regularly. Pornography seems to be on a descending dynamic; the degradation gets worse and worse. Instead of moving forward the new Government has chosen to wait and have more discussions and consultation before acting.
In the same area I include the general subject of sentencing reform. I had hoped to see in this Bill something like the toughening up of the mandatory supervision law which I had introduced shortly before the election and which the Conservatives indicated they supported. I think everyone in the country knows, and it is a discredit to the criminal justice system, that there are a number of hardened criminals whose violence and aggression and further criminality can be predicted with a pretty high degree of accuracy. Yet because of certain failings in the present law, they get out on the street before the end of their sentence where they represent a kind of walking time bomb or menace to the Canadian people. New victims are created.
As the inadequacy of the law was recognized, I brought forward a Bill for tougher treatment and tougher rules concerning mandatory supervision. But instead of going further, as one might do in view of certain things which have happened in the last few months, the Conservatives have stepped back and we find no reforms being offered to the Canadian people right now.
Similarly, Mr. Speaker, prostitution has been omitted. I thought the present Government, given statements made
December 20, 1984

during the election campaign, had a pretty clear idea of what it wanted to do with street prostitution. I have made public my own views and I would have been very happy to have seen street prostitution dealt with by removing the requirement for pressing and persistent behaviour and by introducing a provision to allow prosecution of both the prostitute and the prospective client. I wish more had been put on the table by the Government in this regard, indeed in general.
There is as well an urgent requirement for law reform dealing with the profits of crime. The former Bill contained a provision which helped the state confiscate the profits of crime. There are some provisions for this now in the present criminal law but their inadequacies are well known. There are huge fortunes being built in North America as a result of illegal activities and illegal funds being laundered. I can refer to statements made by the RCMP Commissioner recently about the limitations on police and court action under the present Criminal Code. I know that some of the provisions we had were controversial. Perhaps they might have been improved in committee through the appearance of civil liberty groups and the banks who were worried about the consequences of those measures. But instead of doing that and seeking a way of dealing with the profits of crime, the Government has taken a big step backward and is going to sit and wait until a perfect solution is devised. This will perhaps be done without the benefit of the public input that the former Government would have liked to see in the committee when the matter was considered there.
I would also like to have seen more for victims in this package because there was more proposed for victims in the other package. One of the most remarkable and troubling injustices of the present system is its failure adequately to recognize the needs of the victims of crime. The Government has done a little in this Bill but I think it is a discredit to the criminal justice system that victims suffer as much as they do from that system as well as suffering at the hands of the criminal who has caused them their loss or damage. To me it meant a lot to see more for victims and I am glad the Minister has said he is thinking about it and is going to bring forward more provisions in that area. But if he had put them in this Bill and sent it to the committee, I think there would have been a better process of law building and we would have achieved justice for victims more quickly than by seeing a lesser package than the one that was before the House at the time of the last election.
1 would like now to turn to a couple of the substantive subjects affecting this Bill. I talked earlier about the timing of the drunk driving provisions. Concerning substance, I would like to say that there is no doubt that there is a great interest in having tougher treatment of drunk or impaired drivers. The inadequacy of the law and the failure of the courts to impose a certain minimum sentence is becoming a public scandal in many ways. I welcome the opportunity for Parliament to give some direction to the courts about how the Canadian people feel about drunk drivers, whether they actually injure anyone
Criminal Law Amendments
or damage property or not. This is an act of social irresponsibility and that should be underlined, and the Bill will do that.
If the Minister does not accept the opportunity to pass the Bill today and it goes on to committee, there may be some interesting questions which could be addressed in this area, although they are not questions which would have led us to want to see the Bill delayed.
I would just like to mention one that the Minister referred to in his remarks, and that is the problem of involving a doctor in taking a blood sample. There are a number of doctors' associations that are raising the issue of whether doctors should perform any services at all that do not contribute directly to improving the health of their patient. Of course, taking samples for the purpose of prosecution is in that category. If the Bill goes to committee, I want to be certain that we can get the CMA, or one of the other medical associations in the country, to appear to give us the good housekeeping seal of approval on that feature if we are going to make the opinion of the doctor as important as it seems we intend to from what the Minister said.
With regard to telewarrants, I think they really are urgent. There are still some writ of assistance cases before the courts. There are a few dozen cases that are at some stage or other of the criminal justice proceedings. The validity of the writ of assistance is a matter for the courts. The former Government ordered the RCMP to turn in all writs of assistance and none was being used, even the outstanding ones, at the time of the last election. The absence of the writ of assistance and the non-arrival of the telewarrant presents a serious problem for law enforcement because there is an important element of time in which a drug criminal can commit an offence and get away with it because the telewarrant and the writ of assistance are not available to permit the evidence that would be required for effective prosecution to be seized. We need telewarrants and I hope all Members of the House will recognize that, whatever the problems with them. I hope we will try to solve those problems to get an instrument which will permit a policy action on a timely basis to permit the drugs to be seized so that they will be available for trial.
I certainly do not hold it against telewarrants that they are new. As I mentioned yesterday at my press conference, I had the opportunity to visit the United States and to follow the process of a telewarrant in a police car to a house. There was no doubt that if the normal alternative procedure of looking for a justice of the peace or a judge, appearing before that individual, and swearing the affidavit is followed, hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of drugs could easily be flushed down the toilet, burned, or contaminated very quickly and the police would just be wasting their time.
Therefore, we do need that, but I was concerned about the newness of the telewarrant and the Bill which was before the last Parliament reflected that concern by limiting the issuing of telewarrants to senior judicial officers, excluding justices of the peace. I notice in this Bill that a judge can designate

December 20, 1984
Criminal Law Amendments
specific justices of the peace to issue telewarrants. I am concerned about that. At the moment I am not saying that that is an unacceptable feature, but I would like to know why the Government feels that it ought to extend the authority to issue telewarrants that widely. My own preference would be to keep them narrow and to have tight judge-shopping provisions. I think Canadians are concerned about their civil liberties. We are in an era of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. I do not think that we want to introduce a provision lightly without all of the safeguards that can possibly be included. I am putting the Government on notice that I would like a good explanation for Canadians as to why the authority to issue telewarrants needs to be given to justices of the peace, even designated ones.
I was hoping that it would be possible to finish by one o'clock, or perhaps shortly after three o'clock, so I will not go on at very great length. I want to close by noting one very important omission from the drunk driving legislation. I hope the Government is prepared to correct the omission of the requirement for mandatory treatment of drunk drivers, particularly repeat offenders, during further consideration of the Bill. I think that treatment should be imposed.
In saying that I recognize all of the difficulties with that. It is hard to impose a process on an individual in which his participation is required to make it work. On the other hand, I think that a direction ought to be given to courts to ensure that some effort is made to get at repeat drunk driving offenders. There are some in every province of the country. I myself believe that the Government is hung up on the idea that there are some difficulties with it. When we brought it forward we knew that there were some difficulties with it, but I would have looked forward to the chance to try to improve it. Even if there are some difficulties with it, we are ultimately faced with the problem that drunk driving is a fact in our society. Any reasonable measure that we can introduce to limit it should be introduced and there would be public support for it. I regret very much that the Government has abandoned that. If this Bill is not enacted today I call upon the Government to bring back the provisions for treatment of drunk drivers so that we will have a Bill which will do something to correct the problems of the abusers in addition to simply punishing them.
Having said that, I would like to say that I am glad that criminal law reform is a priority of the Government. I am proud that the Liberal political agenda in the criminal law area is still the guiding principle of the new Parliament. I look forward to co-operating to ensure timely consideration of all of the important provisions of this Bill.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to speak today on behalf of the New Democratic Party. This is a very important Bill, as I am sure all Members realize. We heard mention of prostitution, soliciting, pornography and so on, but when you think of it, perhaps impaired driving affects more of us. We are all potentially at risk from the dreadful consequences of the impaired driver. We have heard from the Minister of Justice (Mr. Crosbie) today that 2,500 lives per year are taken by drunk drivers. I
suspect that the problems of injury or death caused by an impaired driver have touched the lives of most of the Members of the House, whether through friends, relatives or young people struck down in the prime of life. We have all read about it and some of us have knowledge of personal cases.
I myself am particularly interested in this area because in my first job as assistant city prosecutor for the City of Vancouver I literally prosecuted about five impaired drivers a day for about a year and a half. As is often done in law, I switched to the other side after that and spent another year and a half defending many impaired drivers. Therefore, I know a little bit about this area.
I also had the privilege of serving on the Alcohol and Drug Commission in British Columbia for two years. Later I would like to speak a little bit about one of the programs that we had to deal with, which I think is the main issue that is not even faced in this Bill. I refer to the treatment of the alcoholic problems of people who get into their cars and drive.
Our Party would like to see this Bill go through today in principle. It can then go to committee where it can have an expeditious hearing so that these provisions, especially those concerning drunken drivers, can come back to the House as soon as possible. The Minister of Justice indicated that it was not necessary to divide the Bill today because Parliament has already sent a signal that it is ready to crack down on impaired drivers in this country. I agree with the Minister that we have sent the signal.
I understood the Minister to suggest that the Bill could be split in committee. It is an interesting observation that it might be better dealt with in committee.
The Hon. Member for York Centre (Mr. Kaplan) dealt with this Bill in an honest way. I agree with him when he said that drinking and drunken driving takes place throughout the year and not only at Christmas. There is nothing special about Christmas except that it is a more festive time of the year.
I regret that the Government did not introduce the Bill earlier because I believe it would be almost impossible to split the Bill now. Our justice critic, the Hon. Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson), in committee on December 4, warned the Government that it should try to bring in the Bill sooner so we could deal with it. Indeed, the Hon. Member for York Centre said in the committee on December 4 at page 3:20:
I am not committed to the provisions in Bill C-19, but I feel that if it has taken you this long to bring forward your own bill, it is pretty unfair to put us under the gun of having to respond and give the country the bill by the New Year. 1 do hope you will try to beat your deadline of December 15 and get it forward by an earlier date, if possible. If not, at least put out some kind of interim statement so that we, and the various groups in the country who care about it, can at least start thinking about it. If we are going to be given only a few hours in the House to pass it or be blamed for not doing so, that will give us some time to reflect on it.
He was also asking that the Bill be brought forward and that we should not have a gun to our heads. As a matter of fact, he said that the part of the Bill dealing with the taking of blood samples especially needed further consideration. He said
December 20, 1984

we should not rush it through in order that we could hear from the Canadian Medical Association, I believe, in committee. I think that is a good suggestion and perhaps a reason why we should put the Bill into committee.
During the last session I, along with other Members at that time, rushed a Bill through at the last moment. It concerned an amendment relating to Indian women. That Bill was rushed to the Senate. I suggest it was embarrassing for Parliament when one senator would not consent to the Bill and it died. Eventually that legislation will have to be passed but we were clearly not ready to put it through at that time. I suggest it is irresponsible for us as legislators to rush legislation through for a symbolic purpose or for political postering. I believe if something is worth doing it is worth doing right.
Let me point out some of the provisions of this Bill which I would like the committee to consider. As I have said, there is obviously a public will that we become more strict with impaired and drunken drivers. We have sent that signal as a result of this Bill. However, I want to ask the Parliamentary Secretary whether tougher penalties will really solve the problem. During his speech the Minister of Justice said it would not. In fact, he said that these penalties would have a shortterm effect because people thought they might not get caught. They knew the laws were tougher but that fear would wear off in the long run.
I had the benefit of looking at a study called "Deterring the Drinking Driver" conducted by H. Lawrence Ross of the State University of Buffalo. Let me refer to this study because it is similar to what the Minister of Justice was talking about. At page 111 it states:
However, deterrence-based policies are questionable in the long run. No such policies have been scientifically demonstrated to work over time under conditions achieved in any jurisdiction. This fact does not mean that such policies are hopeless but rather that success-if achievable-probably will involve something other than what has been done in the past. On the basis of the evidence, it will not suffice to import further elements of the Scandinavian approach into other jurisdictions in the expectation that Norway and Sweden have the answers. Moreover, the option of merely increasing penalties for drinking and driving has been strongly discredited by experience to date. The most hopeful opportunities for further deterrent accomplishments would seem to lie in increasing the actual probabilities of apprehension and conviction of drinking drivers.
The Minister of Justice acknowledged in his speech that increased penalties will not solve the problem in the long run. This Bill provides for increased penalties. The Minister said he would advocate a penalty of a jail sentence and gave the example of the bank president in Switzerland. We know that in Scandinavia and in Norway and Sweden there are tougher penalties for first offences. I suggest that we will return here in a couple of years to pass that type of law. We will probably favour a law that will place a drunk driver in jail. My point is that we know that it still will not solve the problem. While increased penalties may partly solve the problem, it does not answer the entire question.
The average Canadian is most familiar with our provincial courts or lower court system. If one studies a court docket, there are usually about two or three impaired driving cases each day on a judge's court docket. These cases take up much time in our courts. It is at this level that most Canadians
Criminal Law Amendments
usually become involved. I have found in my experience that many of those who were charged with impaired driving were repeat offenders.
This was also reflected in the Minister's statistics which he gave us today. I have found through my personal experience that many were repeat offenders and had a drinking problem. It is only occasionally that a person who drinks too much at a party gets caught and is charged with impaired driving. It is usually those who have a drinking problem who are caught and it is a symptom of deeper problems. It is often the case, when acting as a lawyer for someone who has been charged with impaired driving, that he has been stopped by the police before and let go because they were not quite sure of his condition. In British Columbia in the past there was a provision for roadside suspension of a licence. However, such people would finally be charged with impaired driving.
That is really an alcohol problem, a treatment problem. What we tried to do in the Alcohol and Drug Commission of B.C.-I am having a little trouble speaking; perhaps Members could go and converse in the lobby. I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, but it is a little distracting. We formed local committees made up of local citizens. In Nanaimo, British Columbia, volunteer groups had programs for impaired drivers after conviction. These drivers would meet with the local coroner, a local doctor, local policemen and nurses. It had a bit of shock value. Then they would meet with job providers and so on. These were not fancy professionals but local people. It did not cost very much because it was mostly volunteer work. We provided some of the films, the aids and things like that. It cost the Government very little. We started to get good results in that we were stopping repeaters. A ripple went out in the community that impaired driving was a community problem.
I want to say something to Canadians. I suppose one is not supposed to criticize one's electors but Canadians are hypocritical on this issue. We all want to stop impaired driving. We want to have tougher penalties; at least, we say we do. On the other hand we are not prepared to face the problem that we are a pretty alcohol-soaked society. I am not advocating prohibition or anything like that, but there will have to be some fundamental changes in attitude. It is coming. You notice it at a party. A couple goes to a party and one person does not drink so he or she can drive home. I am told this is much more prevalent in Scandinavia.
These are, however, the responsible people. The problem is some younger people who are less responsible and some people who have an alcohol problem. We also have a problem of people making judgments. You hear people say: "If you get in your car and drive you will get a penalty. You might go to jail or it might cost you a lot of money". We can all appreciate that now, but we may have a different attitude after six or seven drinks because then one is impaired. That person then has to judge whether to get into a car. As I say, Canadians are a bit hypocritical. We know that 2,500 people a year die as a

December 20, 1984
Criminal Law Amendments
result of impaired driving, yet we continue to drink and drive and we continue to make it easier to do so.
I want to refer to some other parts of the Bill. The Minister said that he is going to change the two offences. I noticed in my practise of law that these were real problems. One offence would be .08 blood alcohol and then there would be another offence. Gradually these offences were combined. There was plea bargaining for one as opposed to getting convicted of the other. There are problems with second offences. There are tremendous technical problems in this area. I know because I used to get some of my clients off on technicalities. It is important that the committee look at the technicalities.
This Bill should not be put through quickly. The committee should hear from the Canadian Bar Association, prosecutors and defence counsel. The committee should hear about the difficult technicalities. One technical slip-up in this legislation and some bright young defence counsel will figure it out. A case could be thrown out as a result and all the other cases are backlogged until that one case goes to the Supreme Court of Canada for a decision. If we want to make this legislation effective, now that I am a legislator rather than someone at the other end I can see we must make the technical aspect absolutely correct.
I want to make reference to the matter of telewrits. Obviously writs of assistance had to go; that was long overdue. The process was an abuse of the due process of law. I regret the decision of the B.C. Court of Appeal. I think the decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal was the right one, but that is past history. As I understand this legislation, writs of assistance are gone. But let us not put in their place some sort of new creature that will also violate our due process of law.
The Minister says that telewarrants are being used in other jurisdictions. I acknowledge that. I think, however, as the Hon. Member for Burnaby has said in the past and as the Hon. Member for York Centre said today, that we should keep their use narrow and make sure that there is no judge shopping in order to get a judicial official who gives writs more easily than others. We should hear from the Civil Liberties Association. As I understood what the Minister of Justice said, civil liberties groups support telewarrants. I see the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice (Mr. Speyer) in the House. I would like to hear the Government confirm that. We value our civil liberties in Canada. I agree with the Minister of Justice that it is a balance. I acknowledge that even the Warren court, the very liberal court in the United States, when it came to decisions concerning the drunk driver and providing blood samples, tended to rule on the side of the state to stop the problem of impaired and drunk drivers rather than on the side of the particular rights of the individual. Other cases have focused on the rights of the individual. I can see the balance in this area perhaps has to go on the side of the state. We have to look at these things in committee and I flag them for the committee.
Computer crime is a very current matter and should be looked at. The committee should get on with that. The Bill also deals with emerging sorts of crime, such as terrorism,
hostage-taking and so on. Unfortunately, we have to deal with that type of crime because that is the nature of the modern world. These things have to be dealt with under the Criminal Code.
There are provisions in this Bill, as the Minister of Justice said, to deal with the backlog and to update trial procedure. I am now speaking personally. I would not hold your breath, Mr. Speaker, about those provisions to make fundamental differences to speeding up trials. You can put into legislation all sorts of pre-trial conferences and so on. Looking back in my experience there are tremendous inefficiencies in the courts. There are too many delays. Not being a business venture, the court system is a different sort of process and there are bound to be some delays. We all agree that justice delayed is justice denied. We need competent people in the courts. We need competent judges, and let me tell you, Mr. Speaker, without getting into any detail, that we have a big variation in the level of some judges. We need competent judges and competent counsel, both prosecution and defence counsel. We need experienced counsel. Having competent people speeds up cases just as effectively as all the pre-trial conferences you want to legislate.
I have gone over the technical faults in the Bill. I think we want to hear from the Canadian Bar Association, from crown attorneys and from the civil liberties people. We may want to put another message out to Canadians, that they will have to change their attitudes about impaired driving.
Another area I wanted to flag was the idea of blood samples. Again I am speaking personally. I think this provision is overdue. I remember cases which seemed unfair. For people who were not injured and survived accidents which were their fault because they were drunk-they could stand and walk and breath and talk-there was sufficient evidence to convict them of impaired driving. However, if they hit their heads or something like that, it was very difficult to deal with them. It was difficult to request that they take breathalyser tests and it was difficult for the police to deal with them. However, it was easy for defence counsel to say that they hit their heads. A perfectly sober person could hit his head, stagger, have strange looking eyes and so on. Blood samples give the prosecution a definite advantage. In some ways it is overdue.
However, I have some questions about blood samples. We have to look at this area very carefully because it is an intrusion into civil liberties; in fact, it is an assault. I noticed in the legislation that the Minister mentioned that the accused be given a sample of his own blood. In the previous impaired driving legislation, the accused was supposed to be given a sample of his breath. I never had one case in which anyone ever got a sample of his or her breath. In fact, I think that provision was never proclaimed.


Chris Speyer: It was never proclaimed.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Will we have a similar situation, that it will not be proclaimed? I do not find that to be very acceptable
December 20, 1984

law. Let us decide whether we will give them a sample of their breath or a sample of their blood. Do we have the equipment? Can it be done? If we are not going to do it, then it should not be put in the law.


Chris Speyer: I agree.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: I flag that for the committee's attention.
The Hon. Member for York Centre spoke about prostitution and pornography, as well as aid to victims. My understanding was that these other matters would be dealt with shortly by the Government in other Bills that will come before the House of Commons early in the New Year. The Hon. Member for York Centre mentioned victims. I think he said that there was more for victims in the previous package that distresses me somewhat because I personally think that our criminal law should be focusing more on the victims of crime, on ways in which to help them and give them some rights in this process. I hope the committee looks at what the Hon. Member for York Centre said and at what the Hon. Member for Burnaby has said in the past on this matter.
I think I have said all I want to say in terms of the Bill. In summary, the fact is that the Bill is overdue in terms of its impaired driving sections. There seems to be a growing consensus on the part of Canadians that we should get tough on impaired drivers. Perhaps they do not understand the consequences of that. It is not only the impaired drivers or drinking drivers out there, it is us. We are all involved. Perhaps we should be a little less hypocritical. We will all be affected by it; we have to adjust our behaviour accordingly. Sometimes that will not be easy.
I am glad the Minister of Justice recognized that there was a limited aspect to deterring drinking drivers with greater penalties. It will not be the entire answer. It may be the short-run answer but it is not the long-run one. No one has the long-run answer. 1 do not pretend to have it. It may lie in enforcement. It may lie in the area of treatment, education or understanding. I think that is probably where it lies. The next generation, through its notion of what it is like to live in the late 1980s and the 1990s, will live in a new society which is much more interested in the good life, a clean and pure life. It will mean limiting one's intake of drugs and alcohol, in the recognition that one can have a good time and fun without being impaired, without being stoned or without changing in other ways. If there is any hope in the upcoming generation, that is the great one. In the long run it will be the way to deal with this terrible problem with 2,500 people per year, many of whom were young, losing their lives as a result of the actions of drinking drivers.
I commend both the present and previous Government for putting a lot of thought into the Bill. For our part, we are prepared to let it go through today. I am the last speaker for our Party. We would like to see it go to committee immediately and to see it back in the House as soon as possible for early passage in the New Year.
Criminal Law Amendments


Chris Speyer: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Justice (Mr. Crosbie) articulated what is in the Bill. I have enjoyed very much the comments of the critic of the Official Opposition. I also enjoyed in particular the comments of the Hon. Member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell). They expressed their personal concerns. I will articulate many of them also, as well as some of my concerns and the reason I support the Bill. I have absolutely no intention of repeating what the Minister of Justice said about what is in the Bill. I should like to analyse it and to talk about where we have been in terms of the criminal law and where we are going.
In 1953 the Criminal Code provided that a person who stole a car must be incarcerated for a period of one year. The same Criminal Code also indicated that if a person stole from the post office, it was mandatory that he go to jail for six months. My point is that there was a tremendous emphasis upon property rights. There was not an emphasis upon drinking and driving nor upon the protection of one's body or safety. That was the ethos of the fifties, the forties and indeed the 19th Century.
Times change. Crown attorneys, in order to ensure that young people would not have to go to jail for taking a car for a very brief period of time, would take a lesser offence of possession. Sometimes when one stole from the mail, one would be charged with theft as opposed to theft from the mail.
In the 1960s I became a prosecutor and, Mr. Speaker, I speak to you as one who has a wonderful reputation in terms of your own practise of criminal law. In 1967 when there was no mandatory breathalyser and I was a prosecutor, if a person did not blow 1.5 or over the charges would be withdrawn. We are talking of less than 15 years ago, but that was the rule of thumb. Unless a person refused to blow, had tremendous physical symptoms of impairment or there were other special circumstances, we would withdraw the charge because we did not believe he was impaired. Thank God there has been an evolution in thinking.
The point I am trying to make is that in those years when I was a young prosecutor, a person who would have a puff of a marijuana cigarette had to go to jail for six months; it was mandatory. Everyone must have been interested in hearing the Commissioner of the RCMP-he is a fine man and a great Canadian-who said he thought the penalties were too harsh, that the courts were not enforcing them and that indeed police forces were not enforcing them in the circumstances.
May I call it one o'clock?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being one o'clock, I do now leave the chair until two o'clock.
At 1 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
December 20, 1984


Sergio Marchi: Mr. Speaker, the Liberal Party has continuously been championing the importance of universal social programs against the misguided, half-hidden agenda of the Conservative Government. Of special significance has been the plight of pensioners. I think it appropriate, therefore, not only to echo the concerns of those on this side of the House to protect that which we pioneered, but to urge the Government to enhance the old age pension system by lowering the qualifying age from 65 to 60.
In my own riding I have witnessed people who are 60 years of age and over, particularly those engaged in heavy construction work, who continue their work in pain and agony. They do so because they must put food on the table. However, these individuals would gladly take a well deserved rest at age 60 and enjoy their remaining years with some comfort and integrity. This would also open up opportunities for many of our young people.
It was a Liberal Government which lowered the pension age from 70 to 65. It is the Liberal Party which today is leading the fight to preserve an equitable pension system. It is my recommendation to establish the qualifying age at 60 so that we may make pensions even more progressive and fair for all Canadians.



SOCIAL JUSTICE


Mr. Reg Stackhouse (Scarborough West):: Mr. Speaker, the commitment of the Conservative Government to social insurance was expressed in this year's Throne Speech which introduced improved pensions for widows and veterans. This was no innovation. For over a quarter of a century, Progressive Conservative Governments in Canada have shown the same concern for universal social justice for all Canadians regardless of age, sex, race, religion or region.
One reason for the Liberal defeat in 1957 was the niggardly treatment of old age pensioners by the St. Laurent Government. Soon after taking office the Diefenbaker Government fulfilled its pledge to make a substantial increase in the old age pension, an act which helped gain that administration a victory in 1958. That Diefenbaker Government introduced the first federal hospital insurance to Canada and thus began the publicly-funded medicare programs across the country which are now administered by seven provincial Progressive Conservative Governments.
It was a PC Government that introduced the Canadian Bill of Rights which assured social justice and civil rights for all Canadians.
The technological and vocational education Act provided educational opportunities for all Canadians regardless of their region, including those in regions which were not adequately funded.
For over a quarter of a century, Progressive Conservative Governments and their policies have sought to give social justice to all Canadians regardless of age, sex, race, religion or region.



CRIMINAL CODE


Mr. Mike Cassidy (Ottawa Centre):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Metropolitan Toronto Police issued a warrant for the arrest of Dr. Henry Morgentaler on a charge of conspiring to procure an abortion. I am rising to express my concern, and the concern of many people in my Party and across Canada, that yet another charge is being laid against Dr. Morgentaler despite the fact that four juries have acquitted him on abortion charges laid over the past decade, and that doctors who provide abortions in the Province of Quebec under the same federal law have not faced criminal charges since 1976.
My Party calls on the Government to repeal Section 251 of the Criminal Code so that women can have access to a full range of reproductive health services, including access to medical abortions in free conscience.
Four juries have sent a clear message to Parliament that they will not convict under the current law. They are saying that the law is unenforceable, and a law that cannot be enforced makes a mockery of the law generally and should be changed. In the majority of countries with a common law system, the Crown is not permitted to appear a jury acquittal. In announcing his decision to appeal, the Attorney General of Ontario said that to proceed with another prosecution without the law being clarified would clearly not be in the public interest.
I therefore call on the federal Minister of Justice (Mr. Crosbie) to expedite the process of clarifying the law. All of the proceedings in the Morgentaler case in Toronto should immediately be put before the Supreme Court of Canada on a direct constitutional reference, in order to get the opinion of the highest court of the land on this important social issue. It is a question of justice and fairness.


Mr. Speaker:: I would advise the Hon. Member that his time has expired.



PARLIAMENT


Mr. Bill Attewell (Don Valley East):: country's problems and building on its strengths and potential. I submit that they do not want this Parliament to be paralysed. They do not want an extended period of obstruction. They do not want a stalemate. They want responsible action by this Government and this House.
What we need now, Mr. Speaker, is input from, and consultation with, all Canadians so that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) will be able to present a thoughtful budget which will be sensitive to the needs of all Canadians. Canadians have every right to expect and demand open, responsible, and constructive action by this Parliament. Let's get on with it.



SOCIAL SECURITY


John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, it is with pride that I say that universality is the cornerstone of the Liberal legacy in Canada. Rich and poor alike through their taxes pay for social programs. As a result, rich and poor alike are entitled to these programs. From bank presidents to bus drivers, everyone is equal under these programs. At least everyone was equal while our Party was in Government.
If the Tories want to reform the tax system by making the rich pay their fair share of taxes, that is fine with us and we will support them. However, when they tamper with universality, they tamper with the heart and soul of the Liberal Party. We will not stand for it, and we will fight them every bloody inch of the way.
The vacuous garbage that the Prime Minister (Mr. Mul-roney) has been spouting on the subject of universality leads us to believe one of two things. Either the Tories are innocently and unforgivably naive and confused, or they have been deliberately dishonest with the Canadian public. Either situation is dangerous for the people of Canada. Elderly people have planned their retirement based on the expectation of receiving the old age pension. Young couples are planning their families with the expectation of receiving the family allowance. 1 say to the senior citizens and families of the nation that the Liberal Party will defend and protect their pensions and family allowances with all the vigour and aggressiveness it commands. We may be small in number, but we are large and strong-


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member's time has expired.




Mr. Gordon Taylor (Bow River):: Mr. Speaker, social benefits depend on the productivity of a country. The higher the productivity, the better the social benefits. During their years in office Liberals kept up the social benefits only by borrowing and building up the national debt to some $200 billion. Had
the Liberals continued this practice, it would have caught up to them eventually and the social benefits would have had to be cut or eliminated.
The P.C. Government was elected last September because the people of Canada saw what was happening. The new Government inherited a whopping debt and an empty treasury, and now the same Liberals who lived in extravagance on borrowed money are obstructing the elected Government that is determined to increase the productivity so that we can pay more to those who need it the most. Both Liberal and NDP Members do not like this.
The Bay Street lawyer does not want one cent taken from the income of his pals who are making well over $100,000 per year. Like the pampered rich in days of yore, he in effect says: "Let the poor eat cake". NDP Members, always palsy-walsy with their Liberal bed-partners, go right along with the obstruction. The people foresaw this obstruction and gave us a large majority so the Liberals and the NDP could not stop the passing of needed legislation.
In spite of the Liberals and the NDP, the programs of the PC Government are what the people want. Let us go over the top of the trenches and advance Canada and its people, including the seniors, the crippled, the halt and the blind, into a new era of prosperity; indeed, a new Canada.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Mr. Jim Manly (Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, this week Canada is honoured by the visit of Bishop Desmond Tutu, winner of the Nobel peace prize. This morning when he met with a group of parliamentarians, Bishop Tutu pointed out that he would not be able to meet with a similar group in his own country of South Africa.
Because of its apartheid policy, South Africa does not even recognize Bishop Tutu as a citizen. Its new Constitution excludes 73 per cent of its population from any meaningful participation in national affairs. Only one sentence of it refers to blacks. It reads:
All matters relating to Blacks will be dealt with by presidential decree.
Bishop Tutu has pointed out that apartheid will be dismantled, either by negotiation or by violence-but it will be dismantled.
Canada should hasten the negotiation process, and the chance for a peaceful solution, by applying economic pressure. Bishop Tutu himself cannot call for economic sanctions, since that would be an indictable offence which carries a minimum sentence of five years. But if Canadians do not want to be complicit in the injustice and inhumanity of apartheid, and if

December 20, 1984
we want South Africa to avoid a blood bath, we should use the full range of economic pressures, up to and including sanctions.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



SOCIAL SECURITY


Mr. William C. Winegard (Guelph):: Mr. Speaker, all Members of this House have a responsibility to the senior citizens in their ridings. We in the Government know-and so do members of the opposition Parties-that the Government has no intention of dismantling or removing the old age security.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


William C. Winegard: Let us stop the scare tactics which are not worthy of Members of this House. Let us, with one clear and loud voice, tell the people of our ridings that we will not let them down.


An Hon. Member:: This is a plea for help.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


William C. Winegard: Mr. Speaker, the louder the bray, the bigger the donkey.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


William C. Winegard: Senior citizens will, as the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) has promised, receive their pensions and the security to which they are entitled. Let us do what we can to ensure that some joy, peace, and security are in the minds of all of our senior citizens during this holiday season.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



EMPLOYMENT


[Stage Direction]
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine
East): Mr. Speaker, on or about April 15 students will be out of university and ready for summer employment. Many of them are already looking for work, and a good many have been to our offices. They are concerned because the Government, which said that its first priority was jobs, has already cancelled the Summer Canada program which operated for many years.
When I asked the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) on December 5 when he would announce a new program to replace Summer Canada, he said that the Government was consulting and would announce something soon. It is now December 20, the House adjourns tomorrow, and we still have no news from the Government. In a few months' time students will require this employment to pay for next year's tuition and
other expenses. They and their prospective employers must know now what the Government's program will be.
The Government has said that it would keep the student employment offices and employment in the public sector, but what about the summer jobs which were always sponsored by Summer Canada in the voluntary sector? That program was not only important for students, it was also important for the many services which were provided by voluntary groups.
As it is traditional to announce the summer employment program before the Christmas adjournment, will the Prime Minister tell us today, or tomorrow, what the Government intends to do? Students want answers now, before it's too late.

[ Translation]


Mrs. Cabrielle Bertrand (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to set the record straight following a statement made by the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy) on Monday. The Hon. Member said that when the previous Government introduced the child tax credit in 1978, it did so without reducing other benefits for Canadian families.
Mr. Speaker, the truth of the matter is that at the same time, the previous Government modified benefit payments to Canadian families, but not to their advantage. Under the previous administration, the system of benefits for children was restructured as of January 1, 1979. Family allowance went from $25.68 per month per child to $20 per month. This is a reduction of 22 per cent. The Government also eliminated the $50 tax rebate per child.
In fact, the child tax credit was financed by reducing family allowance payments and eliminating the child tax rebate.
Now that we are mentioning the possibility of again making changes in the way benefits are distributed within the system, Liberal Members find the idea unacceptable. Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to note how commitments that were acceptable to the Liberals become unacceptable when they are being considered and proposed by a Progressive Conservative Government.
December 20, 1984



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Right Hon. John N. Turner (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Right Hon. Prime Minister. It is a specific question which relates to the future of old age security pensions and the baby bonus cheques which are provided to millions of Canadians from coast to coast. My question is factual. Is it the Prime Minister's view that one possibility would be to reduce the amount of pension or family allowance paid to higher income pensioners or families, or to tax it back at higher than normal rates of tax, or in some way to achieve a tax-back of those pensions and family allowances?


Right Hon. Brian Mulroney (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, it is our intention to maintain and enhance the integrity of the universal system of social benefits in Canada-and I think my right hon. friend would agree-while attempting to find an acceptable formula which would allow us to place more money into the hands of those Canadians who need it most.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


STATEMENTS IN GOVERNMENT DOCUMENT
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I did not get an answer to my question. Yesterday it appeared that the Prime Minister was in favour of a tax-back. Does he agree with the propositions which were put forward in the Minister of Finance's paper, on pages 73 and 77, that taxing back higher income families and higher income pensioners was a possibility and an option?
Because the different positions which have been taken by the Minister of Finance and the Prime Minister are causing confusion in the minds of Canadians, I would hope that the Prime Minister could give us a clear answer on where he and the Government stand.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, there is no confusion, and there is no partisan advantage to be gained or lost. I think it is widely accepted that, by and large, to the credit of the House of Commons, all leading political Parties have over many years, and in support of many administrations, endorsed the principle of universality.
From time to time Governments have had to face the problem of scarce resources. What we are trying to do, and what we shall do, is maintain the integrity of the universal system of delivery of social benefits to Canadians, to the elderly, to the dispossessed and those who need help, while attempting to find a formula-we hope pursuant to mature debate with our friends-that will allow us, even in difficult times, to do more for those members of our society who genuinely need help. It is the doctrine of fairness. We want to listen to the Opposition. We want to listen to Canadians. We
Oral Questions
are trying to apply the doctrine of fairness in social policy and in tax policy, to get more into the hands of those who need it most.


DELIVERY OF PROGRAMS
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, with the greatest respect to the Prime Minister, there is still a deep confusion in the country as a result of the Government's recent statement, and the statements which have been made by the Prime Minister and two of his senior Ministers, the Minister of National Health and Welfare and the Minister of Finance. It is crucial for us to know that the Government is truly committed to a system of universal delivery in our major social programs, that the system will be available to all Canadians, and that it will not be a two-tier or a two-class system with a cut-off point in personal revenue. That is what we are getting at. That goes right to the fundamental fabric of those programs and to the way the country has treated its citizens.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, without hesitation I believe that I can give my right hon. friend the assurance that there will not be a two-tier or a three-tier system. There will be the kind of system which has over the years done honour to our traditions as Canadians, and which Members of all political Parties have supported.
What we are trying to do was set out in the paper to which my right hon. friend refers. We said: "The Government agrees that a frank and open discussion is timely and that there is considerable scope for improving and redesigning social programs based on the twin tests of social and fiscal responsibility". It is clearly, as we go on to indicate, an attempt, pursuant to mature and thoughtful dialogue with Canadians, with trade unions, with the poverty groups, with the provinces and others-


Mr. Skelly:: Get to the point.


Martin Brian Mulroney: -to maintain the integrity and the strength of our social programs, which have done great honour to Canada, and to try to agree upon a formula whereby we could place more money into the hands of the poor and the dispossessed who need it perhaps more than the fellow making a half a million dollars a year. We are trying to be fair and do it that way.


TAX EXEMPTIONS FOR FAMILIES WITH CHILDREN
Mr. Raymond Garneau (Laval-des-Rapides):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Right Hon. Prime Minister.
Could the Prime Minister inform the House whether it is his Government's policy, or whether his Government intends, to

December 20, 1984
Oral Questions
reduce gradually over the years the tax exemption for families with children?


Martin Brian Mulroney: No, Mr. Speaker. That is not what the Government intends to do.


Raymond Garneau: I have a supplementary, Mr. Speaker.
If the Government does not intend, or it is not this Government's policy, to reduce, gradually or otherwise, tax exemptions for dependent children, does it intend to reduce gradually the amount of universal family allowance now being paid?


Martin Brian Mulroney: I would say that having initiated the dialogue, we shall submit a document for discussion purposes and ask all Canadians to give us their comments, both critical and otherwise, to see whether together we can find a formula that will make it possible, as I said before, to allocate more funds to the people in our society who really need it. I am referring to people on very modest incomes, including widows and senior citizens. We have a moral obligation to help the elderly in our society, and I know I can count on my hon. friend's co-operation in this respect.


TAXATION QUERY
Hon. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday in response to a question put by myself, the Prime Minister did clearly indicate that the Government would not favour a special tax of any kind on a particular program in our social system. Outside the House, the Minister of Finance said something quite different. He said that that is still an option which the Government is considering. I listened carefully to what the Prime Minister had to say today and he said that he would maintain-and these were his words-"universality of delivery" in the system, which leaves open the possibility of the tax-back to which the Minister of Finance referred outside the House. Will the Prime Minister give us an unequivocally clear answer? Will he assure the House that there will be no tax-back provision of any kind applied to pensions or any other social program?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, the tax-back was raised and initiated by the Hon. Member for Vancouver East, a member of your own Party.


John Edward Broadbent: Here we go again.


Martin Brian Mulroney: That is where it came from. More important, the Hon. Member referred to a conversation or comment by the Minister of Finance. The Minister of Finance said yesterday, "There will be papers that will be sent out as soon as they are ready and we will set out the options that are available, and after that we want to have a rational debate". That is what the Minister of Finance is saying. I suppose the proper question is: Is the Leader of the New Democratic Party interested and capable of mature, rational debate on an important issue which affects the welfare of so many Canadians? I
invite the Hon. Member to set aside the nit-picking and to join in a healthy, vigorous, and positive debate, where we can help Canadians who need it most.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: I invite the Hon. Member to do that.


John Edward Broadbent: I do not need lectures on maturity from Mr. Puffn'stuff who does not give a clear answer to any question in the House, whether it is asked by the Liberals, asked by ourselves, or even asked by his own back-benchers. It is time he lived up to the responsibility of his job.


GOVERNMENT POLICY
John Edward Broadbent: I want a straight, factual answer. I know the Prime Minister has trouble dealing just with facts. But I will ask a factual question and see if he will give me a factual answer. Will he tell us what he told me yesterday, which was different from what was said by the Minister of Finance outside of the House? Will he assure Canadians, the pensioners, recipients of family allowances, for example-never mind just the Opposition-that there will not be any special tax imposed upon a particular social program? That is the question. Will he say yes or no?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I will tell the Hon. Member that, notwithstanding the pernicious tax suggestions made by the Hon. Member for Vancouver East, we will defend and enhance-


John Edward Broadbent: Yes or no?


Mr. Rodriguez:: This is a recording.


Martin Brian Mulroney: -the integrity and the positive benefits which come from a universal social program-


Mr. Rossi:: How do you spell "integrity"?


Martin Brian Mulroney: -in favour of the elderly in this country who need it so much. We will defend and enhance that program, as a Government in Canada which believes in the concept should. We hope to do it with the full co-operation of my hon. friends from the New Democratic Party. But I guarantee them that if they stick to those nasty tax habits where they want to destroy universality, we will fight them on that-


Raymond John Skelly: Answer the question.


Martin Brian Mulroney: -because we are going to protect the integrity of universality in this country. I will guarantee it.


PROGRAM TAXATION QUERY
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I will ask the Prime Minister for the third time.


Mr. Hnatyshyn:: You don't like the answer, but it is true.
December 20, 1984


John Edward Broadbent: I would like to remind the Prime Minister that there are indeed thousands of Canadians, pensioners, recipients of family allowances, who are concerned out there as they watch his attempt to evade these questions. I will ask the Prime Minister for the third time: Will he give us the assurance that there will not be a special tax on a particular social program? Yes or no? It is pretty straightforward. We want no fluff and stuff; just give us a straight answer.


Martin Brian Mulroney: For some reason the Leader of the New Democratic Party feels that in advance of the consultation documents which have been promised, in advance of listening to Canadians, in advance of responding to the question of fairness-is it fair for someone making a half a million dollars a year to receive the same benefits as others?-these are legitimate questions which have to be debated and understood-in advance of these things, and in advance of consultations with the provinces, we are supposed to respond to every conceivable hypothetical question that that Hon. Member proposes to raise, not to enhance the integrity of social programs but to try to score a few brownie points.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: Well, the Hon. Member is wrong. The people of Canada have got your number. They have got the NDP's number.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: and I can assure my hon. friend that he will be standing in his place and will be voting with the duly elected Government of Canada when we bring in our social programs which will contribute so much to the universality and to the advancement of those in Canada who need it. He will be voting with us that day.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS
Hon. Douglas C. Frith (Sudbury):: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister says that the viewpoints of himself and his front-bench are not contradictory. Is the position of the Prime Minister and his Government on universality that which he outlined when he said that he will not tax-back old age pensions from upper income Canadians? Or will it be the viewpoint which was put forward by the Minister of Finance yesterday after Question Period in which he contradicted the Minister of National Health and Welfare-that is the third viewpoint we have had from the front-beach-when he said that the Finance Minister has not ruled out a special tax on the family allowance and old age security benefits going to the well to do?
Lastly, Mr. Speaker, is it the position of the Government, which the Prime Minister represents, what a member of his
Oral Questions
own Cabinet, the Government Leader in the Senate, who is quoted in the Senate Hansard of two days ago-


John Carnell Crosbie: Order.


Douglas Cockburn Frith: That is a question. It is not out of order.


John Carnell Crosbie: You are not on The Journal now.


Douglas Cockburn Frith: He was asked the question by Senator Frith in the Senate.


John Carnell Crosbie: Get to the point.


Douglas Cockburn Frith: He was asked: "Is the question of the means test still open?" And the reply was-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The difficulty, with respect-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Hees:: The Hon. Member should sit down.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. With respect, it is not normally permitted to quote from debates in the other place in this House. The Hon. Member's first question could now be answered, I believe.


Douglas Cockburn Frith: Would the Prime Minister explain to the House which Minister is speaking for government policy?


An Hon. Member:: Erik Nielsen.


Mr. Speaker:: Supplementary.


Douglas Cockburn Frith: Mr. Speaker, you are right. There are no rules in the House which dictate that the Prime Minister has to respond.


Martin Brian Mulroney: I would be happy to respond.


Douglas Cockburn Frith: The question is which viewpoint, that of the Minister of Finance, of the Minister of National Health and Welfare, of the Prime Minister, of the Government Leader in the Senate, is the position of the Government? Which one do we believe?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, we have said we believe in universal social programs, we are opposed to a means test, and we are looking for ways to try to put more into the hands of the poor. Are you opposed to that? I want to know now, Mr. Speaker, if the Liberal Party is opposed to that. You should stand up and ask your question in consequence.


POSITION OF MINISTER
Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. Yesterday the Prime Minister said that he, on behalf of the Government, was

December 20, 1984
Oral Questions
opposed to imposing a tax-back scheme on the pensions of the elderly. Is that the position of the Minister of Finance?


Hon. Michael Wilson (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, let me make it quite clear to Members opposite-


Some Hon. Members:: Please.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: -that we intend to set out in a very clear way, in papers that will be issued early in the new year, the various options available to us in a limited way. We then want to have an open discussion on these various options to see how we can fulfil the principle that the Prime Minister has just established, that we want to see whether there are ways of maintaining the universality of the programs and direct a greater degree of benefit to those who need it most in our society.


POSSIBLE OPTIONS
Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, would the Minister then inform the House whether one of the options that will be considered is that of taxing back the benefits received by old age pensioners in certain income categories, in direct opposition to the position put forward by the Prime Minister yesterday?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, patience is a virtue. The papers will be available early in the new year. I think that if Hon. Members opposite would cease trying to cast fear into the hearts of the people who need help most, and let us get on with the debate we have said is important, it will happen in due course, and I hope that Hon. Members participate fully in that debate.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. David Dingwall (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Employment and Immigration. I have been informed that during the Christmas recess the Minister, through Order-in-Council, will be making far reaching changes to the Unemployment Insurance Act. I request an undertaking from the Minister that there will be no changes to the Act through Order-in-Council during the Christmas recess. As well, will she undertake to complete the consultation process evidenced in the economic statement of the Minister of Finance, by consulting with labour, business, the provinces, and Members of Parliament?


Hon. Flora MacDonald (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure where the Hon. Member has been gathering his information. Certainly not through consultations with me, I can assure you, Sir. I have no intention of making any statement or undertakings by Order-in-Council during the Christmas recess.


WORKING PAPER INQUIRY
David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, will the Minister undertake to provide the working document outlining the details of proposed changes to the Unemployment Insurance Act? Will she be prepared to table that today prior to Members going home for the Christmas break?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I am still somewhat bewildered by what the Hon. Member is referring to.


John Carnell Crosbie: So is he.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: There is no document. Perhaps if he would like to speak to me privately to explain what it is he is getting at, we might be able to satisfy his request. I can assure you, Sir, that there is no document that I have yet had a chance to prepare.


SOCIAL SECURITY
Ms. Margaret Mitchell (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also for the Minister of Finance. Since he said yesterday outside the House that one option was a tax-back provision, does he not consider that this is a clear contradiction of what the Prime Minister said yesterday within this House?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I characterize that as a clear distortion of what I said outside the House.


GOVERNMENT POSITION
Margaret Anne Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, in view of the contradictions from various parts of the Government, is the Minister of Finance in favour of full universal old age pensions and family allowances with no means tests and no specific tax on those programs? Is he also in favour of major tax reform which will help to pay for social programs? Major tax reform?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, what the Hon. Member is trying to do is prejudge the whole consultation process that Canadians want to participate in. I say to her, as I said to her colleague, be patient. The papers will be out shortly and then-


Margaret Anne Mitchell: People are worried. Old age pensioners are worried.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: -we want to have a full discussion. She says the old age pensioners are worried. They have no reason to be worried, and they would not be worried except for the canards the Hon. Member throws up to cast fear into their minds. There is no reason.

December 20, 1984


OLD AGE PENSIONS
Mr. Stan Darling (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. The largest and most important of the programs we are contemplating are those affecting Canadians 65 and over. Will the Minister confirm that Canadians at age 65 will continue to receive this benefit on a universal basis, as they do now, and that no surtax will be paid on this benefit by any pensioner after the review process has been completed?


Hon. Jake Epp (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member asks me will old age pensioners receive the same benefit in the same manner as they are now, as well as those who come to retirement at age 65, and the answer to that question is yes.


DISARMAMENT
Hon. Jean Chretien (Saint-Maurice):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a question of the Prime Minister. Apparently the United States Secretary of State, Mr. Shultz, has announced that star wars testing and research will continue in the new year despite the scheduled talks in January with Foreign Minister Gromyko. Mr. Speaker, the British Government firmly opposes the star wars plan. Last week in Europe the Secretary of State for External Affairs said, and I quote: "This was a question I was hoping to avoid". In view of those facts, can the Prime Minister tell Canadians why his Government is refusing to support the policy that this Parliament and the previous Government enunciated, opposing strongly the new development of the star wars system which is threatening the world at this time?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, Canada is an adherent to the 1967 outer space treaty. We believe very fundamentally in it. We have not been approached in regard to what is not an undertaking but a research project, I understand, which is going to get under way. There has been no change. We have not been asked to consider anything, but we have ventured the view that the Canadian Government will press incessantly for the elimination of all instruments that damage the cause of peace. We are deeply committed to the talks in Geneva, and we hope that good will flow from them.


GOVERNMENT POLICY
Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Right Hon. Prime Minister if this is a change in policy? It is very disturbing for Canadians to realize that everything the Americans are asking of the Canadian Government is agreed to. The star wars system is a new dangerous development. The speech in New York by the Prime Minister offered Canada as a give-away to the United States, with, for example, the abandonment of FIRA and the changing of
Oral Questions
energy policy to please the big American corporations. Is it the Prime Minister's ambition to become the first Governor of the united states of Canada?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated in my speech in New York, the Government of Canada will defend the integrity and the interests of this country at all times and in all circumstances. The Hon. Member referred to international corporations. His law firm is representing most of them in this country.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: We are committed to the integrity of this country, and we shall defend it. We need no lessons from the Hon. Member from Bay Street in that regard.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


SOCIAL SECURITY
Mr. Neil Young (Beaches):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. A few minutes ago a member of his own caucus, the Hon. Member for Parry Sound-Muskoka, asked the Minister very clearly whether there will be no surtax applied to old age pensions. The Minister conveniently avoided answering that question. I would like to ask him again whether it is the intention of the Government that there will be no surtax on pensions or family allowances.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, with regard to the question that was asked in terms of universality, maybe at this stage, in this House and in the country, we can put the question that the Opposition has been putting forward, to rest. There is no change. There never was any intention to change. There are no conditions to change the universality under which the old age pension is being paid to Canadians. It will be paid.


John Edward Broadbent: That is not the question.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Just a minute, Ed, patience. You were taught that earlier today.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: On the matter of resources, the Minister of Finance and the Prime Minister have asked whether it is fair to ask of Canadians whether at certain income levels a certain amount of the money they receive could be better used, for example, by single parents who live below the poverty line. Those are the questions and answers that we want discussed, and I would like to have the Hon. Member's input too.
1406

December 20, 1984
Oral Questions SURTAX QUERY


Neil Young: Mr. Speaker, I will simply ask the question again. As the Member of his own caucus, the Hon. Member for Parry Sound-Muskoka asked, will the Minister clearly tell the House whether it is the intention of the Government to place a surtax on pensions or family allowances? Yes or no?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: The Hon. Member says he repeats his question. I give him the same answer.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


PAYMENT OF PENSIONS AND FAMILY ALLOWANCES
Mr. Alan Redway (York East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. It is extremely important that the people of Canada quite clearly understand what the Government is saying.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Alan Redway: I would like to ask the Minister whether the Government is unequivocally committed to maintaining the current old age security system and the family allowance system? Will every Canadian who is presently entitled to receive a cheque for old age security or for family allowance continue to receive it? If so, how does the Government propose to improve benefits for low income Canadians?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that the opposition Members recognize that good questions can be asked.


Mr. Gauthier:: Answer it.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: The answer to the question is yes. It is the same situation and we have answered it the same way to others. I am glad that Members can understand it. I hope that the Opposition might consider that as well.


CHILD TAX DEDUCTIONS
Ms. Sheila Copps (Hamilton East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. I would like to give him one more chance to tell the truth to the Canadian people.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Sheila Maureen Copps: Did I understand the Prime Minister to respond "no" to my colleague when asked:

Does his Government intend to eliminate gradually, over a number of years, the tax exemptions for children? Did he say no to that question here in the House today?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member will find out when she reads Hansard. It is all there.


GOVERNMENT DOCUMENT
Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is also for the Prime Minister. He said "no" in the House today. In fact the document from whence came the question of my hon. colleague was drawn from his Government's discussion paper called-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Does the Member have a supplementary question?


Sheila Maureen Copps: Will the Prime Minister tell the truth on what his Government intends to do as described in his own document, A New Direction for Canada ?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker,
when my hon. friend understands that you do not have to offend people to get an answer in this House, she will realize that the answer was amply and adequately given to her satisaction and the satisfaction of all Members of the House of Commons.


IMMIGRATION
Mr. Dan Heap (Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Employment and Immigration. The Minister and her predecessors have given assurance that under the Long Term Illegal Migrants Program the anonymity of applicants will be so honoured that those applications which are rejected will not in any way be used to trap people who trusted the Government's promises. Therefore, will the Minister explain why the executive director of immigration caused this copy of a rejected anonymous application to be sent to the Director General, Immigration, Ontario Region, Toronto, for matching for the purpose of enforcement, that is, deportation? How does the Minister intend to correct this dangerous abuse of the executive director's power?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I have met with the Hon. Member to discuss this situation. I have given him my assurance personally that the identity of individuals will not be disclosed. I do so again publicly today.
December 20, 1984


ABORIGINAL RIGHTS
Mr. Keith Penner (Cochrane-Superior):: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development is not here so I will address my question to the Prime Minister, although had the Deputy been here he may have wished to answer. Was a decision made in Cabinet this morning regarding the Council for Yukon Indians? Will the negotiations be allowed to continue into the new year? Will the benefits to the elders continue to be received? Will the land freeze be maintained? Will funding for those negotiations go on until they are satisfactorily completed?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, I would like to reply to the Hon. Member on behalf of the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. I know that he has been seized with this situation. He has been looking at it very carefully over the past weeks. The Hon. Member will know that there has been a long period of negotiation with the CYI and the Government of Yukon. We are all hoping for a satisfactory conclusion.
As to the four specifics which he mentioned that flow from the agreement, at the present time I can only tell him that I will take that to the Minister. I can assure him that the Minister is well aware of those difficulties.


STIPULATED DEADLINE
B. Keith Penner: Mr. Speaker, I gather that no decision has been made. In working towards this decision will the Minister not agree that December 31 was never a deadline but only a target date? Will he take that into consideration so that the future of the Council for Yukon Indians will not be foreclosed by a decision taken in haste?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, I recognize the sensitivity with which the Member brings this matter to the House and I will convey that to the Minister.


DISTINGUISHED VISITOR
Mr. Don Ravis (Saskatoon East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. Has he had an opportunity to meet with Bishop Tutu who is visiting here from South Africa?


Martin Brian Mulroney: No, Mr. Speaker, I have not. However, I look forward to this afternoon when I meet with this extraordinary and exemplary man who
Oral Questions
is with us today. On your behalf I want to welcome him to the House of Commons.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


INCOME TAX
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. Today members from all sections of the House have asked questions about the Government's intention or otherwise to impose special taxes on particular social programs. I regret to say that the Government has not answered these questions but has suggested that it wants to raise money for the poor.
My question to the Prime Minister is very direct. Considering that the previous Liberal Government reduced taxes on the rich by $1.7 billion, and there is another $400 million left untouched because thousands of uppper income Canadians pay no tax whatsoever, would he obtain this additional revenue, which is more than $2 billion, by putting a reasonable tax on the rich instead of undermining the credibility of our social programs by the process that his Government is going through right now?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, it is pretty apparent. The desperation to see who will be the Leader of the Opposition is coming through every day. That is the real problem. All the hanky-panky around here deals with the NDP trying to get over there. That is all it is, and everyone knows it.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: As my hon. friend knows, and I will repeat it again, we are fully committed to the concept of universality. We are opposed to means tests and we are seeking a formula which will allow us to get more money into the hands of the poor and the underprivileged in our society. I hope that the NDP agrees with this. I hope you are not opposed to that.
The other matter that we are in agreement with is the concept of introducing more fairness into the tax system. We propose to do that, and we hope you will applaud that as well when the Minister of Finance brings in his new budget in April.


TAX REFORM
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has expressed concern about getting more income that can be distributed in a more equitable way to the poor in our society. That is something that my Party has fought for year in and year out.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!

December 20, 1984
1408_____________________________
Oral Questions


John Edward Broadbent: We agree with that. I just want to test his commitment to the idea.
Given that the Prime Minister during the election campaign promised a minimum tax on the rich, which he has not brought in yet, and since we know that we can get a minimum $2 billion simply by restoring taxes for the rich to where they once were, why will he not bring in tax reform now to get that additional revenue and spend it now for the poor, instead of just talking the way he is in the House?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I don't know what has come over my hon. friend who has a tradition of reasonableness in the House, and relative objectivity in dealing with problems. I know that he has disappointed a great number of Canadians with the malice he has shown in the last couple of days. I want to tell him that that kind of conduct is unbecoming and unrewarding.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Martin Brian Mulroney: My hon. friend knows it. He knows full well that there will be consultation in regard to the introduction of tax changes that simplify and render the tax system more fair in order to achieve some of the objectives of equity that we are all seeking.
I hope my hon. friend will drop the malice and come out in support of a Government that wants to do more for those people in our society who genuinely need and deserve the help. That is where the NDP should be standing up, to agree.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport to whom I have given previous notice. It concerns the announcement made in the House yesterday by the Right Hon. Prime Minister when he informed Canadians of his impending meeting with the President of the United States and the fact that acid rain would be high on the agenda. Before that meeting takes place, will the Minister of Transport announce his decision on introducing control of automobile emissions as part of the over-all Canadian strategy to control acid rain emissions in a better manner?


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated in the House earlier, I am expecting a consolidated report arising out of the public hearings that were held here in Ottawa, public hearings that the former Government chose to hold in private. As soon as I get that consolidated report I will consider it and take appropriate action arising therefrom.


ANNOUNCEMENT OF DECISION
Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that the hearings were completed a couple of weeks ago, does the Minister see any difficulty in making his decision and announcing it in January, before the proposed meeting between the Prime Minister and the U.S. President?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to get locked into a definitive timeframe but I will certainly act upon the report as soon as I see it. It will naturally have to be a decision that will be taken in consultation with my cabinet colleagues.


THE ECONOMY
Mr. Steven W. Langdon (Essex-Windsor):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. As reported in this morning's Globe and Mail, New York bankers have said that the Government's approach to foreign investment will have little impact on the level of investment flows, and that FIRA itself was not the bogyman that kept away foreign investment. Will the Prime Minister admit that he is wrong to think that abolishing foreign investment review will help create the jobs that Canada needs?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I don't suppose the Hon. Member would want me to argue or quarrel with the opinion of an investment banker or take particular pride in statements made by investment bankers on the other side of the concept. We will continue to work hard to build a stronger economy because we believe that, in part, the attraction of capital will create jobs that our fellow Canadians need.
I think we should all recognize modest indications of progress. The Bank of Canada bank rate dropped 40 basis points to 10.16 today. I think that is an indication of how well things are going.


GOVERNMENT'S STRATEGY
Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, since it is not Canadian bankers or the bank rate that the Prime Minister has relied on, but foreign investors, will he now concede to the House that his strategy of trying to charm New York investment with speeches and legislative changes designed to weaken our economy is not working? Will he change that strategy?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I don't know what it is about the NDP, that they see problems under every rug. We are attempting to conduct ourselves in a civilized manner with our friends. We make no bones about that. We are trying to create jobs. There are 1.5 million Canadians crying out for work and we are trying to

December 20, 1984

re-energize the economy to deal with that moral difficulty confronting Canada. We will commit every resource and all of our talents, and we hope the co-operation of the House of Commons, to reduce unemployment so that Canadians can find that degree of prosperity they need. You should be applauding that.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
Committee Reports
the making of orders relating to the production of records and the giving of information for the purposes of proceedings in foreign tribunals, relating to measures of foreign states or foreign tribunals affecting international trade or commerce and in respect of the recognition and enforcement in Canada of certain foreign judgments obtained in antitrust proceedings.

* *
*


SOCIAL SECURITY
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance. In his discussion paper A New Direction for Canada he refers to some directional and discussion papers which include subjects like old age pensions and the family allowance. His colleague, the Minister of National Health and Welfare, indicated that those papers were to be published before mid-December. Have those papers been withheld and rewritten as a result of questioning in this House of Commons-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Napier Turner: -as a result of the public furor and anxiety in the country-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Napier Turner: -and the concern now being expressed by the backbenches of the Conservative Party?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: No, they have not, Mr. Speaker.


CLERK OF PETITIONS' REPORTS
Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that the petitions presented by Hon. Members on Wednesday, December 19, 1984, meet the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.


Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate informing this House that the Senate has passed the following Bills without amendment: Bill C-5, an Act to amend the Freshwater Fish Marketing Act; Bill C-7, an Act to amend the Income Tax Act and related Statutes; Bill C-8 an Act to amend the Petroleum and Gas Revenue Tax Act; and Bill C-14, an Act to authorize



THE ROYAL ASSENT

Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that a communication has been received which is as follows:
Rideau Hall, Government House, Ottawa.
December 20, 1984 Sir:
I have the honour to inform you that the Honourable Willard Z. Estey, Puisne Judge of the Supreme Court of Canada, in his capacity as Deputy Governor General, will proceed to the Senate chamber today, the 20th day of December, at 3:00 p.m. for the purpose of giving the Royal Assent to certain Bills.
I have the honour to be. Sir, Your obedient servant, Edmond Joly de Lotbiniere, Administrative Secretary to the Governor General.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Hon. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the first report of the Special Committee on the Reform of the House of Commons to which, pursuant to Standing Order 69(13), the Committee requests a comprehensive response.
It is my understanding that today's report will be printed and appended to today's Votes and Proceedings.


Mr. Speaker:: I must treat that as a request that it be so. I presume there is unanimous consent for the appending. Is there unanimous consent?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
[Editor's Note: For above report see today's Votes and Proceedings.]

December 20, 1984
Tabling of Documents PETITIONS


REDUCTION IN POSTAL SERVICE
Mr. Fred McCain (Carleton-Charlotte):: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition to present to the honourable the House of Commons in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned residents of the Village of Upper Woodstock, in the Province of New Brunswick, who now avail themselves of their ancient and undoubted right thus to present a grievance common to your petitioners in the certain assurance that this Honourable House will therefore provide a remedy, humbly sheweth that Canada Post has intentions of reducing local postal services by eight hours a week, and that last year we lost our rural delivery on Saturdays. Wherefore we seek to retain the hours presently in effect in the post office. And as in duty bound your petitioner will ever pray.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I must remind Members that the purpose of this moment when we get to petitions, which we got to by my error, is not to read the face of the petition. It is to present a summary of the petition.


LAW REFORM COMMISSION
John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to lay upon the table of the House in both official languages a copy of the Annual Report for 1983-84 of the Law Reform Commission of Canada. I ask that the report be referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.
The Commission produced four reports to Parliament, five working papers and two study papers this year and it is continuing its very valuable and helpful work.


NORTH ATLANTIC TREATY ORGANIZATION
Mr. Gerry Weiner (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 41(2), I would like to table on behalf of the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) in both official languages the final communique issued by NATO Foreign Ministers at the conclusion of their meeting in Brussels, December 13 and 14, 1984. Appended to the communique, which deals with the important issues of East-West relations on arms control, are extracts from the agreed minutes of the ministerial meeting which deal with subjects not directly covered in the communique.


BELL CANADA ACT
Hon. Marcel Masse (Minister of Communications) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-19, an Act respecting the reorganization of Bell Canada.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House that the Hon. Member shall have leave to introduce the Bill?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.
Mr. Speaker:: When shall the Bill be read the second time? At the next sitting of the House?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


CANADIAN RADIO-TELEVISION AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION ACT MEASURE TO AMEND
Marcel Masse: for leave to introduce Bill C-20, an Act to amend the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission Act, the Broadcasting Act and the Radio Act.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House that the Hon. Member shall have leave to introduce the Bill?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.
Mr. Speaker:: When shall the Bill be read the second time? At the next sitting of the House?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


CURRENCY ACT
Hon. Harvie Andre (Minister of Supply and Services) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-21, an Act to amend the Currency Act.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House that the Hon. Minister shall have leave to introduce the said Bill?
December 20, 1984


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


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

[Stage Direction]
Hon. Jake Epp (for the Secretary of State for External
Affairs) moved for leave to introduce Bill C-22, an Act to establish the International Centre for Ocean Development and to amend the Financial Administration Act in relation thereto.
Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House that the Hon. Minister shall have leave to introduce the said Bill?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


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

[Stage Direction]
A message was delivered by the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod as follows:
Mr. Speaker, the Honourable Deputy to the Governor General desires the immediate attendance of this honourable House in the Chamber of the honourable the Senate.
Accordingly, Mr. Speaker with the House went up to the Senate Chamber.
And being returned:
Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that when the House did attend His Honour the Deputy to Her Excellency the Governor General in the Senate Chamber, His Honour was pleased to give, in Her Majesty's name, the Royal Assent to the following Bills:
Bill C-3, an Act to amend various Acts as a consequence of the reconstitution of the courts in Ontario and Manitoba-Chapter No. 41
Bill C-4, an Act to amend the Farm Products Marketing Agencies Act- Chapter No. 42.
Bill C-5, an Act to amend the Freshwater Fish Marketing Act-Chapter No. 43.
Bill C-6, an Act to amend the Saltfish Act-Chapter No. 44.
Bill C-7, an Act to amend the Income Tax Act and related statutes-Chapter No. 45.
Order Paper Questions
Bill C-8, an Act to amend the Petroleum and Gas Revenue Tax Act-Chapter No. 46.
Bill C-9, an Act to amend the Customs Act and the Customs Tariff-Chapter No. 47.
Bill C-10, an Act respecting the interpretation of Canada's international conventions relating to income tax and the Acts implementing such conventions-Chapter No. 48.
Bill C-14, an Act to authorize the making of orders relating to the production of records and the giving of information for the purposes of proceedings in foreign tribunals, relating to measures of foreign states or foreign tribunals affecting international trade or commerce and in respect of the recognition and enforcement in Canada of certain foreign judgments obtained in antitrust proceedings-Chapter No. 49
Bill C-16, an Act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the Government of Canada for the financial year ending the 31st March, 1985- Chapter No. 50.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Chris Speyer: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 72 and 78.


Mr. Nunziata: 1.	Of those presently incarcerated in federal correctional institutions, how many are (a) male (b) female?
2.	How many inmates convicted of murder were released from the correctional system during the past five years after having served their sentences and, how many were subsequently convicted of a further indictable offense?
3.	How many inmates in the federal correctional system are currently serving life sentences for murder and manslaughter?


Hon. Elmer M. MacKay (Solicitor General of Canada):: In
so far as the Correctional Service of Canada is concerned:
1.	(a) Male inmates incarcerated in federal correctional institutions:	11,813
(b) Female inmates incarcerated in federal correctional institutions
(includes federal female inmates incarcerated in provincial institutions
under Federal/Provincial Exchange of Service Agreements):	232
2.	Sec Annex A.
3.	Number of inmates serving a life sentence for murder:
capital murder:	20
non-capital murder:	359
first degree murder:	252
second degree murder:	785
Number of inmates serving a life sentence for manslaughter:	20

Order Paper Questions


[Stage Direction]
2. Inmates convicted of the following offences and released or paroled:	1980/81	1981/82	1982/83	1983/84	1984 (Apr I to Nov 13)capital murder	3	4	2	2	5non-capital murder	33	39	44	44	28first degree murder	-	-	1*	-	-second degree murder Of the above, those who were released or paroled and subsequently convicted of a further indictable offence:	1	capital murder	2	-	-	-	-non-capital murder	3	2	1	-	-first degree murder	-	-	-	-	-second degree murder	-	-	-	-	-
* Inmate was sentenced in the United States to 9.131 days for first degree murder. He was brought to Canada under the Canada/USA transfer treaty and was therefore eligible for parole.
Mr. Nunziata: What is the per capita and total budgetary expenditures on provincial correctional services in each province, and what are the amounts?


Mr. Bud Bradley (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Supply and Services):: Statistics Canada reports:
The attached table shows the provincial operating expenditures for fiscal year 1982-83 on adult correctional services and the per capita operating cost by province.
Capital cost figures are not available, nor are juvenile correctional operating expenditures.
Provincial Correctional Operating Expenditures for Fiscal Year 1982/83 (Adult Correctional Services)
Provincc/Territory	Total	Per Capita	Population Estimate($000's)	($)	June 1/82Newfoundland and Labrador	9,741	17.11	569.2Prince Edward Island	2,388	19.45	122.8Nova Scotia	13,173	15.46	852.3New Brunswick	11,180	15.99	699.1Quebec	106,518	16.43	6482.5Ontario	207,557	23.81	8715.7Manitoba	19.758	19.09	1035.2Saskatchewan	31,952	32.62	979.4Alberta	66,014	28.49	2317.0British Columbia	62,265	22.31	2790.1Yukon	2,421	101.72	23.8Northwest Territories	6,315	133.79	47.2All provinces/Territories	539,282	21.89	24634.3
Notes: I. The per capita figures are calculated using the total population of each province on June I, 1982 from the 1982 population estimates of Canada and the provinces.
2. Costs of federal correctional services are not included.
December 20, 1984


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


Chris Speyer: Mr. Speaker, I would ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall the remaining questions stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Crosbie that Bill C-18, an Act to amend the Criminal Code, to amend an Act to amend the Criminal Code and to amend the Combines Investigation Act, the Customs Act, the Excise Act, the Food and Drugs Act, the Narcotic Control Act, the Parole Act and the Weights and Measures Act, to repeal certain other Acts and to make other consequential amendments, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.
Chris Speyer: Mr. Speaker, before lunch I was trying to demonstrate to the House the tremendous change that has evolved over time in our criminal law. It has been an evolution that is very, very important. At that time I said that property rights received far more emphasis than rights that related to the person. I gave as an illustration the fact that one could go to jail for one year for stealing a car with absolutely no discretion. I traced the fact that stealing from the post office carried an automatic six-month jail term.
We then moved into the 1960s. As I said, when I was a young prosecutor I remember that when a person was caught smoking a marijuana cigarette, there was absolutely no alternative but to send him to jail for a period of six months. Then in 1968 and 1969 we saw further matters that relate to this Bill evolve that dealt with drinking and driving. Until that particular point in time there was no compulsory breathalyser test. There was a very substantial debate as to whether or not a person should be compelled to take a breathalyser test for the purpose of determining the amount of alcohol in his system. There was substantial debate and certain safeguards were implemented with respect to it.
As I pointed out, in the City of Toronto in the 1960s, unless a person who blew less than 1.5 on the breathalyser was a falling-down drunk, the charges against him were withdrawn. That was less than 15 years ago. The law has evolved so that it is an offence not only for a person to be an impaired driver,
December 20, 1984

but for a person to blow over the statutory limit. That statutory limit, whether or not the person is impaired, is the 0.8 reading which we have today. The law is moving in such a way that there is a substantial body of opinion which believes, as they do in other jurisdictions, that the limit should be further reduced to .05. Now, finally, in the fullness of time, there are more severe penalties for those who drink and drive.
The Hon. Member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell) asked a very pertinent question. He asked if these tougher impaired driving laws were going to be the panacea which Canadians hope they will be. The Minister of Justice (Mr. Crosbie) and the Hon. Member for Vancouver-Kingsway said that it was only a partial answer.
I would like to tell the House a story. I spent some time in Sweden. Back in the early seventies there were very restrictive driving and drinking laws in Sweden. If charged, a person was automatically incarcerated in that jurisdiction. But there is something far more than that which Canadians must learn-


Mr. Keeper:: Socialism.


Chris Speyer: Not socialism. We have enough of that. What Canadians must learn is that it is wrong to drink and drive. Those good people who would have absolutely no thought of breaking and entering, stealing or committing a crime in which there is some sense of moral opprobrium, will get into a car, having had too much to drink, and drive it with the potential of risk. In a sense, the legislation forms a deterrent. I would say to all Members of the house, and to the people who may be watching these proceedings, that that is not the whole answer. In the home, parents teach their children what is right and what is wrong. Good education tries to instil in young people a sense of ethics and morality. Until the day comes when people think it is just as wrong to enter a car after having consumed alcohol as it is to commit a crime, this legislation will only be part of the answer. Over the fullness of time, people will become increasingly aware that it is not only illegal, but that it is morally reprehensible to drive when they have had too much alcohol.
For a lot of us there is a certain amount of personal hypocrisy in that. I know that is the way society is moving and it is the way in which changes have evolved in other aspects of criminal law. As sure as I am standing here, in 10 or 15 years, I know our children will not understand how we could have been so lax with respect to drinking and driving in previous years.
There are other aspects of the legislation about which I would like to speak. One of them is the necessity to have a degree of flexibility. There are no minimum penalties which have been increased. Judges still have the ability, in worthy cases, to exercise discretion in favour of the accused. We cannot categorize every case in terms of minimum laws. This legislation increases the penalty in cases which are reasonable. If a person assumes the risk of getting into an automobile after drinking, whether or not that person intended to, and causes
Criminal Law Amendments
injury, bodily harm or death, that person will be susceptible to a very harsh penalty. In the case of bodily harm, the penalty will be ten years. In the case of death, the penalty will be 14 years. That is the risk which is being run. It is one of the deterrent aspects of the legislation.
A new feature of the Bill which I would like to draw to the attention of Hon. Members is that normally in criminal law offences the offender is punished. However, in this legislation, which is subject to being proclaimed in each and every province, there is the provision for a judge to order the immobilization of a vehicle. Why is that included in the legislation? It is in the legislation so as to prevent the prohibition-when a person cannot drive after a conviction-from being neglected or disobeyed. This happens often. One of the ways to punish the offender is to seize the vehicle. The vehicle is not being impounded, it is being immobilized. The intention does not involve the cost of bringing the vehicle to a pound. The provinces must decide what they will do. It may very well be that a vehicle will end up in the owner's garage, locked with a device such as the Denver boot. The power will be with the courts to order immobilization in some circumstances.
The Hon. Member for Vancouver-Kingsway mentioned some concerns with respect to telewarrants. I hope that I am second to nobody in terms of defending rights. When I first considered telewarrants, I was concerned and apprehensive because it was a new system. I agreed that writs of assistance had to go. I was glad to see the Ontario Court of Appeal strike them down as unconstitutional. However, in emergency circumstances we had to put an authorization in place by which a judicial officer could issue a warrant. I ask Members to focus on this point. A telewarrant is an extraordinary measure. The normal measure is an ordinary warrant. It is a warrant which protects people from police or other people of authority entering their houses, offices, cars or domains. Under normal circumstances, that is what will happen. Normal warrants will be taken out and sworn before a justice of the peace.
However, there are extraordinary circumstances. For example, if a person is found unconscious and a police officer suspects that that person has been drinking, then the police officer will be forced to comply with all the conditions before obtaining a warrant. He will have to swear an oath and set forth the facts upon which that oath is taken. Then the police officer must confirm it. I hope that in practice there will be tape recordings of the oaths. Then the authorization will be given to a medical practitioner who will take a blood sample. If a person is in northwestern Ontario and an emergency situation occurs, a police officer will have the ability to swear under oath that he has reasonable and probable grounds to believe an offence has been committed, to state the facts upon which his belief pivots and, under those circumstances, an oath would be forthcoming, subject to it being confirmed. The protections are there.
The Hon. Member for Vancouver-Kingsway asked where the proposition came from, and I would like to answer that. Believe it or not, it came from the Law Reform Commission. I have been here since 1979 and I have never known of a Law

December 20, 1984
Criminal Law Amendments
Reform Commission recommendation to be adopted by this House with respect to criminal legislation. No one could ever accuse the Law Reform Commission of being a red-neck body. It is a commission which is dedicated to civil liberties. It saw a vacuum which could be created at the time when the writs of assistance were disposed of. So it put in this very sensible mechanism which, on the one hand, will balance the interests of the state and, on the other hand, will give the protection which all of us desire with respect to warrants.
I am going to speak very briefly about two other matters in terms of the administration of justice. People such as yourself, Mr. Speaker, who have had many jury trials know that one of the things which happens is what is known as a "trial within a trial" where the jury is not entitled to hear the evidence. That does not occur until a jury is empanelled. The jury then sits at the expense of the state sometimes for days and days while lawyers argue points of law. What we have done here is to put into legislative form that which is the practice in some jurisdictions such as Ontario whereby matters which come before the court would be able to be argued prior to the empanelling of a jury. This is entirely practical and sensible. It will save the time of the court and the jury and will save Canadians needless expense.
I ask Hon. Members to contemplate a particular feature which, in my view, is underrated. We are talking about the 1984 law. If there are any deficiencies of substance, they have to do with computers, because the last substantial change in the criminal law was in 1954. There have been amendments throughout the years, but what we had to do was to come up with a good law which would protect property rights from the wilful and unauthorized invasion of a computer. We must protect against the destruction of property which is held in computers because the present laws are not sufficient. It is really an extension of the law which we call "the law of mischief', and I certainly believe that is important.
In conclusion, I would like to make a point which I believe is very important. I feel that this Bill is not at all contentious. I would be very interested to hear from anyone who has a substantial or fundamental disagreement with respect to the Bill. There were aspects of the former Bill which was brought forward which were contentious and which divided the people or parties involved. For example, prostitution and soliciting is a very sensitive topic about which reasonable people could differ.
I believe it would be wrong to include provisions with respect to prostitution and soliciting in a Bill which deals with impaired driving, computer crime and matters relating to streamlining the court process.
Obscenity is another sensitive topic. I have a lot of difficulty, Mr. Speaker, in all frankness, with respect to amendments to the law dealing with obscenity. I want to make sure there is a balance so that there is a maximum of tolerance on the one hand and, on the other hand, children are protected. We must draw the proper line in the proper place so that there is no real restriction of freedom of speech, but at the same time we do
not want people to see certain things because it is just wrong. Hon. Members of this House are going to have to draw that line, and that certainly will be a contentious issue.
Another contentious topic is contempt of court proceedings. Judges did not like the various proposals. These are matters which should be debated individually. There are also the topics of gun control and jury trials. We have taken all of these matters out which would divide people. They are not in the Bill.
What is in the Bill, in my view, Mr. Speaker, is necessary. It is timely, and it deserves the attention to the House in terms of putting it through quickly. I have yet to hear anyone, either the critic for the Liberal Party or the acting critic for the New Democratic Party, give any substantial reason why he would disagree with this Bill. The Hon. Member for Vancouver-Kingsway raised certain legitimate questions. Those questions can be disposed of. This Bill ought to be law and we ought to act promptly to make it so.


John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Hon. Member whether he agrees with me that along with these very important amendments to the Criminal Code dealing with impaired driving, it is absolutely essential that the Government undertake a public education program which would send very strong messages and educate the public with respect to this very serious problem. If he does agree, can the Hon. Member advise this House as to the reasons why the Minister of Justice (Mr. Crosbie), in his wisdom, decided to cut some $700,000 from public legal education? I would like the Hon. Member to advise the House why such a drastic measure would be taken when it is so absolutely necessary and essential that the public be educated with respect to matters of law reform?


Chris Speyer: Mr. Speaker, in answer to my friend's question, may I say that I hope that I articulated the fact that this Bill is not a panacea. It is one aspect of deterrence. Public education is very important, I agree with the Hon. Member. I believe that, whether it be in the schools or whether it be at home, these things take a period of time. As the Hon. Member heard yesterday, because I saw him at the press conference, over $200,000 is going to be spent on public education and advertising. The Attorneys General of the provinces have all pledged money. In Ontario it is in train right now. We must make people aware that society will not permit this kind of behaviour.
Quite frankly, I would love to spend incredible amounts of money to make people aware of the importance of certain things. But there are certain limits on the Government, and $200,000 is only the beginning. Public education is important. The Minister of Justice does not deny that. I do not deny it. I know, as the Hon. Member knows, that it is important. We are not cutting anything. The amount of $200,000 is being spent, and over the fullness of time people will become aware of the importance of this legislation.


John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member just indicated that nothing was being cut. I beg to differ with the Hon.
December 20, 1984

Member. I was present at the meeting of the Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs where the Minister admitted that some $700,000 was being cut from the public legal education program which had been planned. Perhaps the Hon. Member could consult with his Minister.
Once the Hon. Member confirms that the $700,000 has been cut, I would ask him if he would petition his Minister and urge the Minister to reinstate that sum of money and specifically direct that $700,000 to a program of education for the public with respect to the very serious nature of drinking and driving.


Chris Speyer: Mr. Speaker, first, I will not give such an undertaking. Second, I say to the Hon. Member that the $700,000 was never in train. It has never been a matter for which moneys had been committed. Third, the $700,000 refers to the totality of all matters involving legal education, not just impaired driving, but everything. The fact is that there are certain constraints on the Government. Every Hon. Member in this House hears of good programs which may very well have to be sacrificed because we just do not have the money. So I cannot give the Hon. Member the undertaking he is looking for.


Mr. Riis:: Mr. Speaker, I have some questions for the Parliamentary Secretary. The Minister of Justice (Mr. Cros-bie) as well as the Parliamentary Secretary referred to the importance of that part of the Bill dealing with drinking and driving. I think all Members of this House share in that concern and are anxious to get these changes into committee to hear various representations as soon as possible. My question is this. If the Government was really concerned about this provision, recognizing that this time of year is a little different as there is much more tendency to party and, as the police would indicate, more people are on the highway who have been drinking, why did it not separate this section from the Bill? The Bill is very complex and includes a variety of critical areas. The Minister said during his presentation that he would like to see this Bill passed today or tomorrow. Well, rather than introduce it the day before the House is going to recess for the Christmas break, why did he not introduce it two or three weeks ago so this could have been accomplished?


Chris Speyer: Mr. Speaker, I do not know why the opposition Parties did not co-operate on the passage of this Bill-which, in my respectful submission, is not contentious. If the Hon. Member can point out any particular part of the Bill with which he is in substantial disagreement, I would be very surprised. Would he vote against those matters concerning computer crime, streamlining of the courts or telewarrants? I have heard absolutely no arguments from any Party against these provisions.


John V. Nunziata: Be patient, we are not finished yet.
Criminal Law Amendments


Chris Speyer: The critic for the Official Opposition was the one who said this morning that not only does he favour telewarrants but he thought that he initiated them.
I say to the Hon. Member that, sure, it is important that this Bill be passed and I suspect very strongly that it will be passed before the end of January. It would be nice if it could be passed in a day or two, but the fact is that it will go to committee where people will have the opportunity to pose questions if they have any.


Mr. Caldwell:: Mr. Speaker, regarding the new proposals concerning deterrence, does the Parliamentary Secretary know of a study being done or does he have any information available about where legislation of this type has acted as a deterrent in other sectors of society or in other countries?


Chris Speyer: Mr. Speaker, I will attempt to answer as best I can. The Hon. Member for Vancouver-Kingsway referred to a study done in Buffalo on whether deterrence was effective. I think there are certain limits on deterrence. It is important, but after people become used to it, it may very well be that they will still drink and drive. I can tell the Hon. Member that in Sweden the laws are dramatically tougher than they are here. As a result of public pressure a number of years ago, Germany became far more severe. In the state of Maine and the state of New Jersey, dramatically new and tougher legislation has gone into place. Many states in the U.S. are contemplating these changes because there is an ethos going around the world that drinking and driving will not be permitted. If one is going to indulge in this form of conduct, then he or she will be punished more severely. I am not in a position right now to cite to the Hon. Member any studies that have been done, but I undertake to send him a letter on the subject when the Department gives me the list of studies that are available.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The period for questions and comments is now terminated.


John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak on this Bill. As a new Member it is my first opportunity to speak on a new legislative proposal. I would like to begin by indicating how chagrined I am by the fact that this Government should wait so long to introduce a Bill which was introduced by the Liberal Government on February 7 of this year.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Then pass it today.


John V. Nunziata: On the admission of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Crosbie), it is, with respect to the drunk driving provisions, virtually identical to the Bill introduced by the Liberal Government and the then Minister, Mark MacGuigan. This extremely important and urgent Bill could have been introduced by the Government some seven weeks ago in order to afford an opportunity for the House to take a very close look at its various provisions. But for some unknown reason the Government decided to wait. It is crucial that signals be sent out to the community as early as possible that drunk driving is a very serious problem. But this Bill was a Liberal initiative.

December 20, 1984
Criminal Law Amendments


Chris Speyer: Why not pass it, then?


John V. Nunziata: With respect to the drunk driving provisions, we were prepared to pass them-10 months ago, but because of petty partisan politics, Mr. Speaker-


Chris Speyer: On your part.


John V. Nunziata: -the Progressive Conservative Party stalled and delayed.


Mr. Kempling:: You were not here.


John V. Nunziata: These amendments were necessary in order to toughen the laws with respect to drinking and driving. The Minister of Justice agrees so much with the drunk driving provisions that he had the audacity to read actually from a speech delivered by the then Minister of Justice, the Hon. Mark MacGuigan, on November 9, 1983.


William James Kempling: How terrible.


John V. Nunziata: He was reading verbatim from parts of that speech. We appreciate that our speeches are good, but we would simply ask the Government-


Mr. Thacker:: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am sure my friend opposite would not deliberately want to mislead the House. Beauchesne is quite clear. The Minister answered that allegation by saying he was reading from Department of Justice notes, the same notes with which the Department had prepared the speech for the previous Minister. That was my point.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Chair does not rule that this is a point of order. The Hon. Member for York South-Weston may continue in debate.


John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, I simply ask, with the greatest of respect, that when the Government intends to use speeches delivered by Liberal Ministers, that it ask permission before it plagiarizes.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, Oh!


Sergio Marchi: Or acknowledge it with a footnote.


John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, the Parliamentary Secretary says he would be surprised indeed if any Member were to have serious disagreement with any of these provisions. I would like now to surprise him, notwithstanding that the official critic of the Liberal Party has indicated that the Liberal Party fully supports the drunk driving provisions and would be prepared, if we could only gain agreement of the NDP and the Government, to pass those provisions immediately. We believe that even though improvements can be made to the drunk driving provisions, they are so necessary and important that they should come into effect immediately. We would have liked to have seen the amendments come into effect before the Christmas season, because it is at this time of year that public awareness is heightened with respect to drinking and driving.
If we wanted to send out very clear and definite messages to those who drink and drive, now or three or four weeks ago would have been the time of year to do it. However, it appears that the Government fell asleep at the switch, either deliberately or innocently.
Although I did indicate that we would be prepared to pass this Bill as it is as there would be an opportunity at a later time to improve it, I would like to indicate to the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary the concerns that I have with respect to the various penalties with regard to drinking and driving. I am concerned specifically with certain inconsistencies. The Bill provides that on a second offence for drinking and driving there is an absolutely mandatory 14-day prison term.


Chris Speyer: The same as it is now.


John V. Nunziata: That is the same as it is now, as the Parliamentary Secretary points out. There is a minimum. As the Member is aware, Mr. Speaker, there are very few Criminal Code offences that carry minimum sentences. This particular offence is one of those few. Yet, with respect to the new offence of impaired driving causing death, there is no minimum sentence.
I would like to present a hypothetical situation to the House. Consider a situation in which someone deliberately consumes alcohol, becomes intoxicated, gets into his automobile and, with reckless and wanton disregard, causes an accident and the death of an innocent individual. In that case there is an option for the court not to impose a prison term. In the case of an individual who, on two occasions, may have had four or five drinks, the minimum amount of alcohol required to constitute a criminal offence, that person must, by law, serve a 14-day minimum jail term. That is an inconsistency that I am concerned about with regard to the drunk driving provisions of this Bill.
I am hoping that these concerns can be remedied. I am not quite certain what consultation process the Government went through before it introduced this legislation.


Chris Speyer: This is your Bill.


John V. Nunziata: I fully recognize that this is a Liberal Bill, and it is a good Bill. It is an excellent Bill and we wanted to pass it in February of this year, but because of petty politics, Mr. Speaker, that Party stalled.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Let's pass it in December then.


John V. Nunziata: They stalled and delayed, and because of their stalling and delaying more drunk drivers were permitted to drive and to kill and maim and to produce carnage on the highways.


Chris Speyer: Let's get serious.


John V. Nunziata: I assure the Hon. Member that I am very serious. I would have hoped that the Progressive Conservative
December 20, 1984

Party could have been a little more serious when these important amendments were introduced in February of this year. It is unfortunate that they chose to stall, but be that as it may, we are prepared to turn the page and to deal with this very important legislation.
As my hon. friend, the Member for York Centre (Mr. Kaplan) so eloquently stated, the Liberal Party will not oppose for the sake of opposing. We are prepared to co-operate with the Government. I am only sorry that the New Democratic Party is not prepared to co-operate to ensure that this Bill, especially the provisions with respect to drinking and driving, will become law before Christmas. I only hope that the NDP will reconsider its position.
With respect to the matter of drunk driving, it it quite clear that it is a very serious social problem in this country. As has been indicated in the past, in 1981 there were 158,000 convictions in the country for drinking and driving. Unfortunately, I do not have the statistics available with respect to the last few years, but I would suspect that the number of convictions has increased since 1981. That number itself would indicate how serious this problem is.
While it is recognized that the criminal law can go a long way to deter individuals from drinking and driving, the criminal law in and of itself is not sufficient to get the message out to the Canadian public that drinking and driving is a type of behaviour that will not be accepted. It is socially unacceptable. It is extremely dangerous and extremely costly. I am very disappointed, as are other members of my caucus, that the Minister of Justice would cut, purely for the sake of cutting, $700,000 from the public legal education program which was planned. That money could have been earmarked to educate the public with regard to drinking and driving. I asked the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary whether he would petition the Minister to re-instate those funds and to earmark them for this specific purpose. For whatever reason, he indicated that he would not so petition the Government. That would lead one to question the credibility of the Government when it talks about the seriousness of combatting drinking and driving. If the Government is serious, I challenge it to spend at least that $700,000 to educate the public.
We are talking about a very serious social problem. We are talking about human life. There are literally hundreds upon hundreds of individuals who are killed or maimed every year because of drunk drivers. The statistics indicate that alcohol is a contributing factor in 50 per cent of all fatal traffic accidents. Statistics also indicate that the economic cost of alcohol-related accidents is in excess of $800 million per year in this country. On any given night, 25 per cent of the drivers on the road in Canada have been drinking and 6 per cent are legally impaired. Drunk drivers cause 30 per cent of all traffic accidents in which injuries are sustained.
The Liberal Party is prepared to support the provisions with respect to drinking and driving, Mr. Speaker. We are also prepared to support in principle the other provisions in this Bill. However, with respect to the other provisions dealing with telewarrants, computer crime and other amendments that
Criminal Law Amendments
would allow for pre-trial conferences, we believe that those clauses of the Bill should be given some serious consideration by the Justice Committee. This would also provide an opportunity to various interest groups from across the country to indicate their concerns to the Justice Committee.
Returning to the question of sentencing, I have indicated one of my concerns with respect to the regime of sanctions that are proposed in this legislation.
In May of this year, I believe, the Liberal Government appointed a commission to study the whole question of sentencing in this country. Although the Sinclair Commission is to report to Parliament some time next year, I am disappointed to learn that the Commission has yet to meet. As of approximately two weeks ago, it had yet to commence deliberations to discuss the terms of reference for studying the question of criminal law sentencing in this country. I hope the Parliamentary Secretary and the Minister of Justice will request that the Commission begin immediately to look at the whole question of sentencing. This is a very important consideration when one talks about adding new offences to the Criminal Code of Canada.
I am also interested in the concept of adding the immobilization or impounding of vehicles to the impaired driving provisions. I believe that there would be a definite deterrent effect to impounding vehicles of those who are convicted of impaired driving. I say this because in the short time I have been a member of the Ontario Bar it has been my experience, while defending individuals who have been charged with drinking and driving, that it is the sanctions attached to drinking and driving that affect them the most.
In Ontario, the first offence fine for drinking and driving ranges anywhere from $150 to $500. This Bill will increase the minimum from $150 to $300. Presumably a clear message will go to the judiciary in this country that the existing tariff is too low and the penalty should be increased. I hope that there is some uniformity with respect to sentencing across the country.
With respect to the immobilization of vehicles, I suggest it would be an effective deterrent to include that sanction of impounding of a motor vehicle upon conviction. I would further suggest that the automobile should be impounded regardless of whether or not the person convicted is the owner of the automobile. This would make owners of vehicles more responsible in terms of the person to whom they lend their cars.
The current Ontario civil law holds that the owner of a vehicle as well as the driver are jointly and severally liable for negligence in the operation of that vehicle. I hope the Government would consider applying that principle to the Criminal Code and to the drunk driving provisions of the Criminal Code.
I recognize that my time is up. That is rather unfortunate because I wanted to discuss some other matters. However, I welcome any questions from Hon. Members.

December 20, 1984
Criminal Law Amendments


Mr. Nicholson (Niagara Falls):: Mr. Speaker, I was very pleased to hear the Hon. Member say that he was very serious about the subject of impaired driving and the introduction of legislation to deal with that. If he is so worried about this subject and about Parliament proceeding on this Bill as expeditiously as possible, why was he wasting the time of the House this morning and why did he comment again on the speech made by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Crosbie)? He was wasting the time of the House this morning by continuously interrupting the Minister of Justice. He referred to it again this afternoon. I would suggest to him that he is wasting the time of the House, and I want to know why he is doing that if he is so worried about getting this legislation through?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Chair would have to rule out of order only the part about the Hon. Member's comments about what the Hon. Member for York South-Weston (Mr. Nun-ziata) did this morning. However, I will allow the part about the speech of the Hon. Member for York South-Weston.


John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, I make no apologies whatsoever for representing my constituents in the House of Commons. I take particular exception to the Hon. Member's suggestion that I am wasting the time of the House by exercising my right in law to speak for my constituents who elected me to represent them here. It is quite surprising that the Member should indicate his concern in this respect.


Chris Speyer: Mr. Speaker, I only have a brief comment. This morning, the Member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell) and the official critic for the Liberal Party made speeches that were very thoughtful, thought-provoking and of substance. I believe that the intervention by the Hon. Member has introduced a number of new things in the House other than his new black leather pants. I have never heard such a low level calibre of speech from a Member who is allegedly trained at the Bar in Ontario. That is surprising. The Member, coming from Queen's Park, has delusions of adequacy.


John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I want to indicate to the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary that he should get his facts straight. I was not a Member of the Ontario Legislature and have never been a Member of the Ontario Legislature.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I regret to interrupt the Hon. Member. That is not a point of order. I would also ask the other Hon. Member to refrain from speaking about one's clothing in the House. If we could end the matter there I think it would be in the best interest of the House with regard to the particular personal comments. However, it is the Hon. Member's right to reply.


John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, the arrogance of the Hon. Member-he may have had the opportunity to be a Crown attorney for some time and he certainly has the experience in the House because I understand he has been here for a number of years.
As I indicated at the beginning of my comments, this is the first opportunity I have had to speak. I take personal offence-


Chris Speyer: Good. It was intended.


John V. Nunziata: -that the Parliamentary Secretary should stoop so low as to comment about an Hon. Member's clothing and comment about the quality of an Hon. Member's speech.


Chris Speyer: It was dreadful.


John V. Nunziata: I would simply indicate to the Hon. Member that if you cannot stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.


Mr. Malone:: Mr. Speaker, my first comment that I would like to make to the Hon. Member for York South-Weston (Mr. Nunziata) is that this is his first speech on a legislative issue in the House. I welcome him to the House of Commons. We are pleased to have his participation.
With respect to the content of the Hon. Member's speech, obviously, Mr. Speaker, I am at variance with what he has said. I want him to understand that the relationship of alcohol and accidents is a national tragedy. It is a non-partisan issue. It is not an issue on which Liberals, New Democrats or we as Conservatives can stand any higher than anyone else. As to his comments that in February the Liberals introduced the Bill and the Conservatives somehow filibustered it, I dare him to give us quotes to show where one Conservative filibustered the Bill on drinking and driving.
With respect to the question as to whether the Liberals were the first to introduce the Bill, let me give the Hon. Member the facts. I as a Member of Parliament introduced a Private Member's Bill on drinking and driving long before the Government did. I was the only Conservative to speak. The NDP put up one speaker and hoped my Bill would pass. But the good Liberals, who, as the Hon. Member says, supported the Bill, stood up one by one and talked it out. I dare the Member to claim that the Liberals are the ones who were trying to protect Canada from the dangers of drinking and driving.
This is not an issue for partisan debate. It is a national tragedy. People are dying as a result of drinking and driving. All Members of this House have sent the signal that on that aspect of the legislation this Bill should be passed. The country wants the Bill as law. It is not for any one of us to stand here as this Member did and try to say that somehow shrouded in his Party is this great belief. It simply does not stand the test of facts. I now challenge the Hon. Member for York South-Weston to give us those facts and to read out for us those excerpts which he said demonstrated filibustering last February. The truth is the Liberal Party could not get its legislation through from February to the end of June and the country said, "Let's get rid of them". That is the reason the Liberal Party forms the rump today.


John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, I agree with the Hon. Member that the Bill should be non-partisan. These very serious and important amendments to the Criminal Code of Canada
December 20, 1984

should be supported by all Members on all sides of this House.
I simply indicated in my comments that this Bill was introduced in February this year by a Liberal Government and that the initiatives are Liberal initiatives. It is the Liberal criminal law agenda that is being proposed now by the Conservative Party. Yes, the Progressive Conservative Party, when it was in Opposition, stalled, delayed and insisted that the Bill be cut and separated and refused to give immediate consent. Had the Conservatives not done that, the Bill could have been passed at an early stage and stiffer penalties could be in place.
I can assure the Hon. Member and the Government opposite that we in the Liberal Party will not use the stalling and delaying tactics that were used by the Conservative Party simply for the purposes of gaining political brownie points when there is important legislation that must be passed for the benefit of Canadians from coast to coast.
If we wanted to, Mr. Speaker, we could stall this Bill.


Chris Speyer: Try it.


John V. Nunziata: But no, we will not do so because we believe in this Bill. We believe it is important and should be passed immediately. We are prepared to pass it today if we can get the agreement of the New Democratic Party and the Government.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Why did the Government wait until today to pass it?


John V. Nunziata: The Member indicated that the Bill should be non-partisan, and I agree with him. I wish to point out that a few months ago when that Hon. Member was in Opposition, he stalled and delayed when the Bill should have been passed.


An Hon. Member:: Prove it.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 45, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the Hon. Member for Louis-Hebert (Mrs. Duplessis)-Science and Technology-Establishment of GATIQ-Government position; the Hon. Member for Mount Royal (Mrs. Finestone)- Youth-Minister's area of responsibility, (b) Press statement attributed to Minister; the Hon. Member for Gander-Twillin-gate (Mr. Baker)-Environmental Affairs-Canadian Wildlife Service-Request for re-examination of budgetary cutbacks. (b) Terminated positions-Request that Minister table job descriptions.
Criminal Law Amendments



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Crosbie that Bill C-18, an Act to amend the Criminal Code, to amend an Act to amend the Criminal Code and to amend the Combines Investigation Act, the Customs Act, the Excise Act, the Food and Drugs Act, the Narcotic Control Act, the Parole Act and the Weights and Measures Act, to repeal certain other Acts and to make other consequential amendments, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.
Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have an opportunity in the latter part of today to rise and make some comments regarding Bill C-18, an Act to amend the Criminal Code. I plan to keep my comments brief to enable this very critical piece of legislation to get into committee quickly where it should have been some time ago, and to allow necessary public reflection on some of the critical parts of this Bill. I refer specifically to the need to have representatives of the Canadian Bar Association, to have provincial Attorneys General and to have various groups representing civil liberties who have indicated their interest on commenting on sectors of the Bill appear before the Committee.
I want to make a comment or two about the procedure. I have been listening to Members of the governing Party and to Members of the Liberal Party on the need to move with haste particularly on the most critical section of this Bill, that is the section that deals with amending the Criminal Code as it relates to drinking and driving.
The past Liberal Government had years and years in which to introduce a Bill that addressed the problems associated with drinking and driving if that had been a major priority for it. The Liberals were in power for many many years. There is no reason we could not have been debating this Bill six months ago if it had been a real priority. On the other hand, I say to the Government that I feel a little uncomfortable about the Minister of Justice (Mr. Crosbie) coming to the House of Commons the day prior to the Christmas recess and saying that he has a Bill that the Government would like to pass in the next few hours.
I must say, Mr. Speaker, that this is not a simple piece of legislation. This is a piece of legislation that will touch either indirectly or directly the lives of every Canadian. It has to do with changes to the Criminal Code, amendments to the Weights and Measures Act prohibiting fraudulent replacement of a motor vehicle's odometer and all the related problems associated with car sales. It includes amendments to the Combines Investigation Act. It amends the Narcotic Control Act, and it also amends the Food and Drugs Act. This Bill is not a simple piece of legislation that ought not to receive any public scrutiny. The committee is the place for it. Today, on

December 20, 1984
Criminal Law Amendments
second reading, we speak to the Bill in principle. That is essentially what I plan to do. I plan to keep my comments brief to ensure that this Bill today is referred to committee where it will be dealt with expeditiously.
At the outset of today's discussion on this Bill, the Minister of Justice reminded us of some statistics that point out how serious the section of the Bill dealing with drinking and driving is. He mentioned that at certain times of the day on the roads of Canada 25 per cent of Canadians behind the wheels of vehicles have been drinking. At almost any point of the day, 6 per cent of those people could be classed as legally impaired. That is an extremely serious situation. I do not know how Canada compares to other countries around the world, but having 6 per cent of people who could be classed as a menace on the highway as a result of their drinking must be among the highest.
Fifty per cent of all fatal traffic accidents in Canada are the result of drivers of those vehicles having had alcoholic drinks. Two thousand five hundred lives are lost each year as a result of people drinking and driving. Two thousand five hundred lives is one statistic. There would be tens of thousands of other lives that are ruined in many respects, loved ones who have received serious injuries from which they suffer the rest of their lives causing disruption to individuals and their families. As other Hon. Members have indicated today, this is a tragedy with which we must deal as quickly as possible.
The Bill before us will not solve the problem per se. In fact, it attempts to deal with a small part of the problem. Basically, it increases the punishments meted out on people caught drinking and driving. For example, we find that the minimum fine associated with drinking and driving will be raised from $50 to $300. That does not seem to be a very punitive sum in today's society. Nevertheless, it is an increase in the minimum fine. Also, on a first offence the driver will lose his or her licence for a three-month period, and on a second offence, for a six-month period. The punishments being meted out are being increased in severity.
If a person is caught and convicted of driving impaired or being over .08, the second offence could result in 14 days imprisonment and being prohibited from driving for six months. Each subsequent offence could result in another 90 days in jail and as much as being prohibited from driving for a year. The maximum will be five years imprisonment, an unlimited fine, and three years prohibition from driving. I suppose they are severe penalties by some people's evaluation.
Other countries, particularly those in western Europe, have much more severe penalties. One receives an automatic jail sentence if caught behind the wheel with a minimum amount of liquor in one's blood system. That automatic jail term has deterred drinking and driving to a certain extent. However, the situation goes beyond that. I suspect that increased penalties will result in a reduction in the number of people drinking and driving as a result of partying. That is why passage of the provisions is so critical at this time of the year when people are
in a festive spirit and parties occur more frequently and are perhaps more widespread than at other times of the year. It will serve as a deterrent to a certain extent. People could stand to lose their licence for a period or end up serving time in jail. I suppose some people will think twice about drinking and driving.
I heard with interest on the radio this morning a story about a reporter in the City of Montreal who went out to see how much people would support him as an intoxicated person who wished to drive. He approached a number of people. He was acting out a state of intoxication. Almost everyone assisted him to his vehicle, to get his key into the ignition and to get his vehicle on to the highway. If that is an indication of what is happening, we really have not adequately alerted people to the seriousness of drinking and driving.
Why is it that we stand here today passing legislation, which will hopefully result in a decrease in those persons drinking and driving, when at the same moment we are encouraging those firms which sell liquor, alcohol, beer and wine to support Canadian athletic events? When we are in our constituencies over the next few weeks, we will see the banners of various liquor companies on the ski hills as they support community events. When we catch up on some of our casual reading, we will find in popular magazines pages and pages and pages of liquor ads encouraging people to buy more varieties of liquors. We will see all these rather seductive pages of peoples holding wine glasses and cocktail glasses, obviously in their pursuit of an elegant and modern lifestyle. In a sense there is some hypocrisy, which I do not direct at any one Party or at any one set of individuals. On the one hand we are introducing legislation to punish people who are caught drinking and driving. On the other hand, we are condoning in a sense or almost encouraging by our silence more alcoholic consumption for Canadian citizens. I find it particularly despicable that liquor companies of one kind or another advertise at and support athletic events from one end of the country to the other. We are only touching one very small part of the particular problem.
We as parliamentarians do not want to feel that by passing this legislation today, getting it into committee and having it returned to the House early in the new year, our job is complete. Perhaps a more important job for the Government of Canada would be to bring out an educational program. It should invest in a program which will clearly demonstrate the problems associated not only with drinking and driving but with drinking per se.
Let us face it that those people who are convicted by the tens of thousands in our courts each year of drinking and driving are not simply party goers who have a few extra drinks and get caught. These are people who have serious alcoholic problems. The do not wilfully go out in unguided missiles to drive up and down our highway systems. These people have a serious illness, an illness which is not being adequately addressed at this time. I do not want to suggest for a moment that this will solve the problem. I do not think any other parliamentarian would suggest that, anyway.

December 20, 1984

I should like to refer to another two or three points of particular interest in this piece of legislation because it covers much more than drinking and driving. I refer specifically to the area dealing with credit card fraud. Now is a time perhaps plastic money is more popular than carrying cash for most Canadians. One important aspect of the Bill will be to set aside that particular area and to deal with the whole matter of credit card theft. Credit card offences have been modified to cope with the rising trend in credit fraud. Credit cards will be subject to the offence of forgery of documents and dealing with forged documents. Prosecutions for credit card offences may be instituted in a province other than the province within which the offence is alleged to have been committed. This is an important area, recognizing at the moment that people may be protected within various provincial jurisdictions.
Also I should like to deal with the provisions of the Bill dealing with new emerging types of crime, specifically computer crime. Basically the Bill recognizes three aspects of the problem of abuse of the computer system. The first is the unauthorized acquisition or destruction of hardware related to computers. The second is the unauthorized acquisition or destruction of computer systems data, and the third is the unauthorized use of computer services. At present the Criminal Code does not provide adequate protection for those adversely affected in these situations. Of course, these amendments will provide protection.
It is important to recognize that there are some obvious omissions in the very complex Bill before us. For example, we recognize that there are areas which have not been covered. We have indicated serious concern in the House over the last many months concerning pornography and the matter of changing the obscenity laws of the country. Many of us were hoping that this rather complex Bill would have included aspects dealing with pornography and defining obscenity. The whole matter of prostitution and soliciting for the purposes of prostitution must be dealt with. I trust the Government will be bringing in legislation quickly to address those areas.
A problem was brought to our attention not many months ago regarding the fact that women were jailed because they failed to testify against their spouses or people with whom they were living. Obviously the area dealing with contempt of court must be dealt with. There is the issue of trial within a reasonable time. This Bill takes a major step in an attempt to streamline the justice system, but I suspect that in spite of the changed and new regulations, it will often come down to the willingness of the players involved to streamline the justice system. Rules and regulations are only as good as the players involved. There are certain types of judges, who, in my estimation, do not necessarily fulfil their obligations as they ought to and will often allow an extended wait for trial.
There are the issues of child abuse and wife battering. There are a great many critical areas of the law with which we must deal. Since they are omitted from this particular Bill, I would certainly encourage the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minis-
Criminal Law Amendments
ter of Justice (Mr. Speyer) to do what he can to ensure that legislation to address these very critical areas will be brought forward soon.
As far as all of us are concerned, the clauses dealing with drinking and driving are critical. I was pleased to see that the new provisions will also be applied to boating and flying. With the number of people who go to the recreational areas on the lakes, rivers and coasts of Canada, this has become a serious problem. It is natural that we would expect these changes to the Criminal Code as they relate to impaired driving to relate also to impaired boating and impaired flying. With all of these being grouped together in the Criminal Code, it will certainly make the work of the police much easier.
In closing, I would like to say that while we are anxious to get this Bill before the committee and to hear representations from the appropriate groups and individuals, we would like to point something out particularly to those folks who advocate instant or lengthy jail sentences for drinking and driving. In British Columbia alone, if a jail term were to be expanded from a minimum of 14 days to a minimum of 30 days, the additional cost to that one province would be $2.7 million. I would also like to point out to Hon. Members that the jails in both the United States and Canada are already jam-packed with people who are there because of drinking and driving offences. The average cost of jailing an individual who is held under these conditions is $60 per day.
I do not expect for a moment that, other than making a very clear statement of the seriousness with which we take this particular offence, simply jailing people for two or three months will be the answer that will resolve this question. I do believe the answer is education and an expenditure of funds by the Government to ensure that a decent educational process is put into place. I am disappointed, however, to find that the Minister of Justice recently reduced funding to the public legal education program by $700,000. I think it is appropriate to point that out today. Again, this is not the type of step that complements the legislation before us today.
We are looking very seriously at getting this Bill into committee for passage that is as rapid as possible. We anticipate the representations to be made by those who should comment on this Bill other than Members of the House of Commons.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Questions or comments?


Mr. Nickerson:: Mr. Speaker, I have one very brief question to ask the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis). Are we to understand from his presentation that it is the official policy of the New Democratic Party that liquor firms should not be allowed to sponsor sporting events? Second, am I to understand that it is that Party's policy to ban liquor advertising from newspapers and magazines and presumably also from radio and television?


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I have two observations to make. When the New Democratic Party formed the Government of Saskatchewan, it in fact did take steps in that direction. When

December 20, 1984
Criminal Law Amendments
the Conservative Party formed the Government of that province, it again allowed liquor and cigarette companies to support and endorse sporting and athletic events.
I am sure the Hon. Member will appreciate what I was trying to do. We debate this issue very seriously in the House. As hon. Members have pointed out, it is not a particularly partisan discussion we are having today but it is one that indicates the grave concern of all Members of Parliament to ensure that drinking and driving is reduced and, hopefully, eliminated in this country.
As we speak about increasing the penalties associated with those who drink and drive, we are on the other hand encouraging in a variety of ways companies that sell liquor to support some of the more public athletic events in the country. There seems to be a certain hypocrisy in our society. I do not mean that any one Party is associated with that hypocrisy, but it exists in our society per se.
I think it is important to note that the New Democratic Party Government of Saskatchewan actually took steps to eliminate that type of support. I suspect that that might indicate the nature of our concern and the nature of the direction in which we would like to move.


John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Hon. Member whether the New Democratic Party would be prepared to sever the drunk driving provisions from this Bill in order to ensure speedy passage, if not tomorrow then at the earliest opportunity when the House convenes after the Christmas recess.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, many organizations have indicated a deep concern and a wish to be heard regarding the provisions of this Bill. My concern is that this is a very technical Bill and the clauses relating to alcohol-related driving offences are very technical clauses. There are tens of thousands of people in this country who should be prosecuted in our courts but who get off because of a technicality in existing legislation.
I am not certain that it would be in the best interests of Canada to move such an important piece of legislation ahead without the appropriate scrutiny of the Canadian Bar Association for example. Those people who act as defence counsel or prosecutors should have an opportunity to indicate what they feel about the specific technical portions of this Bill.
On the other hand, that is an option that the House Leader of the New Democratic Party, in concert with the House Leaders of the Liberal and Conservative Parties, would probably be quite prepared to discuss. I would like to point out why it is we are hesitant about so enthusiastically rushing this Bill through at this particular point. I do not want to see those people who should in fact be penalized for drinking and driving getting off because of the technicalities which today exist in the tens of thousands.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill (Mr. Blaikie) is rising on a question or a comment?


Mr. Blaikie:: Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a comment on what my colleague, the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shus-wap (Mr. Riis), has said. What we ought to keep in mind today with respect to the timing of the Bill is not whether one Party could have introduced it at one time or another or whether the Government introduced it today when it could have done so two weeks ago. I think the timing is such that not only the Government and the political Parties but the Canadian society as a whole are arriving at a moment at which we now feel that something must be done.
At this point we are saying that the time has come, yes, but the time has come to do it right. Let us not do it on the last day before a recess. Let us have this legislation, which is so very important, go before the committee. Let us hear from the people who are concerned, such as the groups which have formed out of families that have been so tragically harmed by these kinds of events. Let us hear from people from the legal community. The time has come, but the time has come to do it right. I think that is what we are saying here today and, if they give it some thought, Hon. Members would agree with us on that.
We know that the Bill cannot become law by Christmas. Let us not kid ourselves or anyone else. Let us agree as a Parliament and as parliamentarians to get this Bill into committee and to come out of committee with the very best Bill possible so that having achieved this one part of the struggle against the kind of tragedies that we want to prevent, we can go on to some of the other issues which attend these problems, such as the whole question of alcohol advertising. Let us then move on to whatever the next stage may be. We have an automobile culture and we have an alcohol culture. Most, if not all of us, are part and parcel of those cultures. We have cities which are built around the automobile and we have a whole culture which is built around alcohol. Therefore, there are still serious steps which must be taken. This legislation is one step by which we should collectively dedicate ourselves to doing right. The examination which this legislation will get in committee will be a part of that.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the House ready for the question? Is the Hon. Member for York West (Mr. Marchi) rising on a question or comment, or is he rising on debate?


Sergio Marchi: On debate.


Arnold John Malone: Filibuster.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: If no Member wishes to put any questions or make any comments, I will recognize the Hon. Member for York West on debate.


Sergio Marchi: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in this debate. I do not take very kindly the comments which the hon. gentlemen has just hollered across the floor. I will reiterate the comments of a previous speaker, that everyone in the House has an opportunity to participate in the debate. Every Member of the Chamber has a
December 20, 1984

responsibility to reflect the ideas and issues which they receive from their constituents.
I think that the problem of drinking and driving is well recognized by most Members of the House. However, the problem does not only occur during the festive season. I think the Bill is being brought in under the guise that it is a short-term problem. If it was a short-term problem the Government should at least have the responsibility to give it the importance it merits by putting forward a separate piece of legislation to address the very serious problem of drinking and driving. Therefore, I do not think it is completely responsible for the Government to come before Parliament with a 50 page Bill, which it wants us to pass in several hours, on the day before we break for the Christmas recess. The Government is asking Members not to use up time by rising to express their views on this matter. That is not responsible government, it is not communication, nor is it consultation. If the Government were serious about having a Bill which would effectively address the question of drinking and driving, it could have introduced the Bill much earlier. It should not have introduced the Bill at the eleventh hour. The Government could have introduced a separate Bill to focus debate on this particular item. There is not enough time to address the various elements which this legislation contains.
I agree that there should be minimum standards on the drinking and driving problem. I differ somewhat from the Hon. Member of the NDP who indicated that we require a perfect Bill and, therefore, the legislation must go to committee. It would be ideal to have perfect legislation on every matter, but perhaps the ideal is not always attainable. We must at least begin to address the problem. However, when the Government does not look at the process, then I think the Government is not completely serious. I would have preferred it if the Government had provided several days in which to debate this Bill. I would have preferred it if the legislation had dealt with one item, rather than the sophisticated and far-encompassing type of Bill which is before the House today.
When we talk about drinking and driving, we are talking about public education which goes far beyond the Christmas holidays. That public education should continue 365 days of the year. We must educate people about the serious effects of drinking and driving. Some Members have already pointed out that 25 per cent of the drivers on Canadian roads drink and that 6 per cent are legally impaired. That suggests that we have some distance to go in our public education efforts. We have some distance to go in telling Canadians that drinking and driving do not go hand in hand. But, on the other side of the equation, we have a Government that removed $700,000 from public programming and public education.
I would submit that the Government cannot have it both ways. It cannot be serious about drinking and driving legislation, and communicating and consulting with the public, and at the same time remove $700,000 from public education efforts. The Government cannot do both at the same time.
There is a lot of emphasis being placed on the whole question of greater and stiffer penalties. That is a start, but
Criminal Law Amendments
research suggests that the commission of an impaired driving offence is often an early indication of alcohol abuse and dependency. Therefore, we must place a greater emphasis on the question of treatment, as opposed to something which happens after the fact. Perhaps we should be initiating rather than reacting. It is fine and dandy to discuss stiffer fines and penalties after the tragic accident has occurred. However, that would suggest that there is trouble with some government mechanisms. It suggests that Government is merely a reactionary body. "Why didn't you act before?" is a criticism which is often levelled. Perhaps, the Government is introducing stiffer fines and penalties because of the percentage of accidents. Certainly that is a deterrent. Perhaps it is a deterrent to those who abuse the laws, who abuse drink and who abuse the privilege of driving an automobile. But we should look at the problem from a forward-looking policy perspective, and not simply focus on the penalties and fines which will be charged after the accidents have taken place. We must have the sense to go further than that. We must learn from those accidents. We should not simply increase the fines from $100 to $200 today, and from $300 to $400 tomorrow. We should nip the disease in the bud.
I notice that my time is becoming somewhat limited-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Sergio Marchi: I hear some Hon. Members laughing. In his speech this morning, the Minister of Justice (Mr. Crosbie) placed great emphasis on the fact that we on this side of the House were not taking this Bill seriously. Yet Members on the government side are laughing. They say one thing when the TV cameras are on them, but they certainly act differently when the cameras are off them.


Mr. McKnight:: It is the content of your speech which we find strange, not the Bill.


Sergio Marchi: It is also interesting that while the Government managed to amalgamate a number of different elements in this legislation rather than concentrating on one particular aspect, it also managed to leave some things out of the legislation. As critic for the Ministry of Multiculturalism, I find it strange that there was nothing said respecting the hate propaganda literature which infests this country from coast to coast. In the Liberal Government's introduction last February-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Member's Business.


Chris Speyer: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would like some clarification, because it was my understanding that this matter would be referred to committee today. Is there unanimous consent of the House to refer this matter to committee today?


An Hon. Member:: No.


Some Hon. Members:: The Liberals say no.

December 20, 1984
Narcotic Control Act


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: 1 hear a "no", so obviously there is not. Technically, it is not a point of order.


John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, I would just like to indicate to the Government that we in the Opposition may be small in number, but let it just provoke us. If it wants our co-operation to have this Bill passed as quickly as possible, let it recognize the right of each individual Member of this House of Commons to have the opportunity to speak, but when Hon. Members on the other side try to deny us that right, we will exercise that right.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I just want to make it absolutely clear that the New Democratic Party said, yes, that this Bill could now go to committee and have serious work begin. It was the Liberals who said no.


John V. Nunziata: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I would just like to make it clear to the House that we in the Liberal Party as well would like to see this Bill go to committee for immediate review.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John V. Nunziata: There will be opportunity, Mr. Speaker, tomorrow to send it to committee.


Chris Speyer: It is not on the Order Paper.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: You've got as much class as a bag of nails.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. It being five o'clock, the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.



PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS-PUBLIC BILLS

['Hear, hear!']
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Shall all orders and items preceding item No. 4 stand by unanimous consent?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



James Aloysius McGrath: that Bill C-213, an Act to amend the Narcotic Control Act (therapeutic use of heroin) be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs.
He said: Mr. Speaker, this is a Bill whose time has clearly come. Perhaps by way of background I can bring the House up to date on the genesis of this Bill. This Bill was first introduced in the House on April 29, 1983 by the then Hon. Member for Nepean-Carleton, the late Walter Baker. One of the tragic ironies of the Bill, Sir, is that when it came up for second reading on June 1, 1983, the sponsor of the Bill, the then Hon. Member for Nepean-Carleton, was stricken with cancer but did not know it at the time. Indeed, he was to die a few short months later. He has motivated, Mr. Speaker, to bring in this Bill by a personal experience he had had within his own family with someone who was close to him. I suppose there is not an Hon. Member of this House who has not been touched at one time or another by the tragedy of a loved one or friend or neighbour who has come down with a terminal illness and in many cases has had to die a slow, painful and agonizing death.
Unfortunately, at that time the Bill did not get referral to committee. I had the pleasure in the next session of that Parliament, on February 23, 1984, to reintroduce the same Bill. It was then Bill C-221. It received second reading on March 15. The House was moved at that time to allow the Bill to be referred to the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs.
I want to acknowledge now, Mr. Speaker, the support I have received during the course of the debate on my Bill, as well as during the debate on the Bill put forward by my colleague, by the Hon. Member for Provencher (Mr. Epp), who is now the distinguished Minister of National Health and Welfare, the Hon. Member for Beaches (Mr. Young), the Hon. Member for Trinity (Miss Nicholson), the Hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Halliday) and the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill (Mr. Blaikie), all of whom are still sitting in this House.
Following referral of the Bill to the standing committee, the committee held its first hearing on March 31 of this year, its second hearing on June 5 and its third hearing on June 7. Unfortunately, it was overtaken by the parliamentary calendar because the session had to adjourn for the summer. I do not want to inject a partisan note here, but it was my view at the time that if the Government of the day wanted to get on with a serious examination of this Bill, we would have had more than three hearings of the standing committee. Indeed, there was no justification, in my opinion, for the committee not sitting throughout the month of June, because there was nothing else before the committee at the time. However, the Bill was overtaken by the parliamentary calendar and subsequently by the dissolution of the last Parliament.
I indicated at the commencement of my remarks, Mr. Speaker, that I felt this was a Bill whose time had clearly come. Let me illustrate. On April 25 of this year, the World Health Organization called for greater attention to the issue of pain management. It is ironic because it was the concern of the World Health Organization, which was expressed in 1954, which resulted in the banning of the manufacturing and importation of heroin for medical purposes. At that time the concern arose because of the growth in the illicit trade of heroin in the world and in the addiction to it. Again, on June
December 20, 1984

6, 1984, the Association of Ontario Boards of Health endorsed the medical use of heroin and called for its reinstatement. During the week of July 2, the Gallup poll indicated that 73 per cent of Canadians endorsed the use of heroin for the terminally ill. Then on August 21 of this year, the Canadian Medical Association, which appeared before the standing committee in June when the subject matter of my Bill was before the committee, passed a resolution at its convention in Winnipeg. It was clear, concise and unequivocal. The resolution read, and I quote:
Resolution 84-50.
That the Government of Canada immediately resume the licensing for importation, manufacture and sale of diacetyl morphine (heroin) for medical purposes.
It is my view, Sir, and I believe the view of my colleagues and the view of the Minister of National Health and Welfare, that the politicians of Canada should move very carefully and cautiously in dictating to the medical profession what it may or may not prescribe. I do not believe that the governmental process should really interfere with the right of physicians to make this judgmental choice. That, in fact, is what the CMA was saying to the Government of Canada.
I could go on, Mr. Speaker, and refer you to the evidence which was presented to the committee. I can refer you to public interests which were reflected in editorial comments across the country during the past few months. I hesitate to do so, Sir, because I would not want to take up the time of the House.
Perhaps you will forgive me, Mr. Speaker, if I quote from the speech of the late Hon. Member for Nepean-Carleton, the late Walter Baker. He said on June 1, 1983, and I quote from Hansard at page 25938:
I think that is the issue for the House of Commons, Mr. Speaker. I think it is time that the House faced it. I think it is time the medical profession faced it. I think it is time the cancer societies in the country faced it. I think it is time the public faced it. I ask the House of Commons to support this Bill today so that the public examination can begin.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


James Aloysius McGrath: Little did my colleague know the train of events that his Bill and his eloquent speech in the House would set in place, bringing us to where we are today.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, I would like to suggest to you that there may be a disposition on the part of the House to hear from the Minister of National Health and Welfare who, I believe, is prepared to make a statement. I realize this is an unusual procedure for Private Members' Business, and of course the House would have to consent to that taking place. However, it is my understanding that the Minister will be making today a major policy statement on this issue and it would be my intention, after the House has had a chance to address this issue and before the clock runs out, to ask for the unanimous consent of the House to withdraw the Bill so the Government can bring in its own legislation which will be addressed today by the Minister of National Health and
Narcotic Control Act
Welfare. I hope it will be the disposition of the House to hear from the Minister at this time.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, and colleagues, first of all I want to thank the House for the courtesy of allowing me as a Minister to become at this moment a private Member once again and address what I think is an issue-


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Welcome back.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: -which is important to all of us. I intend to be brief and I hope the action I am announcing today will find appeal from the point of view of fairness and the point of view of doing the right thing and addressing what obviously is an issue which concerns all mankind, and it is done in that spirit. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I participate today in the debate on this Bill.
When I was a Member of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition, as has been mentioned, I joined the Hon. Member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath) in support of this Bill in its earlier form. At that time the effort to see heroin legalized for therapeutic use was spearheaded by our sorely missed colleague, the late Hon. Walter D. Baker.
As my colleagues in the House of Commons will know, when in public life one is asked frequently to take positions on controversial issues, issues which obviously have more than one point of view. It is in this House of Commons where these matters are debated, debated with vigour, and where points of view are firmly held and expressed. However, when that is done, there is a common sense that on certain issues there is widespread agreement, and on this issue, hopefully, unanimity.
As Members of Parliament, in most cases we are not qualified to make a determination on issues, especially on this one, from a technical point of view. I fully recognize that my colleagues, such as the Hon. Member for Oxford and other medical officers who are Members of Parliament, have both the experience and very often the technical background on these medical issues which I do not have. But I do think that on this issue it is not a technical question which we are addressing but, rather, the meaning of life and the inevitability of death; the sanctity of life and how death with dignity can be enhanced. Those are the issues that this Bill addresses in part.
Therefore, it is with great pleasure that I rise today to respond to my colleague's Private Members' Bill and to announce that it is the intention of the Government to legalize in Canada the medical use of heroin for the terminally ill and those in intractable pain.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: The Government has decided to take this action in response to the very clearly expressed desire of many individual Canadians, service organizations, indeed church groups, the Canadian Medical Association and health care practitioners that this potent painkiller be made available to the loved ones and patients with whom all of us can identify.

December 20, 1984
Narcotic Control Act
Given the sensitivity of the issue and the many legal, professional, regulatory and security considerations associated with the reintroduction of heroin in Canada for therapeutic use, a statement concerning availability and a protocol for the use of the drug will be made available on or about March 1, 1985.1 want to put it in that context for the simple reason that for this matter to be effective, I think it is important that the protocol be done properly, and for that I think that time will be needed. Hopefully we can do it a little earlier, and that is why I say that on or about March 1 the matter will be addressed. Obviously it will be done expeditiously and it will be done in the right fashion.
This delay is necessitated, Mr. Speaker, by requirements to control access to and use of this powerful drug to those physicians and hospitals which have demonstrated certain levels of accreditation. The protocol will outline and explain the availability of the drug and what security measures must be taken. This will ensure that it is used solely for medical purposes and that the drug is not subject to redirection and misuse. Members might also be aware that in the last 48 hours we have had the most recent report by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police on the illegal use of heroin and cocaine. Some have said to me over the last few hours: "Is that not a major concern to the Government?" Obviously it is. I think it is of concern to every Member of this House. But the point that I make is this. The illegal use of those drugs should not in any way be associated with what the Government is doing this afternoon. There is no diversion, no misdirection in the therapeutic sense to those who are illegally using the drug. I think it is ironic in the extreme to know that there are people in society who are using the drug illegally while those who are in greatest need because of pain do not have access. That is an issue that has obviously motivated me in making this determination today.
It will also be necessary for this Government to consult other Governments, a process which has already begun, as well as associations of health professionals and provincial licencing authorities of health disciplines, before March, 1985. Out of courtesy, this Government will also examine the regulatory requirements of the United Nations and the international implications of the reintroduction of heroin in Canada. I believe that at present there are 38 countries which in fact have permitted the use of heroin for therapeutic purposes. The various manufacturing and distribution aspects of the reintroduction of heroin must also be determined and the necessary procedural steps taken before the drug is legally available. In light of this decision and announcement, a blind field study planned for 1985 will not go ahead.
There has been much media and public debate surrounding the ban on heroin use in Canada which has been with us since 1955. The issue is a sensitive and difficult one which goes to the heart of our personal feelings about life and death. It is my hope that the renewed availability of this drug will bring relief to many of those in Canada who suffer pain or are terminally ill. I sense that many families will also find comfort in this decision. I trust that all those involved in this debate will
understand that the Government also has a responsibility to ensure the safe and controlled use of this powerful and controversial drug. I will elaborate on these regulatory measures in early March, as I have already indicated.
Once again, I would like to pay tribute to my colleague, the Hon. Member for St. John's East who has been tireless in his efforts to bring this matter to the attention of the Canadian people and their Parliament. I commend him for his determination and sensitivity to those who are suffering in Canada.
Finally, I would like to dedicate this action to the memory of one who could not be here to share this moment, the late Hon. Walter Baker, who only last year spoke in the House. Before I quote him I would like to indicate to the House that we did speak to Lois and asked her whether she wanted to attend today. I understand that she is watching, and we all send our regards to her.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: It was possibly best put by Walter Baker when he said:
There has been a strong feeling growing within the public of Canada and within some segments of the medical profession that those who fight against cancer should have every possible armament and every possible arrow in their quiver to relieve the anguish and the pain of the terminally ill.
I thank the House for this opportunity, Mr. Speaker.


Reginald Francis Stackhouse: Mr. Speaker, I would like to say a few words in connection with this Bill. I would first like to pay tribute to our colleague, the Hon. Member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath), not only because of the content and significance of this Bill, but because his action today shows each of us what a private Member can do. We are sometimes frustrated and bewildered, but the example of the Hon. Member indicates to us that there is an important and impressive contribution open to us all. If we have the perseverance and concern demonstrated by our colleague, we can copy his example and share equally in his achievement.
As well, I would like to say something about the Bill itself and the opportunity that the Government has indicated it is opening, because I have some concern about the possible restrictions on the use of heroin to relieve cancer victims. I recognize the motives behind the Government's intention and I respect them. The policy may well be right. However, I ask the Minister and the committee that will review this Bill to reconsider these restrictions in light of the need that many Canadian cancer victims have.
I speak of this because of the experience I had some years ago when serving in another kind of public service. It was my duty and privilege then to sit beside many people suffering terminal cancer. I saw them degenerate from robust health and strength to become but shells of humanity, sometimes over a matter of months, sometimes more drastically over a matter of weeks. I saw them suffer fearsome pain, which today, as one
December 20, 1984

who sat with them day after day, I can still remember with great sensitivity.
I am suggesting to the Minister and to the members of the committee that may review this Bill, that further consideration be given to the possibility and advisability of making the drug available for use in homes, hospices and other places to which terminal patients are taken. So very often a person suffering from terminal cancer is just sent home when a hospital can do no more for him and her. The hospital, quite understandably, needs the facility for other people to whom it still has services to offer. That person is sent home to be cared for by loved ones, visiting nurses and others. They are sent home to suffer probably the worst pain that they will be called upon to endure. It seems to me that in such a situation that patient will need a drug of this kind that can relieve pain.
I am aware that there are other drugs which can relieve pain equally, though not as rapidly. Nonetheless, I ask that consideration be given to this. I am aware of the potential dangers, but we are equally aware of the fact that these dangers are possible as well in hospitals or wherever the drug may be administered. There will always be a need for surveillance, vigilance and action by authorities. I hope that some further consideration can be given to this matter on behalf of nameless and faceless people who will, nonetheless, be sufferers and who could find an equal measure of relief to that given those patients in hospitals with whom we are now concerned.
[ Translation]


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I shall, if I may, add my Party's comments to those made by the Minister and the Hon. Member presenting this Bill, which aims to legalize, within certain limits, the therapeutic use of heroin.
We have all known Walter Baker, the former Member for Nepean-Carleton and a good friend, and I remember when he presented a similar Bill in the House. I was in the House at the time, and we all realized the meaning of his message. This afternoon, the Minister explained that the Government intended to come back with its own legislation next March, and the Minister deserves to be praised for this felicitous initiative.
There are of course two sides to the question, but I think the Minister has understood the problems involved. We simply want to say that we are anxiously awaiting this Bill or amendment, that we fully support this initiative and that we also want to congratulate the Member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath) who has shown once again that backbenchers can contribute very substantially to the parliamentary process.
I feel the Member for Scarborough West (Mr. Stackhouse) made a valid suggestion, namely to extend the use of heroin to institutions other than hospitals. This is of course a point that will be looked into by the Minister because of the risk factor in controlling a dangerous drug, even if it is to be used for a very humanitarian purpose, namely to alleviate pain.
Narcotic Control Act
In previous Parliaments, I have heard Hon. Members- physicians-who objected to the therapeutic use of heroin, and said that new and effective drugs were available. As the Minister said, we are not experts. This is a technical question, and we are not qualified to discuss this aspect. However, I have to say that there is a proven need. We hope that by March next year, the Minister will have had an opportunity to consult Hon. Members and that he will let us know what his requirements are and what kind of co-operation he will be seeking to implement the legislation. We therefore fully support this initiative.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, I would agree with my colleagues that there is no better tribute to the late Hon. Walter Baker, whom we all respected and of whom we thought so much, than to have carried this Bill forward. I congratulate the Member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath) for presenting the Bill and stimulating the debate today, and also the Minister for his Government's response which would allow some very positive movement in implementing the use of heroin for therapeutic purposes as a controlled pain-killer.
There is no doubt that this is a subject that raises considerable fear as a result of misinformation, distortion and misunderstanding. Since that will be the basis for the response in many parts of Canada, it is very important to involve the public in public education as well as to have a clearly controlled time limited experiment as a first step.
Hon. Members may be interested in reading an article by Marjorie Nichols in The Vancouver Sun in which she attributes much of the fear and opposition to the use of heroin for therapeutic purposes, at least in our province, to the history of the race wars, or opium wars.
There is no question that studies have shown that this is a very wise and safe procedure. Experience has shown for some time in the United Kingdom that heroin has proven to be a most significant drug as a pain-killer. As the Minister said, other countries have adopted the use of heroin as a pain-killer as regular policy and we really have nothing to fear.
I believe public education is important. Although the CMA has certainly recommended this move, there are still some reservations even among physicians. Therefore, a time limited experiment with controlled research would seem to be very wise at this time. We support this move and commend the Minister and the Member for St. John's East for the steps they have taken.


Mr. Bruce Halliday (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join the debate today. Let me begin by congratulating the Hon. Member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath) who has kept this issue alive in the House to a large extent. He has done what our late colleague, Walter Baker, tried very strenuously to do. The words of tribute that were paid to him by the Hon. Member for St. John's East and the Minister are indeed

December 20, 1984
Narcotic Control Act
ones with which I want to be associated. I am sure that is true of everyone in the House.
The comments that have been made this afternoon are very useful. They relate the broad feeling about the importance of the use of this drug for people who are stricken with cancer and suffering great pain. There is no doubt that there is a valid use for this drug as well as for many other pain-killing drugs.
The Minister spoke very eloquently about how we can heighten the quality of life for a person who is suffering much pain in the last few days or weeks of his or her life.
The Member for St. John's East touched on one reason why I believe it is important to pass this Bill. He quoted a resolution that was passed by the Canadian Medical Association. It was advocated that we continue with this. I want to deal with that this afternoon because I believe we have a principle at issue here which is exceedingly important, both in the context of the professional practice of medicine and in the practice of politics.
As the Minister said, it is important to be careful how those who are not experts make a judgment on a technical subject. While they have a right to be concerned, they should make their decisions carefully. For example, I was somewhat alarmed by a presentation made to the standing committee by the Canadian Cancer Society. In a presentation made by Mr. R. A. Macbeth to the committee on June 7 of this year, he quoted a statement made by the Canadian Cancer Society which reads:
-'that (in the opinion of the members of the committee) there is no supportive evidence available at this time that heroin provides unique qualities in the control of pain in cancer patients that cannot be duplicated by the use of already available drugs and that, in consequence, it is recommended that no further action be taken.'
I am concerned about that kind of approach to the use of drugs. They are saying that there is no need for another drug if there are 10 or even 100 drugs that are used to treat a particular condition. However, if this approach is taken to its logical conclusion, it would cause some difficulty because there are people who may tolerate one drug for arthritis yet there are hundreds of drugs that could be used for that condition.
It may be in the future that if a government becomes too bureaucratic and must deal with increasing medical costs, it will decide to limit the number of drugs that can be used in the treatment of a certain condition. Politicians or bureaucrats who may not have professional training will be deciding what drug a physician may give to his patient. Such an occurrence disturbs me. That is what is being implied in this statement from the Canadian Cancer Society.
I want to stress that if a drug is useful, any licensed physician should be allowed to use it. Of course, there is the caveat that if the drug causes definite harm, it should be legislated out by the Government. However, with respect to heroin, it was removed in the 1950s because other drugs were as useful. I do not believe that is a valid reason for its discontinuance. I hope we can make that message clear.
I want to congratulate the Minister on the approach he has taken throughout the last year to the debate that has been
taking place on this issue. He was most attentive during the course of the committee hearings last spring, and I know that he has been deliberating very seriously the pros and cons of this issue since then. He has not come to a decision lightly and should be congratulated for that.
I also want to congratulate Members of the House. The public sometimes gets the impression that we are a chamber of antagonists who never get along. They watch us during Question Period but, unfortunately, few see this kind of atmosphere in which all Parties are working together toward a good cause. Members will notice that the Press Gallery is empty. The press is not interested in something of this nature in which we intend to show considerable agreement. Therefore, I want to congratulate Members of the House for this co-operation.
Finally, there is one name that has been omitted in our discussion today. It is that of Dr. Kenneth Walker whose pseudonym is Dr. W. Gifford-Jones. We have been congratulating ourselves as private Members because the Hon. Member for St. John's East has been able to get the Bill to the stage where the Government has been willing to accept it in principle. It proves that private Members have an opportunity to be involved and be effective here. I think we should also announce to the public that if people are as strongly concerned about an issue as Dr. Walker is, that it is not impossible for them to mount a public campaign if it is based on credible information, and this influences many Canadians. Part of the reason all of us here are concerned is because Dr. Walker, whose pseudonym is Dr. Gifford-Jones, has influenced us by his description of the facts regarding heroin. Many myths about the properties of heroin have been disseminated. Dr. Walker has also made it known how this drug has been used in the United Kingdom, how it has grown in use in the U.K. without any particular adverse effects.
Dr. Walker appeared before our committee last spring and brought a paper in which he identified 35 questions commonly asked, and supplied appropriate answers. There was much revelation about the myths that many of us have had over the years.
1 listened with great attention to the Minister's presentation. Actually, I would have had no trouble approving completely the private Member's Bill C-213 which the Hon. Member for St. John's East has placed before the House today. I have some reservations, similar to those of the Hon. Member for Scarborough West (Mr. Stackhouse). He pointed out one of my reservations, namely, instances where this drug would be proven to be very useful outside of the controlled hospital atmosphere. Like the Hon. Member for Scarborough West, the Minister recognizes the potential problems that may exist, but I trust that as the Minister works with his officials and develops the protocol to which he referred, he will keep in mind that there will be times when heroin will be very useful for cancer patients outside of the hospital. Having said that, Mr. Speaker, I am also interested and a little concerned about what the Minister means by "intractable pain''. I think I know what
December 20, 1984

intractable pain means. It means pain that is not easily relieved. It is a persistent pain that does not go away. That is a pain characteristic of cancer in many cases.
In my experience as a physician I had the privilege and the opportunity of being taught at the University of Toronto- which is not just a third-rate medical school-to use heroin. It was recommended and as a physician I used it regularly as an analgesic in my first few years of practice in obstetrics. It is a tremendous analgestic in obstetrics. It gives the patient a sense of euphoria. If it is combined with hyoscine it gives some amnesia of the events, which for many people is desirable.
I am not aware of any patients who became addicts because they had one or two shots of heroin during the course of labour. I do agree that there are other techniques available to control the pain of labour which makes it less necessary perhaps to use heroin. But where one wants to use an injectable analgesic in obstetrics, I would be disappointed if we in the Elouse of Commons thought that we had enough expertise to say no, you can only use heroin for the intractable pain of cancer.
Let me cite another example, Mr. Speaker. Perhaps some Members have had senior family members who have gone into severe heart failure in the middle of the night when they sit up in bed, cannot breathe, are choking and spewing out bloody sputum from their throats. They are in terrible agony and anxiety. The first thing a physician does at three o'clock in the morning when the goes to see a patient is to give the patient something to stop anxiety. The quickest acting drug is heroin. Morphine is not bad, and many of us have used morphine for that affliction in latter years. Nonetheless heroin is used regularly in the United Kingdom right now for that purpose. It quickly relieves the anxiety a person has, which is very important if you are going to give the person proper attention for his basic cardiac condition.
I am putting in a couple of pleas to the Minister and to his officials to give some serious consideration to the protocol they are developing. I know the Minister will do this, but I plead with him that he not forget there other good uses for heroin beside its use for the intractable pain of cancer. It would probably be a little bit of a mistake for us here basically composed of lay people trying to say that heroin is a tremendous pain-killer, but let us use it only for cancer. If it is good for that, it may be good for some other conditions too. I hope the Minister will recognize that and allow the protocol to be broad enough in its considerations to allow other uses as deemed necessary by licensed physicians.
I speak very strongly in support of this private Member's Bill, but even more so in support of the Minister who has indicated his willingness to have heroin promptly legalized for use in Canada. I hope that all Members of the House-I know there are others who want to speak-will see fit to support this proposition today.


Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to support strongly the initiative taken today by the Hon. Member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath). I will try to be
Narcotic Control Act
brief. I know there are other Members who wish to take part in this debate. I would like to underline the point made by the Hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Halliday). It is in circumstances such as this that Parliament really operates at its finest. When a Member of Parliament, who in this case has been a Member for many years, takes an initiative and approaches it on a non-partisan basis, works closely with the Minister, whom I commend for his reasoned and sensitive response to this Bill, and Parliament collectively acts on a matter clearly of national concern, it is Parliament at its best.
Over 40,000 Canadians die each year from this terrible disease of cancer. I am sure most Members of this House have had close friends or family members who have been afflicted by it. I myself have lost two very close friends, one 24 years old who suffered long and great pain before death, initially in the hospital and then finally, when it was realized there was no hope, at home with his family.
I hope the Minister will look very carefully at the suggestions made by the Hon. Member for Scarborough West (Mr. Stackhouse) and other Members with respect to the possible conditions that may be attached to the use of heroin in these circumstances. If we accept, as I believe we must, the positive benefits of the use of heroin for terminally ill cancer victims, I believe it would be a mistake for us to restrict the use of those benefits to a hospital setting. Obviously we must recognize that there must be careful controls. Given that, Mr. Speaker, I hope the Minister will examine carefully the broadening of the possible use of heroin.
I know the sponsor of this Bill, the Member for St. John's East, spoke earlier this year in March very eloquently on this Bill and he said that he himself was touched in his own family. I believe it was his brother who died in great agony from cancer. We are responding here not just as parliamentarians but as human beings to a serious problem.
I would like to join in paying tribute to work done by Dr. Kenneth Walker, also known as Dr. Gifford-Jones, who led a national campaign for changes in this area of the law. I believe over 150,000 Canadians signed petitions initiated by Dr. Gif-ford-Jones through his column. Dr. Walker did appear before the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs, as my colleague from Oxford indicated. In a very short but eloquent statement he underlined the importance of parliamentary action in this area. He noted that some of the most believable and convincing witnesses could not appear before the committee because they were dead.
He set out a series of facts which I believe are important. First, heroin is a more potent painkiller than morphine. It is superior to morphine when patients require injections. Heroin has the most rapid onset of any narcotic. English doctors have increased their use of heroin nearly four times during the last ten years and decreased their use of morphine. Heroin is prescribed by British physicians to treat heart attack victims, women having difficult labour, severely burned children and young children during the terminal stage of malignancy. Not just with respect to cancer, heroin has been found to be very helpful in other areas as well. It helps to calm apprehensive

December 20, 1984
Narcotic Control Act
patients. It is the best drug to stop the cough reflex of patients dying of lung cancer. Heroin produces a sense of well-being and euphoria. Addicts do not take heroin to get depressed, as Dr. Walker noted. Patients develop a tolerance to narcotics. It is therefore advisable to have other pain-killers available. Patients vary in their response to drugs for reasons that are not well understood. Doctors should therefore have a choice of different narcotics. Patients develop allergic reactions to painkillers. It is sensible that physicians have available the maximum number of drugs to treat cancer pain.
Finally, there is no historical precedent for assuming that legal heroin would end up in the street. As the Minister noted in his remarks, it is a rather ludicrous situation when Canadians can easily obtain heroin for pleasure and the victims of cancer die in agony without this pain-killer.
There is one other person to whom I should like to pay tribute today. I am referring to Dr. William Ghent who headed the committee of the Canadian Medical Association which recommended the legalization of heroin for medical purposes. He conducted a very exhaustive study on this question. I am pleased that the Minister has responded in the way he responded today to Dr. Ghent, among others.
He notes some of the concerns with respect to the use of heroin, not just in the treatment of terminally ill cancer patients but in other areas as well. Dr. Ghent goes a step further than some of his fellow doctors and advocates the use of legal heroin for medical purposes. Dr. Ghent would in fact supply heroin addicts with legal prescriptions for the drug as is done in England. In those circumstances, as he indicates, the addict would be given a choice-use prescriptions for heroin to maintain their habit or submit to a clinic for treatment and withdrawal. He notes-and I think this is an interesting point-that the most commonly used heroin substitute, methadone, is the most addicting drug known to man. He points out that this system would eliminate underworld traffickers and their multi-billion dollar profits by prescribing illegal drugs such as heroin and, hopefully, at the same time engaging in education. Ultimately, the only real solution is to engage in education so that people might not use these particular drugs.
I am pleased the Minister responded to the initiative of the Hon. Member for St. John's East and to the initiative of our former colleague and friend, the late Walter Baker. I am pleased to rise and support this initiative. I hope the Minister, in establishing the framework for the use of heroin for medicinal purposes, will take into consideration some of the points which have been made by Dr. Ghent and by Members of the House in the debate today.


Mr. Charles-Eugene Marin (Gaspe):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased with this opportunity to speak concerning to a Bill that covers such an important subject. I want to thank the Hon. Member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath) and the Hon. Minister for presenting this Bill in the House.
I shall be brief, Mr. Speaker, to give others as well a chance to make their comments.
1 would like to say that I speak with the experience of someone who has been practising medicine for twenty-eight years, both as a general practitioner, when I had to prescribe medication to alleviate pain and, for many years, as a psychiatrist treating patients who had become addicted to certain types of medication.
In fact, if we consider the social aspect, dispensing medication that may be addictive is certainly preferable to letting people suffer because we do not have all the therapeutic drugs or tools we need.
I also would like to talk about something that is much closer to home. During the last twelve months, there were four deaths in my immediate family, two caused by cancer. I can assure you it is very difficult for a doctor who is a member of the family to see people wracked by pain, not only physical but mental as well, since they know that their suffering can only end in death. I would have been more than happy to be able to alleviate their distress.
However, the drugs we have today have the immediate effect of poisoning the patient and affecting his mental faculties. We have to measure the doses carefully to keep them mentally alert and at the same time alleviate some of their physical suffering.
Mr. Speaker, this is not the only point I wish to raise. I also feel it is not really the Government's responsibility to interfere with the kind of medical treatment that health care practitioners wish to give. I agree here with Dr. Halliday.
Again, I would like to thank the Hon. Member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath) and the Hon. Minister for presenting this Bill in the House, and I agree wholeheartedly with this initiative.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, 1 should like to make a very short comment. I do not intend to say anything new. I took part in the debate some time ago when the former Hon. Member for Nepean-Carleton, the late Walter Baker, brought forward the suggestion of legalizing heroin for therapeutic purposes in a Private Member's Bill. We have heard many people quite properly refer to the work done by Walter Baker in this respect. The one thing I would like to add is the way in which the events today dovetail with two concerns of the late gentleman. One of his concerns has been referred to, that is, his concern that heroin be legalized for therapeutic purposes. The other one of his consuming passions was parliamentary reform.
Here we have an instance where a private Member, through persistence and through the work of another private Member-in this case the Hon. Member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath) carrying on the work of the late Walter Baker-has been able to call attention to an issue, albeit aided by Dr. Kenneth Walker and many other Canadians. Nevertheless, it
December 20, 1984

is an example of where a private Member has been able to call enough attention to a particular issue to have the Government respond in the way in which the Hon. Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp) did today.
I just wanted to put these two points on the record. I only hope that in future more of this kind of thing will happen and that those of us who are working on the special task force on parliamentary reform will be able to make suggestions which will enhance even more the role of the private Member.


Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the Hon. Member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath) for his initiative in bringing forward this Bill and carrying on the work of the late Walter Baker. I also want to congratulate the Minister. I am sure his officials put many arguments to him as to why we should not legalize this drug because of international conventions. This is when the common sense of politics and a free democratic society override officials.
We are all aware of circumstances involving cancer. In my wife's family, both her parents died of cancer. She works regularly as a volunteer at the cancer clinic here in Ottawa. Many families have experienced the trials and tribulations of losing family members to cancer and seeing incredible pain. I have also had representations from a very close friend of mine in Gore Bay on the Manitoulin Island whose first wife died of cancer several years ago. He has written me regularly, and I have regularly made representations to the Minister of National Health and Welfare to have this amendment carried out to legalize the use of heroin to alleviate pain, especially in terminally ill patients. I would like to add my voice of support and to congratulate those who are responsible for seeing this Bill put before the House. I will take my seat now so that the Bill can be carried.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: It is now six o'clock. It is my understanding that the Hon. Member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath) has a point of order.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, with the permission of the House, I would like to take a few brief moments to withdraw the Bill by unanimous consent so that the Government can then get on with bringing in its own legislation pursuant to the statement made by the Minister today.
Perhaps you will permit me, Mr. Speaker, briefly to thank the Hon. Member for Scarborough West (Mr. Stackhouse), the Hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Halliday), the Hon. Member for Vancouver East (Ms. Mitchell), the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier), the Hon. Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson), the Hon. Member for Gaspe (Mr. Marin), the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill (Mr. Blaikie), the Hon. Member for Algoma (Mr. Foster) and the Minister for their kind personal references to me.
On behalf of the Canadian Medical Association, Dr. Ghent, and Dr. Kenneth Walker whose work was referred to by the Hon. Member for Oxford, on behalf of the hundreds of hundreds of dedicated men and women who are involved in
Adjournment Debate
pain management and palliative care, and perhaps to go even one step further, on behalf of the suffering of future patients who will benefit from this Bill, I would like to extend my thanks to the Minister and to the House. I think it is appropriate that the House and the Government should have acted in a spirit of generosity in this season of love.
I would therefore ask the unanimous consent of the House to have the order discharged and to withdraw Bill C-213, an Act to amend the Narcotic Control Act.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Does the Hon. Member have that unanimous consent?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
Order discharged and Bill withdrawn.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 45 deemed to have been moved.

Mrs. Suzanne Duplessis (Louis-Hebert):: Mr. Speaker, I am both pleased and proud to have this opportunity to speak in the House today. I think it is a great privilege to have been chosen by a significant majority of the voters in the riding of Louis-Hebert to represent them in these venerable halls, and I am thankful for having been given this opportunity. I intend to spare neither time nor effort nor talents in serving my constituents. 1 know that I can count on God's help and on your understanding, Mr. Speaker, and that of all Members of this House, wherever they may be sitting. In turn, Mr. Speaker, I want to assure you and all my colleagues that you will have my loyal co-operation, and I intend to apply the utmost courtesy and dignity to my interventions here in the House.
My purpose in speaking to the House is to explain my interest in research and development, which has a long-term job creating function, and more specifically in the establishment of a hi-tech industrial park in my riding and how the various parties concerned are striving towards the same goal.
I would like to describe my riding to be able to explain the actions of various intervenors. My riding is located east of Quebec City along the St. Lawrence. It forms more or less the main entrance way to Greater Metropolitan Quebec, whether we approach this area by road, by railway or by air. The riding

December 20, 1984
Adjournment Debate
includes four large towns: Sainte-Foy, Sillery, Cap-Rouge and Ancienne Lorette, and has a population of over 100,000. These large suburban towns that make up the riding have been carefully planned, which makes them all the more interesting.
One could say that the population of Louis-Hebert consists largely of stable families with as a result many young people. The problem with these families, Mr. Speaker, as I realized during the last campaign, is what is going to happen to all these young people, many of whom are educated but are doomed to remain idle due to lack of jobs or opportunities, without the slightest hope for a better future. I have therefore made youth employment my first priority.
The Right Hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney), who was visiting Louis-Hebert when I started my fund raising campaign-this was in October 1982 and he was still president of Iron Ore-said the following and I quote: "In this riding and this region, you have all the resources to become a focal point for research and development. You have industries, universities, skilled manpower, research centres, social infrastructures, and so forth. All you need is for the federal Government to set objectives in line with our local requirements and human resources and consult and co-operate with Quebec, to make this dream come true".
Indeed, my riding has a number of educational institutions including Laval University, the oldest francophone university in North America, which has researchers working in every discipline and where excellent courses are given in optics and laser techniques. There is also the University of Quebec, three CEGEPs-one English-speaking-two highly sophisticated scientific complexes, the Institut national de recherche scien-tifique which specializes in hydrology and geology and also gives courses for students preparing a masters degree or Ph.D. The Centre de recherche industriel du Quebec, maintaining a close working relationship with industry, has maximized automation of production processes in line with the Quebec Government's support for new technologies. There are also private companies with an international reputation in advanced technology such as Gentec, Didactech, and many more. There are tertiary services, financial institutions, public utilities and ultra-modern community services provided by the towns in the area. Road, railway services and air services are satisfactory.
I can say that the quality of life in the riding is excellent, since I have been a resident for over 25 years. There is an abundance of hotel accommodation, restaurants, information and tourism facilities and in addition, the riding's geographic location is such that the attractions of the Quebec City area are readily available.
Several years ago, local organizations started to do a complete analysis of the economic in the Quebec City area. The conclusion was that our industrial sector badly needed reorganizing. The previous Government had been far too concerned with one-time, temporary job creation programs. It is high time this bandaid policy was replaced by a real regional development strategy.
All the parties concerned now agree that we should focus our energies on revitalizing the region's industrial sector. In April 1983, the GATIQ, the Groupe d'action pour l'avance-ment technologique et industriel de la region de Quebec, was established, an initiative that was in line with the subsequent economic summit. The Groupe d'action, Mr. Speaker, consists of establishments that are directly connected to technological disciplines and the industrial sector. These include Laval University, the Institut national de recherche scientifique, The Societe Inter-port, which recently announced that seven industries were ready to settle right away in the Sainte-Foy area, including the Chambre de commerce du Quebec metropolitain and the Centre de recherche industrielle du Quebec. The GATIQ intends to consolidate the region's scientific and technological resources by promoting exchanges among researchers and between researchers and industry. In this particular context, the most satisfactory way of achieving these goals is to create a hi-tech industrial park. In this connection, the Conseil d'orientation de developpement economique de Sainte-Foy, following an economic summit and a thorough study of the matter, has come out in favour of establishing advanced technology industries in the Sainte-Foy-Quebec City corridor. The existing industrial park was suggested in this connection since its location was admirably suited to the purpose the council had in mind.
The park is located behind the CRIQ and the INRS, is surrounded by zoned industrial parks and has all the resources and services required. This is where we would like to see the Institut d'optique et de laser, which has been very much in the news recently.
Mr. Speaker, although we are hardly in the Silicone Valley class, we in Louis-Hebert and the Quebec City Region are in a position to prove that this is where the economic future of our region lies.


Mr. Bernard Valcourt (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State for Science and Technology):: Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada, just like the Hon. Member for Louis-Hebert (Mrs. Duplessis), is favourably impressed by the commendable role played by GATIQ-Groupe d'action pour l'avancement technologique et industriel de la region de Quebec-in the establishment of hi-tech industry in the Quebec City area.
The cooperation process in this endeavour among both levels of government, local universities and the private sector stands as an example to be emulated.
December 20, 1984

The Minister of State for Science and Technology (Mr. Siddon) went to Quebec City twice in recent weeks to meet with representatives of various groups working with GATIQ.
In the course of their discussions, the Minister did say that he was in favour of the project sponsored by GATIQ concerning the establishment of hi-tech industry in the Quebec City area.
In that respect, the Minister held consultations with the leading promoters of this project concerning the future building site of the new National Research Council's optics institute, a project which the Hon. Member for Louis-Hebert (Mrs. Duplessis) has always supported wholeheartedly.
The institute will help Canadian industry through technological development and transfer, by training qualified staff and by developing expertise in potentially promising industrial fields. It will also provide the industry with optical design services and a test laboratory to assess the quality of optical components and systems.
This institute does faithfully reflect the government's commitment to help Canadian industry make the best of new technologies which offer challenging opportunities such as those in optics.
The great interest shown by GATIQ and the Hon. Member for Louis-Hebert in the construction of that institute is quite understandable, and their contribution in this case has been greatly appreciated.
The government feels that a decision in this case is extremely important, and we hope to be able to make an announcement in the near future.
If I may, Mr. Speaker, I should like to thank the Hon. Member for her outstanding efforts to promote this project. I also want to assure her that the Government of Canada will handle this project in such a way as to respond to the economic aspirations and well-being of the Sainte-Foy-Quebec City area.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I should like to say again that the Canadian government is aware of the significant technological new trend in the economic future of the Quebec City area, as proposed by GATIQ and unreservedly supported by the Hon. Member for Louis-Hebert.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: The Hon. Member for Mount Royal (Mrs. Finestone) has the floor, and I might suggest that the Hon. Member be as brief as possible because we are running a little bit late as a result of the consideration of the public bill.
Adjournment Debate


YOUTH-MINISTER'S AREA OF RESPONSIBILITY. B) PRESS STATEMENT ATTRIBUTED TO MINISTER
Mrs. Sheila Finestone (Mount Royal):: Mr. Speaker, I hope I can put my question within the seven-minute period allotted to me.

The point I want to raise, Mr. Speaker, relates to the question I asked the Minister of State for Youth (Mrs. Champagne) in this House on November 8 concerning her responsibilities. Hon. Members will recall her answer, that she was doing some housecleaning in her Department, and that she did, in fact, confer with the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Miss MacDonald) before the latter decided to reduce grants for youth on the job-training opportunities from $1 billion to $27 million, which our Liberal Government had budgeted. Ultimately, she admitted, yes, she should also help young people who are not well off but that they should also help themselves and do their share.
We cannot be satisfied with such answers, Mr. Speaker, given the present high level of youth unemployment and the level of youth unemployment forecast for this winter and the following summer which, by the way, will be marked by the beginning of the International Year for Youth. Statistics, studies and testimony of young people demonstrate to every Canadian, except, it seems, to this Government, that the number one problem facing our youth is unemployment. The young people most affected by the economic recession are those who have left secondary school with no marketable skills. The plight of these young people, as well as of our graduates, without future job prospects, must be addressed directly if the problems facing them are to be overcome.
How can young Canadians who represent 25 per cent of our population expect to have their vital interests properly defended by this Government? For me, Mr. Speaker, the mandate of the Minister of State for Youth is only one of advocacy as she herself stated in her reply to the Speech from the Throne. In addition, she sits only on social development cabinet committee and consequently cannot be heard on the crucial economic and regional development committee, or on the priorities and planning committees where key decisions are made.
Canada's youth deserve direct access to decision making. Perhaps the Minister should review her mandate with the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney).
I believe that within the context of this economic recession, when competition between different age groups is exacerbated, the Minister should be doing more than simply managing the distribution of approximately $8 million in grants for the International Year of Youth, and doing advocacy. Our youth need more than rhetoric on how important they are to this country, and a few sporadic projects. They need a co-ordinated approach to their serious social and economic problems. They need to believe there is a future for them in the job market and that they can play a useful role in Canadian society. Otherwise their despair will grow and their sense of self-worth will

December 20, 1984
Adjournment Debate
plummet even further. Lost hope, lost dreams, lost generation. Such a denial of the right to work is unjust and leads only to depression.

If the Minister of State is not concerned about the plight of young Canadians, the Governor General of Canada is very much concerned about it. Mrs. Jeanne Sauve feels that Canada must find ways and means to solve the unemployment problem among its young people, failing which they will become a lost generation. As a matter of fact, she emphatically stated, and I quote: "If we do not manage to solve our young people's unemployment problem, we are going to lose a whole generation. That is very serious." That is exactly what I personally told the Minister recently. It is a tragedy!

To this end, Mr. Speaker, I ask what kind of encouragement, what kind of concrete measures this Government and the Minister are providing young Canadians. Is it through budgetary cuts to essential programs; through a witch hunt with respect to unemployment insurance beneficiaries to save a hypothetical $200 million; through statements to this House to the effect that "the Government has only so much money to spend on direct job creation"? That is, $200 million. Is it through statements that 85 per cent of young Canadians are able to function normally, thus neglecting the reality that the level of unemployed youth ranges from 18 per cent to 22 per cent and is particularly bad for visible minorities?
My riding office is now filled with young Canadians who await the result of the Minister of Employment and Immigration's consultations, who count on her promises, and who are acutely aware of the impact any decisions she makes will have on job prospects in 1985. Yet here we are two days away from the Christmas recess with not a word being uttered as to the fruits of the so-called consultations. There are no structures in place to be implemented for next summer's programs, and again not a word of protest from the Minister of State for Youth.
The serious impact on your youth and students with the abolition of the Summer Canada Program of $85 million does not go unnoticed by our youth, their parents or our society. Consultation continues but no decisions are made. Yet there is a desperate need for jobs now. Long term alternatives are fine, indeed, and desirable, but this does not diminish the urgency of the present situation and the need for programs now.
When the Minister of Employment and Immigration cannot take positive action for youth, can young people rely on their Minister of State for Youth to do so? When the Secretary of State acknowledges a freeze on the Canada Student Loans Program, can the students rely on their Minister of State for Youth to protect their vital interests? If the Minister cannot challenge or effect change with respect to youth employment programs, if she cannot have any responsibility with respect to the major concern of jobs and employment, then how can our youth feel that their interests are being heard, that they have a voice and be encouraged?
This Minister does not even respond in the name of youth, and protest when a previous Liberal Government youth training program involving $1 billion and creating 100,000 First Chance jobs gets cut to $27 million and provides a mere 3,000 to 4,000 on-the-job-training programs. Job training is just one answer, representing an ongoing process. The Minister could be encouraging increased Canada Works Programs where many meaningful activities for society can be presented in order to meet unemployment needs.
Furthermore, young Canadians are tired of getting only promises. In the past, summer employment programs for youth would have been announced before Christmas in order to allow young people to plan ahead. Instead, cuts and complications concerning the Canada Student Loans Program have been announced which could ultimately prevent students from obtaining the education necessary to pursue a financially rewarding career. It is a vicious circle; no loan, no summer program, no education, no job.
In the recently released list of grants for the International Year of Youth only one of the 22 projects-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: I regret that the seven minute period is over.


Hon. Andree Champagne (Minister of State (Youth)):: Mr. Speaker, as the Hon. Member pointed out, the mandate I was given by the Prime Minister is twofold. I am responsible for co-ordinating the Canadian Government's program of activities for International Youth Year, and I also speak on behalf of youth in Cabinet and in the federal Government.
I see this coming year as a unique opportunity for all young Canadians to strengthen their perception of themselves and of their potential. I want to encourage the full integration of all Canadian youth in society and to make adult Canadians aware of the situation of our young people and realize that they have a positive contribution to make to society. We must realize, and it cannot be said often enough, that there is no such thing as a lost generation. We must have confidence in our youth. We must encourage them to take advantage of opportunities when they arise.
Mr. Speaker, I believe all my provincial counterparts share my views. During our meetings in recent weeks, they confirmed that in the course of the year, they intend to focus on what young people have been able to achieve so that this will act as a stimulus for young people who have been less fortunate.
The program for International Youth Year is based on these considerations and consists of five points. First of all, its purpose is to help support any initiatives the Youth Secretariat may undertake jointly with Government departments or agencies.
December 20, 1984

We also have a grants program to facilitate the implementation of special projects set up by young people, or for them through volunteer groups and agencies. This week, Mr. Speaker, I was able to announce the allocation of 22 grants totalling $429,000.
There is also the Peace and Development Program, whose aim is to provide financial assistance for activities that will make young Canadians aware of the international situation. There is also an information and communications program that will focus the attention of the public on young people and make it aware of what young people have to contribute to society.
Finally, five national forums will be held in various parts of the country. Here, young people and their social partners will be able to exchange views and develop strategies that will make for a better understanding of the situation of young Canadians. The conclusions of these forums will be used in developing long term policies affecting Canadian youth.
I will also be setting up an advisory committee on International Youth Year, consisting of young people from all parts of Canada.
My total budget for carrying out my mandate is a little over $28 million, for fiscal 1984-85 and 1985-86.
Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for Mount Royal (Mrs. Finestone) was very vocal about employment problems. She claimed that the Government failed to meet its commitment to create jobs for young people.
The changes recently announced will deeply alter the government policies and programs. Our new government wishes to promote independence rather than dependence on the government.
The Hon. Member has suggested that the new Youth Training Option program has reduced by a third the budget for young people. Such is not the case. The training program had been announced by the previous government during the election campaign without any consultation with the provinces and the private sector. The program had such an enormous scope-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: I regret to interrupt the Minister but the time allotted to her has expired. The Hon. Member for Gander-Twillingate (Mr. Baker).


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS-CANADIAN WILDLIFE SERVICE- REQUEST FOR RE-EXAMINATION OF BUDGETARY CUT-BACKS. (B) TERMINATED POSITIONS-REQUEST THAT MINISTER TABLE JOB DESCRIPTIONS
Mr. George Baker (Gander-Twillingate):: Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the Minister of State for Youth (Mrs. Champagne) and the Minister of the Environment (Mrs. Blais-Grenier) for being here to answer questions; the Ministers normally give that duty to their Parliamentary Secretar-
Adjournment Debate
ies. I want to draw attention to that and have it on the record. I believe that both these Ministers are doing a good job in their departments-as well as can be expected with the imposition of the vicious cuts by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) and the Government of Canada. As the Minister for Youth has said many times, these cuts are something that one just has to live with. If it wasn't this, it would be something else.
The Minister knows my purpose in rising today as we have gone over this question many times. I have asked her questions in the House, and she has appeared before the committee- even today. Perhaps I sometimes get a little too nasty in my remarks regarding the Minister. I want to assure her that my remarks are directed toward the cuts which I believe have been imposed upon her by the Minister of Finance and the Government of Canada. I know that in defending those cuts the Minister must sometimes get a bit nasty with me in her response.
However, let me tell the Minister that apart from the other cuts, the real problem is with the policy she has announced, and which the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. de Cotret) has announced in the blue book where he said that the areas of research on migratory birds and endangered species would not be touched.
The Minister knows, as I pointed out in the committee meeting this afternoon, that ducks are migratory birds. The experiments conducted on the prairies by a research team of five this past summer showed that the effects of an insecticide on ducks which are nesting on the prairies caused the death of those ducklings. That research team was out there for a very important purpose, to examine the effects on the birds and to recommend to the Department of Agriculture that perhaps by decreasing the size of the droplets in the insecticide the problem could be overcome. The purpose of the research team was not to stop the spraying of grasshoppers with that insecticide. Its purpose was actually to try to re-arrange it so it did not kill that wildlife. Ducks are migratory birds. In addition, there are the shore birds along the Fraser Delta. Various projects with respect to endangered species have been cut. I outlined a particular species in Newfoundland to the Minister this morning, and spoke of the real emphasis of her Department as far as the peregrine falcon is concerned.
My major concern is that what was outlined in the cuts by the President of the Treasury Board have actually not taken place. Those two areas which are supposed to be protected in the Minsiter's Department are in fact not being protected, as I outlined today in committee. The most important aspect is, as the Minister knows, that birds in various provinces have been destroyed because of policies of governments, mainly provincial governments, on the advice of the federal Government. They have been destroyed as a result of the recommended use of chemicals over large land areas. We are destroying the very birds which get rid of the insect we are trying to spray.

December 20, 1984
Adjournment Debate
Whether or not a bird is an endangered species, the point is the Canadian Wildlife Service was the only agency that was there to protect the wildlife. The companies were not interested. The foresters were not all that interested, and the provincial governments were not all that interested. The pest control division of the Department of Agriculture did not require an analysis as part of the spraying program.
What do we have left, Minister? If all the cuts are allowed to take place and that type of thing happens, nobody will be looking out for the birds. Therefore, Minister, what you are saying in effect is that nobody is looking out for the people. As we all know, when the environment is destroyed people are destroyed. It is as simple as that. The birds I refer to in this particular instance perform a vital function. In some countries they put the emphasis on bird hatcheries, rather than on sprays.
It would be wonderful and in the spirit of Christmas if the Minister would announce now that the Canadian wildlife Service will be relieved of these absolutely vicious cuts imposed by the Minister of Finance. I could then praise her in the House during Question Period, under the provisions of Standing Order 21, as well as on points of order and in general discussions.


Hon. Suzanne Blais-Grenier (Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his comments and I can assure you that if it were up to me, I would love to be honoured like this for a whole day, as it was certainly not the case in the House yesterday and today.
I also want to reassure the Hon. Member about the fact that my colleague, the Hon. Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson), did not force any cutbacks on me. I take the full responsibility for them, and it is I, with the officials at my Department, who reviewed the programs and decided, in accordance with our federal mandate and the responsibilities under our jurisdiction, to cancel certain programs and to make sure that some of them would be taken over by the provinces.
To give a more specific answer to my colleague, I can assure him that we are still concerned with peregrine falcons and
their reintroduction to the wild. We also continue to concern ourselves with the effect of pesticides on birds, for instance within the interdepartmental committee on the effects of pesticides on the environment, which is responsible for advising the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise) on the use of these pesticides.
I do not believe that it would be appropriate for me to speak too long about the cutbacks. Much has already been said about this. However, I want to say that these cutbacks affect the following occupational group: 10 science researcher and program manager positions, 50 professional or technical positions and 13 support positions; these are the only positions affected.
For some of them, we already have alternatives. I would like however to take a few moments to refer to the overall effort by my officials and myself to soften the impact of those cuts on the people concerned. Our surplus employees have been notified as early as possible of their status, so they may have an opportunity to find other jobs on the market place. We have put a freeze on hiring throughout the Department, and we will very soon complete the identification of all vacant jobs. Further, we will offer retraining programs, where appropriate, to help our employees relocate.
We have ongoing consultations with the provinces and the universities with the hope that some of the programs may be taken up by one of those jurisdictions.
Among other things, as a result of our diligent handling of the matter, we have succeeded in arranging the take-over of one of the five wildlife interpretation centres. We have in fact reached an agreement with the Province of British Columbia.
Mr. Speaker, it is my view that we have acted very humanely and within the spirit of our commitment made to Canadians to reduce Government expenditures.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at eleven o'clock a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 2(1).
At 6.35 p.m. the House adjourned.

Friday, December 21, 1984