1984-02-24

STATEMENTS PURSUANT TO S.O. 21


Mr. Geoff Scott (Hamilton-Wentworth):: Mr. Speaker, let me tell you a story about two farm silos. One is located in the flight path at the Chatham, Ontario, airport. The other silo stands in the flight path at Mount Hope, in my riding, where Hamilton Civic Airport is currently undergoing expansion.
My constituent, Mr. Joseph Popper, last year received authorization from Transport Canada and the Municipality of Glanbrook to erect a silo in accordance with Hamilton airport zoning and height restrictions. Several months later the Department of Public Works claimed that Joe Popper's silo violates the height in feet above mean sea level. Although local pilots have indicated no problems or any incidents in the area, Mr. Popper has now been ordered to take immediate action to remove about 10 feet off the top of the silo. That would mean a very heavy financial burden for the Poppers, who are understandably upset that they had acted in accordance with Transport Canada and the Municipality of Glanbrook height regulations in the first place.
We switch you to the controversial silo at Chatham, Mr. Speaker. The Minister of Transport (Mr. Axworthy) has agreed to solve that problem after meeting with the Hon. Member for Kent (Mr. Bossy) and the Mayor of Chatham, along with Transport Canada officials.
Meanwhile, at Mount Hope, my office, Glanbrook Mayor Don Weylie, and Joe Popper, have yet to hear from Transport Canada, despite repeated attempts during the past several weeks to work out a compromise similar to Chatham airport.
Farm silos are not porkbarrels. After what we have been through this week about government favouritism toward Liberal ridings, I sincerely hope the Minister of Transport will rise above treating these situations as first and second class silos.


INCOME TAX
Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, there are 600,000 Canadians who work as waiters or waitresses throughout Canada. Most of them receive minimum wage, or a little more, and supplement their low wages with the tips they receive.
Recently Revenue Canada has begun to enforce a rule that they must pay income tax, not just on their wage but on their total income of wage and tips. However, when they pay their unemployment insurance premiums and Canada Pension Plan, it is done on the basis of the lower wage. When they are unemployed they receive unemployment insurance benefits at the lower rate, and when they qualify for Canada Pension they will get it at the lower rate.
I call on the Government to change the laws and regulations so that, if these people must pay income tax on their total income, they will also receive benefits based on their total income.


POLITICAL PARTIES
Mrs. Ursula Appolloni (York South-Weston):: Mr. Speaker, according to the National Council on Welfare, the poverty rate in Canada has declined sharply since 1969. The report states that, among families headed by people over 65, the percentage living below the poverty line dropped from below
41.4	per cent in 1969 to 11.7 per cent in 1982. The National Council on Welfare credits improvement in the quality of life to such government programs as the Old Age Security Pension, Guaranteed Income Supplement, and the Canada Pension Plan.
Perhaps there can be no greater testimony to the effectiveness of the Government of Canada under the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) than the dramatic improvement in the quality of life for so many Canadians.
The Liberal Government has done much, and it realizes much remains to be done. That is why Canadians have never heard Liberals make remarks like those in 1976 of the present Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Mulroney), who called for a five year moratorium on increased social spending, or of the former Leader of the Opposition who, as Prime Minister, told Canada's elderly that they would have to endure the effects of

February 24, 1984
inflation until the economy improved. That was Tory policy in 1979.
An Official Opposition that now calls for the Liberal Government to increase the GIS is the same Tory gang who would not, not could not, increase the GIS in 1979.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Unfortunately, the Hon. Member's time has expired.


LABOUR CONDITIONS
Mrs. Jennifer Cossitt (Leeds-Grenville):: Mr. Speaker, in his Budget Speech a week ago the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) stood in this House and whetted our appetites with proud promises of lasting economic recovery and sound fiscal policies. He said:
In my April Budget, my goal was to secure the recovery. That goal has been met.
I would ask the Minister how can he justify that statement when just last Friday 110 employees were laid off at Black and Decker in Brockville, Ontario. This is a responsible, sound firm, that has provided 700 local residents with secure employment for over 25 years.
In announcing these lay-offs, the company president stated the signs of economic recovery last spring had caused them to anticipate a higher volume of sales than actually materialized when the economy failed to recover as the Minister predicted in his April Budget.
The Government has failed these employees with its promises to secure economic recovery and job stabilization. Government spending grew almost 10 per cent last year, well over its own six and five guidelines imposed on Canadians to reduce inflation. The message was obviously "Do as I say, not as I do".
The Finance Minister's Budget Speech, full of rhetoric and encouragement, held little for these recently unemployed Canadians in my riding.


EMPLOYMENT
Mr. Andre Maltais (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday I referred to the funds allocated by the federal Government for job creation, and I mentioned several projects in my riding which would deserve special attention from the Government.
I have received an incredible number of telephone calls from constituents asking the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) to reinstate special funding for ridings affected by unemployment, whether these are Liberal ridings or not.
Mr. Speaker, in Baie-Comeau they are still asking for a harbour master's office and harbour facilities, as special projects. In Franquelin and Godbout, they want boat ramps and repairs to small harbours, while in Baie-Trinite they are asking for a harbour and facilities at Petit Mai which have yet to be completed. At Pointe-aux-Anglais they want community facilities; Port-Cartier is asking for relocation of a pier, plus I.T.T. installations. It is the same in Sept-Iles, with Phase III of the industrial park, and, Mr. Speaker, I could also mention Riviere-au-Tonnerre, Tete-a-la-Baleine or St-Augustin, La Tabatiere, Blanc-Sablon and Gagnon, plus the airports at La Romaine, Tete-a-la-Baleine and Kegaska. The point I am trying to make is that the unemployed will never get enough money from our governments to put them back to work, and most of the people who called me in my riding have asked me to condemn in public the attitude taken by the Opposition Parties who are indulging in petty politics at the expense of the unemployed.


SOCIAL SCIENCES
Mr. Walter McLean (Waterloo):: Mr. Speaker, the self-congratulatory press release of the Department of Communications of February 16, 1984, misleads the Canadian public. It suggests that the base budget of the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council will increase by $2 million to almost $59 million in the financial year 1984-1985. In fact the budget of the Research Council will be substantially reduced. A previous allocation of $5.9 million for Canadian studies will not be renewed. The Government's magic arithmetic, as the Canadian Association of University Teachers calls it, gives the Council an increase of $2 million, but really it loses $1.2 million.
This sleight-of-hand is taking place at a time when millions of dollars are available at the whims of Liberal MPs, but post-secondary education support is being attacked under the six and five formula.
The Social Science Federation of Canada affirms that most major problems are both social and economic. More, not less, research is needed. High technology is impacting on the job market, especially for women. Prostitution, pornography, and visible minorities, are all being studied by separate and expensive commissions. Why, I ask, is the Government setting up costly parallel mechanisms for research, and refusing to introduce a five-year plan for research in the social sciences and humanities?
February 24, 1984



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Perrin Beatty (Wellington-Dufferin-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Revenue who will know that today's press contains reports of growing signs of Liberal back-bench revolt against the lack of ministerial control over the Department of National Revenue. Does the Minister of National Revenue agree with his various colleagues who have spoken to the press in the past two days to indicate that they feel his Deputy Minister has too much power and that the Minister himself does not have adequate control over his own Department?


Hon. Pierre Bussieres (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, I have, on several occasions, discussed with my caucus colleagues any problems they may have had with my Department, and I have also done so with Members of the other Party caucuses in this House.
Nevertheless, I would like to point out to the Hon. Member that it is my responsibility and that of my officials to work together and co-ordinate our efforts in order to provide equitable administration of the Income Tax Act, and that is our objective.


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, you will note that the Minister again avoided answering the question of whether or not he agrees with his own colleagues who are attacking his Deputy Minister as having too much power and saying that the Minister does not have enough power.


INTRODUCTION OF LEGISLATION DEALING WITH DEPUTY MINISTER'S POWERS
Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, two days ago the Minister's colleague, the Hon. Member for Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke, introduced Bill C-220. The whole purpose of that Bill is to strip away the legal authority to give the Deputy Minister powers similar to those of the Minister of National Revenue. Does the Minister support the Bill introduced by his back-bench colleague, which is designed to curtail the powers of his Deputy Minister?


Pierre Bussières: Mr. Speaker, the Bill has been tabled in the House, and as soon debate starts on the Bill, the Hon. Member will have an opportunity to find out the Government's position.
Oral Questions


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, you will note that again the Minister has refused to answer a direct question.


MINISTER'S POSITION
Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, The Toronto Star has reported that when the Liberal caucus was in revolt on Wednesday and a succession of Members-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Henry Perrin Beatty: -rose to attack the Deputy Minister and to demand his resignation, the Minister sat silently by refusing to take any position one way or the other. I want to know what is the Minister's position. Does he defend his Deputy Minister, or is he prepared to go along with demands from his caucus colleagues that the Deputy Minister be replaced?


Pierre Bussières: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member says I am not answering his questions. Actually, in my answer to his first question, I answered the question he put to me just now. My responsibility and that of my officials, including Deputy Ministers, Assistant Deputy Ministers, Directors and Supervisors, is to work together in order to provide for sound and equitable administration of the Income Tax Act. That is our objective.


TRAINING FILM FOR AUDITORS-OFFER TO SCREEN EDITED VERSION
Mr. Chris Speyer (Cambridge):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the same Minister. Last month an application was made to the Minister's Department by the Hon. Member for Saskatoon West with respect to viewing the training film for auditors called "The Investigative Approach to Auditing". By letter of February 15, signed by Mr. Twolan of his Department, access has been denied to the original film, but an edited version has been prepared for his viewing.
Has the Minister personally viewed this film? Did he personally make the decision to give an edited version of the film to Members, or was it just his departmental officials, as indicated in the letter of February 15?


Pierre Bussières: Mr. Speaker, the answer to this question is short and to the point. The question was: Did I see the film? The answer is: Yes. The second part of the Hon. Member's question was: Did 1 personally ask to have changes made in the film? Mr. Speaker, I suggest that the Hon. Member read carefully the provisions of the Access to Information Act, which provides under what conditions and circumstances records are to be made available to individuals requesting access. If I am not mistaken, depart-

February 24, 1984
Oral Questions
mental officials gave the Member for Saskatoon West a reply, in accordance with the letter and the intent of the Access to Information Act.


Henry Perrin Beatty: Four questions, four evasions.


ACCESS OF MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT TO FILM
Chris Speyer: Mr. Speaker, the Minister has acknowledged that he has personally viewed the film. Would the Minister tell us what is in the film that Members of Parliament cannot see with respect to the attitude of the auditors? What is it that is being cut out? What is it that is being covered up? What is it that we cannot see?


Pierre Bussières: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member is showing contempt for the laws passed by this Parliament. If his ignorance or bad faith or blind partisanship did not prevent him from doing so, he would have taken the time to read the Access to Information Act, where he would see that under the provisions of this Act, the Department may protect certain kinds of information. I do not know what was taken out, but I do know that the officials who gave the Hon. Member access to the film did so in accordance with the letter and the intent of the Act.


EMPLOYMENT
Mr. Cyril Keeper (Winnipeg-St. James):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Employment and Immigration. The Estimates which were released on Tuesday indicate that the Government has cut spending on job creation by $172 million. According to the Government's own criterion of roughly $4,000 per job, the loss of this money will cost 42,000 jobs. How can the Minister justify cutting funding for job creation at this time of very high, crisis level, unemployment?


Hon. John Roberts (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman may be miscomparing figures. He was not exactly clear what comparison he was making, but I do not think that the facts will bear out that there was a cut of the kind he has described. What he may be doing is comparing the Main Estimates which were presented a few days ago, but he must remember that, as the fiscal year goes on, those Main Estimates are increased by Supplementary Estimates. It may be that he is comparing apples and oranges and not comparing one set of Main Estimates with another.


BUDGET PROPOSALS
Cyril Keeper: Mr. Speaker, what I am pointing out is that the Estimates cut funding for job creation by $170 million. The Minister may promise money down the road, but the unemployed need that money today. The Budget added 40 per cent to the PIP grants, which is another $450 million for the oil companies. How can the Minister give $450 million to the oil companies, which is less than he put in the Budget for the unemployed? How can he justify that at this time of unemployment?


John (Moody) Roberts: Mr. Speaker, I have two comments. If indeed in the Budget there was an increase of funding flowing toward the problem of the unemployed, particularly young people, and if the Member does a fair comparison of our expenditure projections, he will find that we are not cutting back funding for job creation.
In so far as the PIP grants are concerned, this is a question which should be directed to the Minister responsible, and not to me.


OUTREACH PROGRAM FUNDING
Cyril Keeper: Mr. Speaker, the Estimates also indicate that the Minister is cutting funds for the Outreach Program by some $5 million, which will be a loss of 25,000 placements. How does the Minister justify slashing the Outreach Program, which has helped disabled Canadians and those who lack job skills? Is he simply taking advice from the former Conservative Finance Minister who said over the CBC this morning that a Conservative Government would cut job-creation funding?


John (Moody) Roberts: Mr. Speaker, that may very well be the view of the Conservative Party. It is not our view. The basic answer to the Hon. Member's question is the one which I gave to him earlier, that what he must look at is not the expenditures last year in comparison with the Main Estimates. He must look at the figures which respond to the Main Estimates as we go through the year with the Supplementary Estimates added. He has to make a fair comparison and compare the same things, not different things.


FINANCE
Mr. Ron Stewart (Simcoe South):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Finance I will direct my question to the Minister from Etobicoke North. On February 6 I asked the Minister of Finance about excessive taxation on alcohol products and lost jobs in the distilling industry. In his holier than thou reply, he said that declining sales were the result of decreased consumption by Canadians, a trend we should
February 24, 1984

applaud, and that the excessive taxation was due strictly to the taxation by the Provinces. Does the Minister accept this government reply?


Hon. Roy MacLaren (Minister of State (Finance)):: Yes.


MEMBERSHIP OF TASK FORCE
Ronald Alexander Stewart: Mr. Speaker, in a letter dated February 20 from the Minister of Finance he points out to all government Members how to answer their constituents and shareholders in the distilling industry. He explains his great concern that the federal share of revenue from alcohol has dropped from 41 per cent to 31 per cent, that a task force has been established to look into the matter, that they will consider alternatives which meet the objectives of both the industry and the Government, and that meetings of the task force are under way. He says further that he trusts his remarks will be helpful in replying to their constituents.
What about our constituents, Mr. Speaker, and the jobs lost to the people we represent in this industry? I would like to know who is on the task force, how often have they met, what are the objectives, and will we on this side have input, or will it be like the Local Initiatives Employment Program?


Roy MacLaren: Mr. Speaker, the task force is chaired by a vice-president of the Toronto Dominion Bank, Doug Peters, who is currently on loan to the federal Government. The members of the task force have been nominated and supplied by the associations most directly involved in the question. They are currently reviewing the situation. The Member opposite, indeed any Member of the House, or for that matter any Canadian, is welcome to make his or her views known to the task force. I am sure the task force will want to take those views into account.
The task force is charged with a broad review of the industry and of fiscal policy as it affects the industry. It will, of course, address the question of the proportions of taxation represented by provincial Governments and the federal Government. It will address the question to the impact of taxation policies at the federal and provincial levels on the further growth and development of the industries affected. If the Hon. Member wishes to make his contribution, I am sure the task force would welcome it.


FISHERIES
Mr. Tom McMillan (Hillsborough):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Fisheries my question is directed to the Acting Minister. Last Friday my good friend, the Minister of Veterans Affairs, stated in Prince Edward Island that within a week the federal Governmemt would be in a position to announce the details of the reopening of the Georgetown
Oral Questions
Seafoods plant in Prince Edward Island. Since that week is now up, I wonder if the Acting Minister would be in a position to share with the House the details of that reopening.


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister for External Relations):: Mr. Speaker, I think I can answer the question. I am aware that the Minister of Fisheries is working on that subject very, very intensely. I am aware that he is going to live up to the commitment he has made, and that he will inform the House as soon as he can.


REQUEST THAT ANNOUNCEMENT BE MADE IN HOUSE OF COMMONS
Thomas Michael McMillan: Mr. Speaker, although it is apparent that the Acting Prime Minister does not have a clue about the question posed to him, I wonder if he would, nevertheless, assure the House in the name of fairness, if nothing else, that such an announcement will be made in the House of Commons to Members who have been asking questions about this for the last two years, rather than in the forum of a partisan function on Prince Edward Island before only Liberal Members in Prince Edward Island?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, every Minister has a choice to make when he has news to announce, particularly when it is good news. I will bring the representation made by my hon. friend to the attention of the Minister of Fisheries.


IMMIGRATION
Ms. Margaret Mitchell (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Acting Prime Minister. From 1885 to 1923 the Canadian Government levied a discriminatory and racist head tax only on Chinese immigrants. This was followed by complete exclusion of any Chinese immigrants until 1947. In order to make amends for this shameful period in our history, and to recognize our new Charter of Rights which should prevent such future discrimination against ethnic minorities, will the Minister forward a request to the Prime Minister asking that he, on behalf of Canada, formally acknowledge these injustices to Canadians of Chinese origin?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, this is the First time I have heard about this one. I learned yesterday about Baltic Consuls and things of that kind. My education is progressing. I will look into that particular matter. I would believe, however, on the face of it, that the legislation on human rights is not retroactive. However, I will look into the matter and see if a more generous approach could be taken.

February 24, 1984
Oral Questions


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, I was asking Canada to apologize to the Chinese at this point in time. I was not asking for retroactivity of legislation.


REQUEST THAT GOVERNMENT PAY COMPENSATION
Margaret Anne Mitchell: My supplementary question is directed to the Minister of Justice, on this same matter. Perhaps he would also consult with the Prime Minister. Since last Chinese New Year, when I called on the Canadian Government to compensate persons who have paid the discriminatory Chinese head tax, a number of elderly Chinese people from all over Canada have come forward with tax receipts. The Chinese community as a whole is most interested in this, as a symbolic gesture. Would the Minister be prepared to investigage the possibility of compensation for the few remaining survivors who paid this discriminatory head tax? Would he also ask the Prime Minister to convey our apologies on behalf of Canada?


Hon. Mark MacGuigan (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, we will certainly give very full consideration to that request. As I am sure the Hon. Member knows, the Charter, which we are all happy to have, is prospective in its application, and for any kind of consideration to be given to the past this requires that we establish a new policy for that period. I know that the Hon. Member appreciates that we cannot really rewrite the whole of Canadian history. There have been many kinds of injustices committed by many groups, and suffered by many groups. We cannot undo all of those things which have happened in the past, but we can, at the very least, make a resolution that they will not happen again. In selected cases we can also look at the past, as the Hon. Member has suggested, and I undertake to do that.


NATIONAL REVENUE
Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Revenue. [Translation]
Could the Minister tell the House whether, by virtue of the agreement entered into by the Solicitor General and his predecessor, the Hon. Member for Sarnia-Lambton, under which the RCMP would have access to the files of the Department of National Revenue for the purpose of investigating infringements of the Income Tax Act and later, signed by the former Member for Saint-Boniface, now sitting in the other place, the RCMP was given access to tax files for the purpose of investigating infringements of the Criminal Code? Is the Department of National Revenue carrying on with this practice or has the previous agreement been adhered to religiously? We would like to know whether the RCMP or
someone else has access to the files of the Department of National Revenue.


Pierre Bussières: Mr. Speaker, I shall have to check about the agreement mentioned by the Hon. Member in the much broader context of his question which suggests the involvement of police forces in taxation matters. The Hon. Member will understand that, wherever fraudulent action is suspected, police may be justified in getting involved in the taxation aspects of investigations. However, as I would like to be more specific in my reply, I ask the Hon. Member to give me a little time to check on this matter.


DEPARTMENT'S DEPUTY MINISTER
Hon. Ron Huntington (Capilano):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Revenue. Would the Minister give us a clear flat statement that he has full confidence in and supports his Deputy Minister?


Henry Perrin Beatty: Yes or no?


Pierre Bussières: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for Wellington-Dufferin-Simcoe has set such an example of narrow-mindedness that his colleagues are having about the same simplistic reaction as he has.
Mr. Speaker, in my previous answers, I have twice described my responsibilities and those of my senior executives and told of my commitment to fulfill these responsibilities in order to promote the common good and ensure that the Income Tax Act is administered fairly for all Canadian taxpayers.


Arthur Ronald Huntington: As a supplementary-


Mr. Speaker:: This appears to be a day when perhaps we can call upon a number of people who have not had an opportunity to put a question for some time. The Hon. Member for Kootenay West.


EDUCATION
Mr. Lyle S. Kristiansen (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State, and I have given him notice. The Minister will recall that I wrote to him in January of this year regarding the closure of the David Thompson University Centre in Nelson, British Columbia, and other problems arising from the massive diversions of federal post-secondary education funds by the British Columbia Gov-
February 24, 1984

eminent and, to a lesser degree, by other "mean and nasty" Conservative provincial Governments across Canada.
At that time I requested that the Minister give consideration either to imposing federal sanctions against British Columbia, or to providing special emergency funding to aid those programs and institutions being destroyed in my home Province, and in others. Similar appeals have also been made by my colleague, the Hon. Member for New Westminster-Coquitlam, and were echoed on February 14 by the Liberal Member for Ottawa Centre.
Will the Minister advise the House, first, whether he recognizes the seriousness of this problem in post-secondary education, especially in British Columbia, and, second, whether he is now considering, or will consider, any action along the lines suggested, either sanctions against B.C. or direct emergency funding to save the future of our students, their programs, and educational institutions?


Hon. Serge Joyal (Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, the question raised by the Hon. Member is a very serious one. It asks the question of what this Parliament should do when, after having voted funds in support of higher education in Canada, transferring these funds to the Provinces, one Province or another decides, in fact, not to pass on the funds to the institutions, but to cut additional funding to them.
1 have already written twice in the last six months to the Minister of Education for British Columbia, drawing the seriousness of this situation to his attention. This week I did appear at the Standing Committee on Finance of this House to announce that I have appointed a special task force, headed by Mr. A1 Johnson, to review the over-all policies which this House should adopt in future to ensure that, when it votes funds for support of higher education, those funds are passed on to the students and the university community.


DAVID THOMPSON UNIVERSITY CENTRE, NELSON, B.C.
Lyle Stuart Kristiansen: Mr. Speaker, I want to be clear on the answer. Is the Minister giving consideration-at least giving consideration-to the imposition either of sanctions or special emergency funding in the case of the David Thompson University Centre? This is the second time in seven years that a university campus has been closed down in that same community. And those are the first and second times, I believe, in the history of Canada that that kind of action has been taken. We need help desperately, and we need it now. Will the Minister consider, or is he considering, such sanctions or such aid as suggested by myself, the Hon. Member for New Westminster-Coquitlam, and by the Liberal Member for Ottawa Centre?


Serge Joyal: Mr. Speaker, those are options and suggestions which are under consideration. As a matter of fact the suggestion to impose penalties has been commended by some associations of university teachers in the country, although some have opposed that as not being the right course of action to take.
Oral Questions
The Hon. Member is then suggesting additional funding, or emergency funding be provided. I would suggest to him that it would not solve the problems because some other Provinces might be tempted to do the same in order that Parliament would be called upon to vote additional funding. We are reviewing the various options. I will be in British Columbia myself later this month to meet with the Minister of Education. I will certainly raise the matter pointed out by the Hon. Member. However, as I said, we are looking at the various options which would address the root of the problem and not just come up with a temporary solution which would not cure the problem at its root.


NATIONAL REVENUE
Mr. John McDermid (Brampton-Georgetown):: Mr. Speaker, my colleagues have been unsuccessful with this question. I will try again. I would like to ask the Minister of National Revenue if he will give us a simple yes or no. We know about all the responsibilities, and everything else. Does the Minister support and have complete faith in his Deputy Minister in the Ministry of Revenue-yes or no?


Pierre Bussières: Mr. Speaker, we have just seen the true face of the Conservative Members-


Henry Perrin Beatty: Yes or no?


Mr. Crosbie:: Answer the question.


An Hon. Member:: Answer the question, yes or no.


John Carnell Crosbie: Does the Deputy have any confidence in you?


Pierre Bussières: The Hon. Member just said that he does not care about the sense of responsibility. I do care.


MINISTER'S POSITION
John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, that is not what he said at all. That is not what the Hon. Member said at all. He said, "We know the responsibilities". What I am asking the Minister is, does he have faith, does he support unequivocally, his Deputy Minister? Will he stand up and say he supports him, yes or no? It is a simple yes or no answer we want from him. Oui ou non; what is it?


Pierre Bussières: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member will simply not understand.
I told him how I intend to take my responsibilities, and he replied that he did not have any sense of responsibility. I went on to say that my responsibilities and those of my officials are to work as a team to ensure the fair implementation of the

February 24, 1984
Oral Questions
Income Tax Act. Mr. Speaker, that implies that all parties concerned work in a climate of mutual confidence and trust.


PLACEMENT OF MINISTER'S CONFIDENCE
Mr. W. C. Scott (Victoria-Haliburton):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also directed to the Minister of National Revenue. If I were the Deputy Minister of National Revenue I would be humiliated by the answer which has been given by the Minister. Will the Minister answer yes or no on whether he enjoys the full confidence of his Deputy Minister of Finance?
[ Translation]


Pierre Bussières: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member is a bit confused by his own improvisation!
I would simply suggest to him that, instead of rising when prompted to do so by his colleagues, he ought to prepare sensible questions rather than making stupid remarks like his colleagues when clear answers have already been given.


REPORTED STATEMENTS MADE BY MEMBER FOR KITCHENER
Walter Franklin McLean: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister of National Revenue a question in another context. Yesterday as I left Kitchener the Minister's colleague, the Member for Kitchener, indicated on radio station CKKW that the problems in the Department lay at the feet of the Deputy Minister. The Minister's Deputy has been attacked by his colleague. Does the Minister have full confidence in his Deputy?


Pierre Bussières: Mr. Speaker, either the Hon. Member is deaf, or he does not want to understand anything, or perhaps he does not listen to the answers!
I answered his questions three or four times.


Walter Franklin McLean: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary.


Mr. Speaker:: The same question has been asked four times. The Hon. Member for New Westminster-Coquitlam.


NUCLEAR ARMAMENTS
Ms. Pauline Jewett (New Westminster-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of National Defence, the Minister of the Environment, the Prime Minister, and the
Secretary of State for External Affairs, I would like to direct my question to the Acting Prime Minister.
This week a claim was made by the Department of National Defence that the chances of environmental hazards such as crashes and forest fires resulting from the Cruise missile tests were one in a million. This is totally misleading the public. The U.S. consultant who conducted the Cruise hazard study used by the U.S. military has said the figures given by our Department of National Defence were totally unrealistic and, in fact, absolutely in error.
Will the Acting Minister inform the House, on behalf of the Government and the Department of National Defence, that it will immediately issue another bulletin with the correct assessment of the very grave hazards which are going to come upon us with the testing of the Cruise missile?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, I am afraid my hon. friend will have to make her own decision. As an intellectual, which she is to a great degree, she has had to make decisions of this kind in her life. On almost every subject she is confronted with extremist and middle of the road opinions, and she has to make her own decision.
If the Minister of Defence were here I am sure he would say he has full confidence in his officials, particularly in his DM, when they present him with views of this kind. I cannot help her very much. It is a question of her making up her mind which of those opinions is the most valid. 1 would tend to believe the Canadian opinion in this matter.


Mr. Speaker:: A short supplementary. We have refused supplementaries lately.


NUMBER OF CRASHES
Pauline Jewett: Mr. Speaker, the Cruise crashed were 44 out ot 109 flights, not one in a million. I would like to direct my supplementary question to the Prime Minister, who is in the House, Mr. Speaker, but not in his place.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Edmonton-Strathcona.


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Mr. David Kilgour (Edmonton-Strathcona):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice. Precisely why has the Government of Canada taken the position it has in its factum in the case of Her Majesty versus Roger Bilodeau?


Mark R. MacGuigan: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member's question is so broad that I am not sure what he has in mind. If he could be more specific in his supplementary question I might be able to provide a reply.
February 24, 1984

This case in under appeal and there are limitations on what either of us can say with respect to it.
Mir. Speaker: The Elon. Member for Edmonton-Strathcona. Please bear in mind the problems.


GOVERNMENT SUBMISSIONS
David Kilgour: Mr. Speaker, the Minister and I are both lawyers. Why is the Minister opposed to the position of Roger Bilodeau on the basis of the "shall" being a mandatory, and on the basis of necessity, which is the position his factum takes in the Supreme Court of Canada? His position seems to me to be inconsistent with the position of the Prime Minister and Section 23 of the Charter of Rights. Can he tell us why this is?


Mark R. MacGuigan: Mr. Speaker, there was certainly no such inconsistency. However, in light of possible happenings in Manitoba I think the federal submissions before the Supreme Court of Canada will clearly have to be reconsidered.


NATIONAL REVENUE
Mr. G. M. Gurbin (Bruce-Grey):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Revenue. I would like to apologize to the Minister of National Revenue. I have been listening carefully over the last number of days, and particularly today, to his answers, because I have had a veritable flood of difficulties in my constituency with Revenue Canada to the extent that my constituents and myself have lost confidence in the tax system.
I could not understand the Minister's response to a number of previous questioners today. Was his answer yes or no when he was asked whether he had confidence in his Deputy Minister?
[ Translation]


Pierre Bussières: Mr. Speaker, I have the impression that the Hon. Member needs more time before my answers sink in. I would urge him to ponder over them in Hansard next week to find out the answer he is seeking.


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Mr. Jim Fulton (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, in the recurring absence of the Prime Minister, my question is for the Minister of Justice. Members of the House, and Canadians generally,
Oral Questions
know the position taken by the Minister and the Prime Minister in the past on matters that are before the courts, particularly the Supreme Court of Canada. Would he tell Members of the House what his position is on the testing of the Cruise missile in Canada? Would he not agree that it should be stopped, completely terminated, while this matter is before the courts, simply on the principle of British common law and law practised in this country?


Mark R. MacGuigan: Mr. Speaker, if the Hon. Member is addressing his question to me on the basis of the law, and indeed that is the only kind of question to which my portfolio would allow me to reply, the answer is that he is clearly wrong. In our law the remedy in such a situation is an injunction. It is not to ask parties to stop short of an injunction. Therefore, there is certainly no legal requirement on the federal Government in such a case.
If my hon. friend has a question of policy, he will have to address it to the appropriate Minister.


THE PRESS
Hon. Steven E. Paproski (Edmonton North):: Mr. Speaker, my question was to be directed to the Minister of Multicultur-alism, but he is in Toronto cutting back all kinds of grants for the ethnic press. I will direct my question to the Secretary of State who is senior Minister in that particular Department. Why is the Minister of Multiculturalism cutting back on government advertising to the ethnic press, particularly in metro Toronto? Does his Government separate it between Grits and Tories? What is happening?


Serge Joyal: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member has raised a point that creates many questions around his allegation. If I remember well, less than a year ago there was an announcement by the then Minister of Multiculturalism that there was an enrichment of the programs of the Secretary of State in support of the ethnic press in Canada. I am quite sure that in the application of the criteria to support the ethnic press, some cases may have been reviewed along the lines of the criteria of the program. But the total budget that has been allocated for that specific program has been increased by many hundreds of thousands of dollars in the last year.
There might be one case where that could be questioned, and we would like to look into the definite details of that case. On the whole, my recollection is that the program has been enriched and that the over-all community should profit from it.

February 24, 1984
Oral Questions


DISTRIBUTION OF ADVERTISING
Steve Eugene Paproski: Mr. Speaker, I hope the Minister would review this because I have had a number of inquiries. As a former Minister I guess they feel they should write me a note to say that the Government is doing now what it is supposed to do 60 days before the next election. It is already starting to cut back between those who are Grits and those who are Tories in the Toronto area.


Serge Joyal: Mr. Speaker, if the Hon. Member wants to provide me with the details of the specific case that he has in mind, I will certainly take it upon myself to look into it and report to him, either today or early next week, to make sure everyone is fairly treated and that the criteria are applied with the same kind of equity for everyone.


TOURISM
Mr. Mel Gass (Malpeque):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for Small Businesses and Tourism. At the first of the week we had a meeting in Charlottetown with TIAC, the Tourism Industry Association of Canada. There were numerous statistics given to us at that meeting on the decline of the tourism industry in Canada in 1983. There are an increasing number of Canadians going south, and fewer Americans coming north. Could the Minister give us any indication of why that is occurring?


Hon. David Smith (Minister of State (Small Businesses and Tourism)):: Mr. Speaker, it is true that there is in fact an imbalance in terms of tourist dollars between Canada and the United States. What we have done was to announce just recently a television campaign that will be launched in April in the northern tier of the United States, through which we will be going after American tourists to encourage them to come to Canada this summer.
In addition, a television campaign has just been launched encouraging Canadians to vacation in Canada. I believe the impact of both those campaigns will be to turn the situation around.


CANADIAN PACIFIC RAILWAY
Mr. Sid Parker (Kootenay East-Revelstoke):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the President of the Treasury Board. He will know that CP Rail was included in the six and five restraint program, yet at this time CP Rail has invoked a material change in working conditions that will reduce the wages of employees of CP Rail in Cranbrook, British Columbia. Will the President of the Treasury Board investigate this, with a view to telling CP Rail that it cannot do this
at this time and must wait until the restraint program is completed?


Hon. Herb Gray (President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, I would be happy to look into the matter, and certainly if it turns out that it is not consistent with the law passed by this Parliament I will see that appropriate action is taken.


EMPLOYMENT
Mr. Gordon Gilchrist (Scarborough East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Employment and Immigration. He and the Prime Minister have made a very large case for the competence-I think efficacy was his word-of Liberal Members of Parliament in getting special recovery funds for their ridings as opposed to other ridings. Would he explain why Ontario, as a total, which has higher unemployment than Quebec, has managed to get 51 per cent less funds than Quebec? Does that mean that the efficacy of Liberal Members in Ontario is substantially below that of their counterparts in Quebec?


John (Moody) Roberts: Mr. Speaker, I would not want to come to such a broad and sweeping condemnation as the Hon. Member has, but I would remind him that we have also said that these programs are part of the effort to combat unemployment and that there are others on the part of the Government that are equally directed in doing so. I have stressed particularly the importance of my colleague's Budget and the kinds of tax incentives that it has provided to create jobs which will obviously have a very considerable impact in Ontario.
I have also pointed out to the House that one must take into account, in considering job creation questions, the fact that some Provinces, because they are wealthier, have greater fiscal resources for responding to job-creation problems within their areas. In considering that, Ontario is one of the richer Provinces and therefore can reasonably be expected to make a more vigorous effort than some of the relatively disadvantaged Provinces in other parts of the country. I have repeated those kinds of facts in the House before.
I have argued that when one takes into account those alternative thrusts toward job creation, the figures that relate to Ontario are reasonable in terms of the over-all context.
February 24, 1984


SEARCH AND RESCUE
Hon. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for Mines in the absence of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. The abandonment yesterday of the oil rig Vinland dramatically highlights and emphasizes the danger to our off-shore workers.
The Minister of National Defence has indicated that in his estimation there is sufficient deployment off the east coast of Newfoundland, in reply to a request from the Newfoundland Government for direct access to helicopters for the offshore workers. The Minister knows that this year there are very hazardous ice fields out there. Can the Minister tell the House and his own Province why the Government will not agree to the reasonable and responsible request of the Government of Newfoundland to have helicopters placed in St. John's so that they will be directly accessible to the 500 workers out there who are in constant danger?


Hon. William Rompkey (Minister of State (Mines)):: Mr. Speaker, 1 appreciate the Hon. Member's question. I want to assure him of my own concern over that matter, as I am sure he, and indeed the people of the Province, are deeply concerned.
I think to focus on the helicopters exclusively is possibly not to paint the whole picture. I think a lot has been done in the past couple of years to improve the situation with regard to search and rescue off the East Coast. Many guidelines and procedures have been put in place. There is a lot of equipment that was not there before.
I also point out to him that there are other ships, such as fishing ships and transport ships, that must be accounted for in addition to the drill rigs.
I would say to him that I do not think that we can ever rest easy about any system. I think we should continue to monitor that, and as we proceed into the development stage I think we should be very careful that every possible consideration is given to putting the best possible search and rescue system in place.


RAILWAYS
Mr. Stan Schellenberger (Wetaskiwin):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport. Would he tell the House whether he still has the $204 million Agricultural Adjustment Fund available to him? Is it his intention to use that fund, if it is still available, to alleviate the livestock hurt as a result of the Crow Bill as was indicated in the Gilson report, or will he use it for a new feed grains policy for which the Minister of Agriculture seems to be intending its use?
Business of the House


Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, as the Hon. Member knows, we addressed that particular question several times during the committee debates on the Grain Transportation Act. What I indicated at that time still holds true. The money that was set aside to provide for that adjustment was related to the method of payments question. My intention is to establish an inquiry committee as early as this April to look into the various choices and alternatives in the method of payment. We would not want to have any disposition of those funds until some report was made back to Parliament and some conclusions were made so the money would be relayed to that specific part of the Act, which is very central to the operation of the entire Bill.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Pinard:: Mr. Speaker, consultations have been held by the Prime Minister of Canada and the other Party leaders, and it seems there is unanimous consent for the following: first, to allow the Minister of Transport (Mr. Axworthy) to move forthwith a Resolution concerning language and language rights in Manitoba. Once the Resolution has been moved, the understanding is that there will be one speaker for each Party which will enable adoption of the Resolution without further debate.
Mr. Speaker, I suggest that you seek unanimous consent of the House for allowing the Minister of Transport (Mr. Axworthy) to move the Resolution, and then put the Resolution before the House. The Minister of Transport (Mr. Axworthy) will then make his speech, followed by one speaker for each Opposition Party.


Mr. Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for the Minister of Transport (Mr. Axworthy) to introduce the motion?


Mr. Hnatyshyn:: Mr. Speaker, the consultations referred to by the Government House Leader have, in fact, taken place. He has stated the agreement that will be arrived at after the three representatives of the respective parties in the House have spoken. The motion will be deemed to have been passed. We agree to that. We are also giving unanimous consent to the motion being presented at this time.


Mr. Young:: Mr. Speaker, the statement of the House Leader for the Government side is in conformity with our understanding and our agreement.


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Agreed and so ordered.

February 24, 1984
Official Languages OFFICIAL LANGUAGES


RESOLUTION ON FRENCH LANGUAGE RIGHTS IN MANITOBA
Lloyd Axworthy: That:
Whereas the House, in a resolution adopted on October 6, 1983 with unanimous support from all Parties, invited the Government and Legislative Assembly of Manitoba to take action as expeditiously as possible to fulfil their constitutional obligations and to protect effectively the rights of the French-speaking minority of the province;
Whereas the House also endorsed on that occasion the essence of the agreement reached to that end on May 16, 1983 by the Government of Canada and the Government of Manitoba, with the participation of the Societe Franco-Manitobaine;
Whereas the Government of Manitoba introduced in the Legislative Assembly of the province, on July 4, 1983, a constitutional resolution providing for the amendment of the Manitoba Act, 1870 and, subsequently, amendments thereto as well as a bill respecting public services which, together, are consistent with the essence of the agreement reached on May 16, 1983 by the Government of Canada and the Government of Manitoba;
Whereas the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba, after several months of debate, is being prevented from bringing the constitutional resolution to a vote, and therefore from fulfilling its constitutional obligations;
(1)	the House urges the Government of Manitoba to persist in its efforts to fulfil the constitutional obligations of the province and protect effectively the rights of its French-speaking minority in a spirit of tolerance and civility, amity and generosity;
(2)	the House urges the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba to consider such resolution and legislation in an urgent manner so as to ensure their timely passage.
He said: Mr. Speaker, first let me express my thanks on behalf of Members on this side and all Members of the House for having granted unanimous consent to introduce this resolution that is of such major importance both to my own province and to the country as a whole. It takes us back not that many months ago to October 6 when this Parliament, perhaps in one of its finest hours during the past several years, agreed also unanimously to a resolution urging the Manitoba Legislature to find the solution to the matter of language rights in my home province.
That was a very important moment. It was a very historic moment. This Parliament was united, speaking with one voice, marking a spirit of hope and expectation so that a major historical wrong could be put right through the actions of the elected members of the Assembly of Manitoba and ultimately this Parliament.
Unfortunately, as we viewed those hopes and expectations of October they have become something of a distant echo. All too often news reports coming from Manitoba are full of stories of paralysis, stalemate, rancor, indignation and frustration. As we all know, the legislature of that province has been unable to find the resolution to the proposals that were brought forward.
As a citizen of the Province of Manitoba, and there are other Members of this House who share that distinction, we ache with what we see in our home territory. It is difficult to witness the kind of division that takes place. It is frustrating to see the business of the province come to a halt, to be received by deadlock in the Legislative Assembly. This is preventing the business which that province desperately needs to create work
and to deal with the social problems of its citizens which cannot be seized by the Manitoba Legislature because of this overriding issue.
The business of the province has reached a stalemate, but perhaps more important is what has happened to the people. I think I speak for most Manitobans who would like to see the problem resolved. There is a great sense of willingness, I believe, to look at the record of almost 100 years and to find ways of resolving it. But for whatever the causes and for whatever the underlying reasons, that has not been the case. That is why it is so important that this House once again speak with a united and unanimous voice and reassert and reaffirm its commitments to the Constitution of Canada. Once again we must put forward our voice of reason and reasonableness to argue that we must correct a historical wrong, correct the past injustices and invite Manitobans, in fact all Canadians, to approach this matter in a state of tolerance and generosity.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lloyd Axworthy: There are some in my province who argue that this House has no business in the issue, that it is purely made in Manitoba. I think throughout the discourse and debate that has gone on there has been a degree of restraint on behalf of federal Members of Parliament and other Canadians to allow over time the efforts of that province to focus on its responsibilities. Those who say that we have no business are dead wrong. This is not a matter that can be confined or limited simply to the boundaries of Manitoba; it is an issue for all Canadians. We are going to the very heart of what this country is all about, to the very basic fundamentals of our Constitution-the fact that we are not prepared to recognize that anybody will be a stranger somewhere in this country, that there is equality of treatment. Whether it be linguistic, sexual or moral treatment, everyone must be treated equal. We must make sure that takes place.


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


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, we know it is vital for all Canadians to have the right to work, to live and travel anywhere in Canada. We know it is important to fight the separatist view that a group has to stay in a given region without having a choice in this matter. We realize the importance of protecting English and French minorities in each region.
Language rights are a fact of life in Canada and an essential part of our Federation. Therefore, we must accept official recognition of French in Manitoba.

There is another issue which it is important to consider, that is, what has happened in Manitoba and what statement it makes about the democratic process. One reason our resolution of October 6 was so heartily endorsed by all Members of
February 24, 1984

the House was that we believe fundamentally it should be a decision that takes place within the democratic chambers of our country; that it should be a decision arrived at by elected members; that it should demonstrate that the authority and legitimacy of making decisions for the protection of minorities can be and should be made by elected representatives. It is important for the House to re-establish and reaffirm once again our commitment to that area.
What future can there be for parliamentary government in Canada if in every legislature certain groups try to halt the process when their arguments fail? How can legislatures remain the central focus of legitimacy and authority in our society? How can they remain the central decision-making body if a government has to prorogue because some of its members prevent the taking of a vote-perhaps the most fundamental right of any democracy, the right finally to decide?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lloyd Axworthy: I believe the strong message of this resolution which we are putting forward in the House today is to underline clearly the commitment to that process and to give a sense of hope and confidence to all Canadians, minorities or otherwise, that this is the place where decisions are made, that this is the place where rights are protected and that this is the place where liberties are defended. We may disagree, as we do every day, about the nature, extent and character of those rights and liberties, but this is the place, in the Chamber, where those decisions must take place. We must say in our resolution, which we will through its unanimous adoption, that that really is the underpinning of our society.
This is why it is so important for us to encourage and to provide every ounce of persuasion, both as a Chamber and as individuals, to the leadership, the political people and the elected members in Manitoba to Find once again a basis of moderation, to search out for a common sense solution and to adopt a position which will firmly recognize those rights in the Constitution, firmly prefer and offer the services required, and do so in a way which will extinguish the fumes and vapours of extremism that are beginning to seep over that territory and have the possibility of spreading even further.
We have an opportunity today to build a fortress against any further extension of those tragic and sometimes very unhappy circumstances which we see happening. It is my hope that through this resolution we will be able to provide that sense of encouragement and sense of support to the Assembly of Manitoba to come to a resolution.
It may be important as well for Members of the House to consider whether there should be further steps, to look at the basic spirit and essence of the May 16 agreement which recognized the importance of a resolution being passed in both Houses, and to determine whether, if it would help, if we had the sense through consultation and discussion with our confreres in Manitoba and among ourselves, and if we were able to move a resolution based upon that May 16 agreement in this House again entrenching and confirming those rights, it
Official Languages
might provide a further incentive, a further impetus and a further motivation for Manitoba to pass its resolution so that this House can live up to its responsibilities and complete our side of the bargain.
I leave that as a matter of some examination, some judgment and some assessment by Members of all Parties in this House. I think it is our responsibility to speak out and provide suasion, but it may also be important at this point in time or in the near future-perhaps when the House returns after our break-to address the further issue of whether it is time for a resolution here to demonstrate clearly to the official opposition in Manitoba that their amendments and subamendments, which are simply there to validate some statutes, are not acceptable to the House of Commons.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lloyd Axworthy: I have taken up enough time of the House. I do not think we have to go over the history or the details of the organ; I am sure we are all well familiar and associated with it. I would simply express once again on behalf of our side our appreciation to other Members of the House, knowing that we all share the same spirit and interest in having the problems of language rights in Manitoba resolved, not just for Manitobans but for all Canadians. We really are debating today, once again, the future of this country.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Brian Mulroney (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, in a perceptive column Fred Cleverly of the Winnipeg Free Press described a recent meeting of the grassroots movement in Manitoba: the meeting was peaceful; the tone temperate; the participants, hard-working Manitobans. They were neither extremists nor reactionaries, as some have called them. They were ordinary Manitobans, articulating a vision of Canada, a vision I can understand but cannot share on this important point.

On October 6 of last year, I announced on behalf of my colleagues the unanimous support of our caucus for the resolution tabled that day by my colleague, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau). I said at the time, and I shall, if I may, say it again today, that our support for the French speaking minority in Manitoba, as well as for other minorities in this country, is a strong and lasting one. I also said that this resolution compelled us to remember our overriding commitments in this country of almost limitless space, overflowing with great opportunities for the future. These commitments comprise a respect for our linguistic and other minorities, a long-held desire to encourage their flowering, and the duty to protect the rights of our minorities-wherever they may be.
Mr. Speaker, the same thoughts are appropriate to the resolution tabled in the House today.
On February 15 of this year, following a caucus meeting, I announced publicly our renewed support for the Franco

February 24, 1984
Official Languages
Manitobans. The press release issued that day, following our meeting, announced, and I quote:
All Members of the Federal Progressive Conservative caucus renewed their support for the position announced by Mr. Mulroney. That support remains unchanged and continues to reflect the position of Mr. Mulroney and all his caucus colleagues on this subject.

We are all children of our environment, the sum total of our human experiences. I learned years ago that a Manitoban, indeed most westerners, does not perceive the Canadian duality and the importance of its linguistic application with the same degree of immediacy as someone whose roots are in the east. In eastern Canada from the very beginning, the French-English alliance, uneasy though it has been, became a daily reality. The sheer impact of numbers and the consequent political influence have ensured that it be so. Millions of French Canadians could not be ignored, nor could their rights be set aside. Accordingly, we have witnessed the slow but certain evolution of the protection of French language rights and others over the decades. Perfect equality has not been attained everywhere, but the evolutionary process, deeply rooted in reality and the doctrine of fairness, is irreversible in the east of this country.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: I acknowledge, Mr. Speaker, that the view in some areas of western Canada is different. It is neither pernicious nor benighted. It is simply different. It is different because the evolution of western Canada did not in some very important respects parallel the evolution in the east.
Vast waves of courageous immigrants from the Ukraine, Central Europe and elsewhere arrived to cause the Prairies to blossom and grow. Their sense of sacrifice and their unremitting commitment to the soil gave life to western Canada. Though different in background, they found in western Canada common ground in language. English became the quasi-universal instrument of communication. In many ways, in many important ways it became a unifying force among people of remarkably diverse backgrounds.
That precious and fragile dimension of linguistic duality which Macdonald and Cartier saw as an indispensable characteristic of nationhood was submerged by growing demographic realities of the new west. The country grew; the English language became more dominant and ultimately more pervasive. This was the silent and the inexorable toll of history. In my judgment, it emerged less through contrivance than through the irresistible effect of overwhelming numbers. Large groups of Germans, Ukrainians, Poles, Swedes and Icelanders have made the Prairies home.
But what of the small group of Franco-Manitobans who were there at the beginning as one of the founding partners of the dual linguistic dimension of Canada? They were there with rights and obligations, establishing the unique beachhead for Canada. They would later be joined by so many others of whom I have spoken who opted for the English-speaking side
of our unique dual dimension. But the linguistic rights of Franco-Manitobans were not submerged. They were removed. They were removed by a wilful act of the legislature in violation of a historic understanding. Today, Mr. Speaker, we ask simply that these rights be returned.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: I think in some way, I hope in some important way, I understand the feeling of large groups of Manitobans who believe that their languages brought from the old country deserve a place no less prominent than the French language, which is used by relatively few Manitobans. But those few-those courageous few-who have kept the French language and culture alive in Manitoba deserve today the gratitude and not the harassment of their fellow citizens.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: Because they have ensured through decades of anguish that, in some modest way, the unique and priceless vision of our founding fathers has perservered. To the dismay of some and the chagrin of others, but I suspect to the pride of most, they have made it possible for Canada to affirm today that French Canadians need not be locked into an enclave in one province; and they have made it possible for us to say as a nation that there are other ways, because not only there can the rights of French Canadians be protected to the exclusion of other areas in Canada. They have made it possible for Canada and millions of French Canadians to reject the ultimate siren call of separation based on language. They have made it possible for Canadians in a very certain way, and in particular for growing, overwhelming numbers of young Canadians, the hope of the future, to say of our unusual and imperfect land: this is the kind of tolerant and generous country I want to preserve for future generations.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: So, Mr. Speaker, today my thoughts are with that small group of people in Manitoba, isolated from Quebec and New Brunswick and Ontario where millions of their fellow French Canadians live in increasingly beneficial, cultural, linguistic and economic surroundings. I think of them and I salute them for their dignity and their courage. On behalf of my Party today, I feel genuinely honoured to assist in a process that begins to repair a grievance and historic wrong.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: I think as well of the other Manitobans whose vision of Canada, formed and shaped in circumstances different from mine, might make it difficult for them to understand or accept what I have said. I say to them how deeply I regret the unsettling events of the last few months. Although we have disagreed on this fundamental issue, I know that Manitobans have been motivated by a different historical perspective of our nation and not by a sense of malice.
I invite Manitobans, all Manitobans, as Canadians, to bind up the wounds and to deal promptly with the question of
February 24, 1984

minority language rights. There could be no doubt where I stand. There can be no question as to where the obligation of a national political party lies. It lies today, as it shall tomorrow, in ensuring that our minorities in Canada are treated at all times with dignity and with justice.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, I was born in Manitoba. I have lived all my life there. I grew up in the south; I represent the north. I know that my province is not the domain of bigots. I know that my province is not the domain of racists. Most Manitobans have a tolerance for those with different religious beliefs, those from different language groups, those with different colour skin.
Part of our history has been to welcome people from the Ukraine, to welcome people from Germany, to live with the native population of our province. Louis Riel is the father of Manitoba. We have been tolerant of each other from that day. We have had our problems. We have had unjust laws passed by the Manitoba Legislature. The actions that are taking place in the Province of Manitoba at this time are to restore the rights of those who have been deprived by those unjust laws. It is imperative that we in this House and Canadians throughout this country, regardless of their political beliefs, work for the protection of each and every minority in our country.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, I, too, have watched television and seen the antics of those who have disgraced Manitoba and shamed me personally. Those people do not represent the majority of the people of Manitoba.
There are others who have legitimate concerns about the course of bilingualism. There are people who are legitimately concerned about the employment opportunities of their sons and daughters if bilingualism is entrenched in the Province of Manitoba. It is a legitime concern which all of us as parents can understand. But it is not the real issue in the Province of Manitoba.
The legislation before that legislature is limited. It limits French language services to areas where the population warrants those services. It limits the use of those services in government offices. I say to all Canadians that it does not provide complete protection and complete use of services to the Francophone minority in Manitoba, but it does recognize the historic right of that population and that where there is a French speaking community, there should be services for those people.
The proposals in Manitoba provide adequate safeguards for both the minority and the majority. That is important for all of us to understand, important for all Manitobans to understand. I am a Manitoban who speaks only English. I am learning French but it is a slow process for me. I represent a riding where there are two official languages, English and Cree. In my riding 30 per cent of the population speak Cree. They are
Official Languages
not affected in a positive way by this legislation, but they are people who can understand that in Canada we are not just English and French; we are not just English, French and Ukrainian; we are not just English, French, Ukrainian and German. We are a mosaic, not a melting pot. In Canada, as in Manitoba, we must respect that fact. We must respect the concerns and the aspirations of the Ukrainian population, the concerns of the Mennonite population, indeed the concerns of all segments of our population. In the Manitoba Legislature that is what is being attempted, and both I and my caucus support it not only on historic grounds but because it is the right thing to do in Canada; it is the right thing to do in the Province of Manitoba.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Rodney Edward Murphy: Since 1870 we have had protection in our Constitution in Manitoba for the French and English fact. In 1870 the French-speaking native population was the majority. Louis Riel, as a result of a rebellion, negotiated with the Government of Canada for the protection of both English and French. That is a proud part of our history and we should all recognize that. Now that the English are the majority, now that other cultural and linguistic groups have surpassed the French, we should also show the tolerance of Riel. We should recognize that there are some services, some basic rights, for a group which granted the minority of that day, the English, those rights.
We in this nation are anything but monolithic. But if the majority in our nation ever decides that it is going to use its power as some in the Province of Manitoba are presently trying to do, if they are going to use that power on the French-speaking population of Manitoba with its constitutional guarantee which has been upheld by the Supreme Court of Canada, then, Mr. Speaker, no Canadian is safe; no religious minority is safe, no linguistic minority is safe, no individual or group of individuals with different beliefs from the majority is safe in this country.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Rodney Edward Murphy: The Government of Manitoba can stand with pride. They are fighting a difficult fight. They are fighting a fight not only on behalf of the 6 per cent of the population of Manitoba who speak French, but they are fighting a fight on behalf of tolerance throughout this nation. In Manitoba that tolerance is being challenged by a minority party in the legislature. It is being challenged on the streets and in meetings held throughout that province. But we as Members of Parliament, as Canadians, and we as Manitobans, must fight for tolerance throughout this nation. We must fight for tolerance throughout Manitoba, and we must fight for tolerance in the Legislature of Manitoba.
That is what this resolution does. We are saying that we will work to protect the rights of one of our minorities. It is a small minority in Manitoba, a larger minority in other parts of Canada, but nevertheless a minority; and we believe, along with the Manitoba Government, that we must support that

February 24, 1984
Tabling of Documents
minority despite the intolerance which exists, despite the bigotry which exists in some areas. We must do so despite the fact that at one particular time it may be politically unpopular.
I congratulate the Government of Manitoba, I congratulate the Leaders of all three Parties in this House, and I hope that not only do we pass the resolution, Mr. Speaker, but that we work to make sure we have a much more tolerant society throughout this nation. Thank you.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to agreement reached earlier this day, the motion is deemed to have been adopted.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS

[Stage Direction]
[ Translation]

Mr. David Berger (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Chairman of the House Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs, I wish to table the First Report of the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs.
[Editor's Note: For above report, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]


CANADA POST CORPORATION
Hon. Andre Ouellet (Minister of Labour):: Pursuant to Standing Order 46(2) as well as Section 33 of the Canada Post Corporation Act, Mr. Speaker, I wish to table in both official languages and for reference to the Standing Committee on Transport, the annual report of the Canada Post Corporation for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1983.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, in Toronto today the Minister of State for Multiculturalism (Mr. Col-lenette) is speaking to the ethnic community and saying that he is going to be pledging more money for advertising, when he has cut advertising-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The Hon. Member cannot make a statement at this point. These are Routine Proceedings and I am sure there will be an opportunity for him to rise and make his point.


Steve Eugene Paproski: All I am saying-


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair cannot entertain a point of order at this stage in Routine Proceedings.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. John Evans (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 53, 354, 416, 471, 548, 637 and 649.


Mr. Howie: Since July 1980, how many (a) demonstrations (b) hunger strikes (c) hostagetaking incidents have occurred at Dorchester Penitentiary?


Hon. Bob Kaplan (Solicitor General of Canada):: In so far
as the Correctional Service of Canada is concerned: (a) twenty-four, (b) three, (c) two.


Mr. St. Germain: 1.	For the fiscal year 1982-83 what was the total budget for Fashion Canada and what was its mandate?
2.	In the same year, how many persons were directly employed by the Agency?


Hon. Ed Lumley (Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion):: 1. For the fiscal year 1982-83, the total budget for Fashion Canada was $33,000. Its mandate was to promote Canadian fashion and to develop Canadian fashion designers.
2. For the same fiscal year, no employees had directly been employed. One officer from the then Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce was, however, assigned to work for Fashion Canada.


Mr. Howie: For the fiscal year ending March 31, 1983, how many (a) homicides (b) attempted murders (c) assaults (non-sexual) (d) robberies (e) sexual assaults were reported in Canada?


Hon. Charles Lapointe (Minister of Supply and Services):: Statistics Canada reports: Data for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1983 are not available yet. For the calendar year 1982, the preliminary Figures are as follows:
(a)	Total reported homicides numbered 710. Forty of those were found to be unfounded*0 leaving 670 actual offences.
(b)	Reported and actual figures for attempted murders were 987 and 943, respectively.
After police investigation
February 24, 1984

(c)	Total reported assults (not indecent) numbered 133,699; actual offences in this category numbered 125,912.
(d)	Reported robberies totaled 28,105 while actual robberies, after the subtraction of unfounded offences, totaled 27,257.
Order Paper Questions
(e)	Total reported sexual offences numbered 16,012. The subtraction of unfounded offences resulted in an actual figure of 13,864.
The table below provides more detailed information on total crimes of violence in Canada for the calendar year 1982.
Offences	Reported or Known	Unfounded	Actual Number	Offences Cleared By charge <	Otherwise	Adults Charged Male Female		Juvenile ^ Offenders
Canada								
[DOT][DOT]Homicide-total	710	40	670	500	72	506	68	26Murder, first degree	306	22	284	190	42	220	16	8Murder, second degree	353	13	340	267	25	248	41	11Mans Laughter	46	4	42	42	4	38	10	6Infanticide	5	1	4	1	1	0	1	1** At tempted murder-total	987	44	943	738	55	704	87	29** Assaults (not indecent)-total	133,699	7,787	125,912	41,172	57,373	36,092	4,476	6,546Wounding	2,865	293	2,572	1,385	468	1,115	249	116Bodily harm	32,278	1,074	31,204	14,435	9,130	13,753	1,205	1,585Police	5,101	12	5,089	4,800	179	3,924	466	141Other peace-public officers	987	33	954	666	140	567	48	30Other assaults	92,468	6,375	86,093	19,886	47,456	16,733	2,508	4,674** Robbery-total	28,105	848	27,257	6,553	1,403	6,963	525	1,678Firearms	9,076	122	8,954	2,250	292	2,216	104	348Other offensive weapons	6,314	153	6,161	1,762	328	1,810	145	420Other robbery	12,715	573	12,142	2,541	783	2,937	276	910[DOT][DOT]Sexual offences-total	16,012	2,148	13,864	5,345	2,786	4,369	121	1,064Rape Inaecent assault-Female	3,633	1,105	2,528	1,037	308	1,067	8	817,681	657	7,024	2,456	1,515	1,816	20	716Indecent assault-Male	1,534	96	1,438	654	299	451	5	116Other sexual offences	3,164	290	2,874	1,198	587	1,035	88	151[DOT][DOT]Crimes of violence-total	179,513	10,867	168,646	54,308	61,689	48,634	5,277	9,343
m Includes both persons charged and those who were not charged. Source: Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics, Statistics Canada


Mr. Howie: 1.	Since January 1, 1983 did the Department of Justice undertake any studies relating to sentencing guides for judges and, if so (a) were these studies carried out by outside consultants (b) was any amount allocated to the studies and, if so, what amount (c) what is a list of the names of the person or persons who carried out the studies (d) were any studies carried out within the Department and, if so, how many?
2.	What was the purpose of the studies, did they achieve their objectives and will they be made public?


Mark R. MacGuigan: In so far as
the Department of Justice is concerned: There were no formal or discreet studies as such undertaken since January 1, 1983, by the Department of Justice relating to sentencing guides for judges. However, information and background materials were gathered by departmental officials as part of Phase II of the Criminal Review Project on Sentencing, which forms part of the Criminal Law Reform Bill introduced in the House of Commons on February 7, 1984. This information and background material, including approaches followed in other jurisdictions, were considered and used in the formulation of the
purpose and principles of sentencing which are contained in the Bill.


Mr. Howie: Does the Canada Employment and Immigration Centre operate the Occupational Orientation Program or the Job Readiness Training Program and, if so, how many persons availed themselves of each of these programs during the last year for which figures are available?


Mr. Jean-Guy Dubois (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Both the Occupational Orientation and Job Readiness Training Programs are operated by the Canada Employment Centres across Canada. During 1982-83 fiscal year, 3,512 Canadians were enrolled in the former and 6,776 in the latter program. The trainees are enrolled in courses that are purchased specifically for the program purposes by the Commission; the courses are designed and offered by the community colleges or equivalent institutions in each province.

February 24, 1984
Point of Order-Mr. Paproski BUSINESS OPPORTUNITIES SOURCING SYSTEM


Mr. Stewart: With reference to the answer to Question No. 128, in the fiscal year 1983-84, what amount was budgeted for the Business Opportunities Sourcing System?


Edward C. Lumley: For the fiscal year 1983-84, an amount of $240,000, non-salary dollars, was budgeted with an allocation of nine person-years.


Mr. Howie: In the current fiscal year, are any (a) criminologists (b) sociologists (c) statisticians employed by the Department of Justice and, if so, how many and, in each case, how many were so employed in each of the last two fiscal years?


Mark R. MacGuigan: The number of criminologists, sociologists and statisticians employed by the Department of Justice in the current and two preceding years is as follows:
Criminologists	Sociologists	Statisticians1981-82	3	3	21982-83	3	2	21983-84	4	2	2


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


Mr. Speaker:: The questions enumerated by the Parliamentary Secretary have been answered. Shall the remaining questions stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



POINT OF ORDER


Steve Eugene Paproski: Mr. Speaker, Ministers usually make statements in the House and you have called Statements by Ministers. The Minister is in Toronto making statements to the ethnic cultural community about the amount of money he is going to be giving out for advertising to the different communities. Why would he not make it here in the House? This is the place for making statements-


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member has made his point but it is not a point of order.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Mark R. MacGuigan: that Bill C-10, an Act to amend the Divorce Act, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.
He said: Mr. Speaker, to rise to support second reading of amendments to the Divorce Act, the first amendments since 1968 and, in fact, the most fundammental we have ever had to our law of divorce in Canada, is not a happy task. It is, rather, an onerous and painful duty. I believe the subject of marriage breakdown is one which many people in Canada would wish not to have to deal with. Indeed, we all wish that the reality in our country was not such that this is a matter which we are now required to consider. We are told that the estimate is that there is about a 40 per cent chance for any marriage entered into now to end in divorce.

Mr. Speaker, the concept of the family and the sacredness of marriage are deeply rooted in our society. As a government, we are entirely in favour of protecting and supporting this institution in Canada. For instance, our policies on the tax system, family allowances, the Canada Assistance Plan in relation to day-care and employment all indicate the Government's strong support for the institution of marriage and its preservation in Canada.
As for the causes of marriage breakdown, they are many: financial problems, urban overcrowding, housing shortages, increased mobility in our society owing to the search for employment and career development, changes in the traditional roles of men and women and finally, the emphasis on individual rights.
Mr. Speaker, marriage breakdown is a fact, and the Divorce Act is not intended as preventive but as curative legislation, aimed at organizing the legal status of people whose marriage has already broken down.
I also would like to make the point that the Divorce Act in its present form is destructive rather than constructive, and that it should be changed in order to promote as much as possible, reconciliation of the parties, in the hope of avoiding a divorce.

If this set of amendments to the law of divorce were likely to have the effect of undermining the institution of marriage in our society, we as a government would not be putting them forward. As 1 indicated, this law of divorce has to deal with a social fact. The social fact of marriage breakdown is occurring for broad social causes, for reason, entirely independent of the
February 24, 1984

laws of Canada. It may be true, indeed it is true, that the law regulates the number of divorces that take place each year in Canada, but it is not the law but rather social conditions that regulate and cause the number of marriage breakdowns which occur in our country. The role of the law is to deal with the social reality and the terrible cost in human pain and suffering which are involved in it.
As I will illustrate in the course of my remarks, it is the children more than any other single group who are the losers in marriage breakdown, in divorce. We would wish to have a law which would be so humanized that the children would suffer less than now is occurring under the law-as little, indeed, as our law can make possible.
Many people seem to have the idea that these proposals will make divorce easier to obtain in Canada. I categorically deny that interpretation, if by easier they mean quicker. This law, in fact, will make it slower, more difficult, for more than three-quarters of Canadians who now are obtaining divorces.
Statistics Canada tells us that in the years from 1969 to 1977, 75.8 per cent of divorce cases were completed through to decree absolute in less than 360 days, which is less than the period of one year which we are making the minimum possible for obtaining divorce under our amendments. In other words, three-quarters of the Canadians now obtaining divorces obtain them in less than the time we are proposing as the minimum time in this legislation. Because of the legislation, one-quarter of Canadians will be able to get their divorces more quickly but three-quarters will have to wait.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: No, you are wrong.


Mark R. MacGuigan: The Hon. Member simply does not know the statistics.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. For the sake of orderly debate the Minister should be allowed to make his comments now and replies will follow.


Mark R. MacGuigan: I can tell Hon. Members that these statistics are available through Statistics Canada, and they refer to a considerable period of years. In case the Hon. Member is not aware of what is now happening in our courts, I can tell him that since this legislation was given First reading in the House I have spoken to groups of lawyers practising family law in many cities in Canada; in Toronto, Victoria, London, Windsor, Charlottetown and other centres. They showed massive support for this legislation because as lawyers they understand what is actually happening. I have heard of divorces being granted in five weeks, four weeks, three weeks, and in one case from the beginning of the divorce to decree absolute a total of only nine days. That is what the present law in Canada is bringing about.
We are going to require all of these people, without exception, to wait a minimum of a year. We believe that there has to be time for reconsideration and reconciliation. The law which we are proposing would encourage married couples to reflect on their decision to divorce. It would impose an obligation on
Divorce Act
those who counsel them to draw to their attention the mediatory facilities which exist. It would also change the law with respect to the reconciliation period so that there would no longer be only a single period of cohabitation for reconciliation during the running of the time for divorce. It would be possible to have any number of such periods of reconciliation up to a maximum of three months.
More important than even those points, Mr. Speaker, is our proposal to reduce the accusatory aspect of the divorce process to the absolute minimum. As Hon. Members know, the reason that most people who are now applying for divorces can get them in such a short time is that they are obtaining them on the basis of cause: adultery, physical cruelty, mental cruelty and so on. The legal necessity for alleging cause-and we fear sometimes even for fabricating cause-in order to obtain a divorce is a legal concept which imposes an atmosphere of confrontation on the parties. It can involve the children as pawns in the marriage breakup, and it can, as I am sure Hon. Members know, have the effect of having children called in on examinations for discovery to testify, for instance, that they saw their father beating their mother.
We already know, Mr. Speaker, as my earlier words indicated, that children in all divorces carry a sense of guilt that they were somehow unwittingly the cause of the marriage breakup. When the law adds to this natural psychological tendency by requiring there be accusation, and sometimes accusation piled on accusation and counter-accusation, it of course adds to the guilt that a child will feel, especially if the child has to testify to prove the existence of the cause of cruelty on which the divorce may be based.
There is a profound need, Mr. Speaker, for the humanization of our divorce system in Canada. That is the objective of the Government in this legislation. It is not to make divorce easier. In fact, it will not make divorce easier.
It will make divorce less expensive, I am happy to say, by the fact of enabling the provinces to adopt rules and procedures which will eliminate the making of the decree in open court. The expense of lawyers will diminish, it is our estimate, to a third or a half of the present billing. Therefore, there will certainly be a financial saving on the part of couples who are seeking divorce. It will, in addition to what I mentioned, make the process as healing and as mediating as I believe it is possible for the law to do.
Of course, in order for this to happen most effectively, as I will also indicate later, there are some other changes apart from the law of divorce which are also necessary, such as more facilities for mediation and conciliation in our country.

Before concluding this explanation of the Bill, Mr. Speaker, I would like to stress some of the proposed aspects of the reform which are more technical but none the less significant. The way things are now, three conditions are required before a petition for divorce can be filed before provincial courts: first, the petitioner must be a Canadian resident; second, one of the
1718

February 24, 1984
Divorce Act
two parties involved must have been a resident of the province for at least one year at the time of the petition; third, that same person must have been a resident of that same province for ten months. I intend to replace those three conditions by only one, namely that one of the parties must have resided for at least one year in the province where the petition is filed. That would simplify the issue and provide easier access to the courts.
Under the existing system, orders concerning alimony or child custody can be changed only by the court which has issued them. This rule may have serious consequences. For example, let us take the case of a couple whose divorce was granted in Toronto, one of the spouses now being in St. John's and the other in Calgary. Any order pertaining to alimony or child custody issued at the time of the divorce of that couple could be changed only by the Toronto court.
I intend to make the rule less stringent in that respect. Under the Bill, if both parties agree, a petition for any variation of the order pertaining to either question could be filed before any court. Should only one of the parties want to have the order changed, that party could apply before the court of his or her province, or that of the province where the other party resides. However, the court will always be free to turn down the petition should it feel that, under the circumstances, either party would be wronged.
The suggested amendments represent an in-depth review of the Divorce Act. In fact, such a review is long overdue. The proposed reform is based on a new approach not only to the grounds for divorce, but also to the whole divorce system. The procedure will be greatly simplified. As for the judicial rules concerning the determination of the effects of divorce, that is the rights and obligations of spouses as well as the rights of the children, they will be made more specific and more sensible.
This reform will have a direct impact on the welfare of an increasing number of Canadians.
There have been virtually no changes made to the Divorce Act in the past fifteen years. The principles on which it is based must be reexamined in the light of modern social trends. We need a more humane system for settling marital conflicts, a system which will be more effective and less distressing for those faced with the painful experience of divorce. We need a statute which will take the needs of people into greater consideration and which is more in agreement with the interests of society as a whole.
The reform project which I have just outlined will, I believe, allow us to fulfil all those objectives.
Mr. Speaker, may I now call it one o'clock and continue at two o'clock?


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


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.
Mr. Deputy Speaker;: Order. When I left the chair at one o'clock, the Hon. Minister of Justice (Mr. MacGuigan) had the floor. I must add that he still had 23 minutes left in his allotted time.
The Hon. Minister of Justice.


Mark R. MacGuigan: Mr. Speaker, I have no intention of taking all the time which would be available to me, but I would like to make one or two additional points with respect to the legislation and then review briefly some parallel initiatives.
In response to the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in the case of Messier versus Lessard we have provided objectives for maintenance orders in the Bill. This is the first time there have been such objectives in the Divorce Act. The Supreme Court has now effectively required them. Even if it had not, they would be useful tools for the judiciary in deciding how to deal with the question of maintenance.
It is very important to note that the objectives set forth there are not absolute. There is obviously some overlapping. There are also key words in Clause 10 of the Bill. Those words are "in so far as is practicable". Those words govern each of the four objectives which follow.
With respect to children, we have for the first time set forth principles respecting children. It is important to note that this is put in terms of a right of the children; the children ought to have as much access to each of the spouses as the circumstances permit. That in particular is a very important statement of principle.
It should also not escape notice, Mr. Speaker, that for the first time we have provided for access by other parties to the children. In those comparatively rare cases where it was appropriate, this could mean that any person other than the parents could have the custody, care and upbringing of the children. It also includes access to the children. Of course, that would apply to the respective grandparents more than to any other group. This possible right of grandparents has long been overlooked by the law, so this is a very important change.
[DOT] (UlO)
Also important is the change which in the discretion of the court, allows the appointment of an advocate to represent the interests of the children. We have not laid down rules with respect to how this should be done, thinking it best to leave it to the discretion of the court to work out. Of course, there is discretion in the provinces to establish rules which may be relevant to all of these situations.
The provinces will have the discretion to decide how divorce actions will actually be handled, whether they will continue to be handled in open court or, if not in open court, whether they will continue to be dealt with by a judge. From what little I have heard on this point, the disposition of most provinces
February 24, 1984

seems to be to keep the involvement of the judges in the process but through some simpler procedure than decisions made in open court, as at present.
I also mentioned that I would like to deal with some parallel initiatives. Any Divorce Act, particularly in our federal state, is necessarily very limited legislation. It deals only with a very well defined territory. There are other initiatives which are necessary and we are taking those initiatives. 1 might mention that in his Budget the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) announced that the Canada Pension Plan would be improved to provide for mandatory credit splitting of Canada Pension Plan credits on marriage breakdown. As well, for all private pension plans under federal jurisdiction the Minister provides that there will be splitting of pensions between spouses in the case of marriage breakdown. I think those are important principles to have established.
We are also concerned about the fact that there presently are not adequate institutions or an adequate number of properly prepared people to assist in the very important process of conciliation and mediation in the case of marriage breakdown. If this can lead to reconciliation, of course, that's all the better; but even if it cannot lead to reconciliation it can lead to the easing of discussions over questions of custody and maintenance and therefore can be of great assistance.
It is my hope that some of the money that the provinces save on legal aid will be devoted by those provinces to trying to establish adequate systems of conciliation-mediation. We will be taking some initiatives in this area ourselves in order to show our concern about the development of a better system of mediation conciliation across Canada.
The final matter I wish to mention is, in some ways, the most important of all, though it is not in itself a matter for a Divorce Act. That is the matter of enforcement of ancillary orders, orders of maintenance and custody. This is another serious social problem.
It has been estimated that some 75 per cent of the maintenance orders in Canada are now in arrears. Spouses-I am afraid this is normally the husband-have been known to go to great lengths to escape the liability which the court has imposed on them at the time of divorce, by moving to other provinces or even by disappearing. All governments in Canada must do everything they can to deal with this problem.
As the House knows, since ancillary orders are registered as orders in provincial courts, this is a matter for the provinces primarily to deal with. They have the jurisdiction in this area. The only way I am aware that we could conceivably get federal jurisdiction is to use the Federal Court across the country as the court for divorce. However, the Federal Court is not generally accessible to people. I think it would not be as effective a system as the present one, even with all of its deficiencies.
Thus, I believe we are limited to proceeding with the present system or some variation of it in which the provinces have jurisdiction over these orders. We have had a federal-provincial study and a number of recommendations have been made
Divorce Act
to provinces and the federal Government. We have followed those recommendations in our divorce legislation to the limited extent that it is possible. For instance, we have provided for the possibility for easier variation of orders subsequent to their initially being obtained. We have also provided that it will be possible for a judge to require the party on whom maintenance payments fall to give security as well as to incur an obligation to pay on a monthly basis. This possibility of security-of course, in cases where the party with the responsibility has property against which the security can be made effective- will be a very effective new remedy.
Beyond that, it is important to try to move to what I would call a national enforcement network. It is only in this way that I believe we can really have greater success in the implementation of ancillary orders. In this respect, I was able to announce recently not only that the federal Government was prepared to agree to a national divorce registry and ways of making it effective through tracing and enforcement, but that the provinces now appear to be willing to go along in this direction as well.
Once again, I want to pay tribute to my colleague, the Minister responsible for the Status of Women (Mrs. Erola), and her departmental officers for their efforts in continuing to press for a national registry of maintenance and custody orders. Their efforts have helped in the very significant breakthrough that I think has been made in reviving the interest of the provinces in this kind of proposal and improvement of enforcement procedures generally. Officials from my Department and that of the status of women are now working together in studying the feasibility of establishing a national registry of custody and maintenance orders. I very much appreciate the contribution of my colleague and her officials.
I was able to tell the House recently that at a recent meeting of deputy attorneys general there was a general disposition to proceed with the establishment of such a registry. There will be a further meeting in this respect in March. I believe it is realistically possible to hope that even in this year we can achieve success in setting up such a registry. The Government of Canada is prepared to contribute its share. I think the operational costs would not be great but, of course, there obviously will be some start-up costs to which I would expect all governments would wish to contribute. The Government of Canada would certainly wish to be part of that because we want, so far as we can, to induce, lead and persuade the provinces that we really cannot go on any longer without establishing a national enforcement network.
As I mentioned, these parallel concerns are terribly important. They are not matters that can be resolved by divorce legislation but they are matters that are worth mentioning in the discussion of divorce legislation. They are certainly matters which are worth pursuing as objectives of national importance.
Within the divorce legislation itself, we have adopted a new approach. We have changed the basis of the law so that it will

February 24, 1984
Divorce Act
no longer be adversarial in this area of human difficulty, so that we will not add to natural difficulties, artificial problems created by an adversary system which, as we all know, is sometimes in all respects misused and abused.
The non-adversarial, no-fault basis which we are proposing for divorce will enable divorce to take place when marriage breakdown has already occurred with the least trauma possible. We have to support the institution of marriage in every way possible. When that institution has already ceased to function because marriage breakdown has occurred, as testified to by the witness of the parties themselves, we have to try and resolve the social problems without the addition of legal burdens that are in themselves unnecessary and are no longer related to the social conditions in which we find ourselves. That is the essence of what we are trying to do. It is to change the atmospherics of the divorce process so there can be a humanization of that process, one which can benefit all of the participants but especially the children whose interests, most of all, need to be protected. We believe this is very much in the interests of society.


Mr. Hudecki:: Mr. Speaker, are there any provisions in the rules for questioning the Minister?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Not at this time. Under the rules this is not possible for the first three speakers.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to participate in this very important debate with respect to the first amendments we have had relating to divorce law in Canada for over 15 years.
Before I proceed with my remarks, I might be forgiven, after hearing the Minister in his remarks speak about the initiative taken on the part of the federal Government in the area of divorce reform, to observe that the Minister seems to be sending out different signals with respect to this legislation. When the legislation was introduced in the House and presented to the press in a formal press conference, as I recall the Minister referred to it at that time as a step forward toward a more efficient, faster and more facile method of obtaining divorce in Canada.


Mark R. MacGuigan: I never said faster.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: The Minister confirms this. I just want to make sure that something was not wrong with the hearing utensil on my desk. The Minister said today that this law will make divorce more difficult and slower.


Charles Lapointe: He did not say that.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: I know the Minister of Supply and Services (Mr. Lapointe) has been listening carefully, but I am afraid he will just have to lean over and whisper to his colleague, the Minister of Justice (Mr. MacGuigan), because I made a note of precisely when the Minister made that reference.
As I said, we have two signals coming from this legislation. I think this is one of the difficulties we experience with respect to this legislation. It has been held out to whatever crowd the
Minister and Government spokesmen have been speaking as the basis of great reform, but it depends upon the forum to which they are speaking as to which way they describe that particular reform.


Mark R. MacGuigan: That is entirely untrue.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair would like to intervene at this point and remind Hon. Members that Standing Order 15(3) reads:
When a Member is speaking, no Member shall pass between that Member and the Chair, nor interrupt him or her, except to raise a point of order.


Mr. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Not even the Minister.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I had to intervene this morning when the Minister was speaking. I would expect the co-operation of all Members on both sides of the House in listening to the very interesting speech of the Hon. Member for Saskatoon West (Mr. Hnatyshyn).


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I know when I have hit a responsive chord on the Government side because when I speak the truth with respect to the position the Government has taken, we hear squeals, yelling and whining from the Government benches. It does not affect me at all. I am prepared to set forth on the record what I think are some of the concerns we have regarding this legislation.
At the outset I should remind Hon. Members that 40 per cent of all marriages in this country end in divorce at the present time. In 1982 this translated into some 70,000 divorce decrees being granted. That means 140,000 people were directly affected by the laws relating to divorce.
It must not be forgotten that, in addition to that figure, there are untold thousands of children and relatives who suffered and endured the breakup of marriages. The cost of the people involved cannot be adequately measured. In financial terms the expenditures are enormous. Canadians involved in divorce have spent an estimated $500 million in legal fees alone over the last ten years. Under our present laws, even a straightforward, uncontested petition can result in significant financial hardship for many individuals. In addition, the cost of court administration continues to grow.
Yet in the scheme of things and the way things operate in this area, the financial cost in many cases may not be the most important component of the costs litigants are required to bear. The psychological and emotional costs are more often than not far more significant. Parties to a divorce are put through an emotional wringer in many, many instances. At the time they are dealing with the stress of a family breakup, they must also deal with courts, judges, lawyers and the intricacies of formal divorce proceedings. This process is, when all is said and done, another form of legal proceeding. This means a component common to all legal proceedings, the adversarial component, is still present in the present proposal brought forward by the Minister. It will involve lawyers who are hired and who by and large are involved in pursuing cases on behalf of their clients to ensure that their client receives the best
February 24, 1984

possible result in terms of the relief claimed by the applicant, in terms of the financial settlement and in terms of custody.
Lawyers are used to operating in an adversarial system. I am not criticizing them for that. They do their work. They are trained to pursue their clients' cases in that way, the same as if they would pursue a case on behalf of a commercial client. They are there to get the most they can for their client. They are not, by and large-although there is a tendency to improve the situation-trained in the area of counselling and mediation, which often is so essential in cases of matrimonial breakdown.
Unfortunately, in the process factors that are unique to a divorce proceeding may be ignored and counselling and mediation may be forgotten. As a result, the parties often emerge bitter and mistrustful of their former spouses, lawyers-usually lawyers on the other side-and the judicial system in general. Another consequence is that marriages that may, in fact, be salvaged are not saved because of the adversarial nature of the proceedings in a formal court setting.
In short, I would suggest that anyone who has gone through the process will say that it is very often a most unpleasant one for the participants and often highly traumatic and distressing. Legislation dealing with divorce will necessarily affect hundreds of thousands of Canadians. Such legislation will of necessity deal with a matter of extreme importance to the individuals involved. Therefore the importance of this particular Bill cannot be overstated. Canadians have a right to expect that their elected representatives will give it the care and consideration it deserves.
As I mentioned, the last major changes to the divorce legislation took place some 15 years ago, in 1968. Since that time there have been significant social and economic changes in the structure of Canadian society. New trends have emerged both in judicial approaches to marriage breakdown and in provincial legislation dealing with the division of matrimonial property. During that 15 years numerous groups and agencies have grappled with the problems of divorce and with difficult questions as to just what reforms are desirable.
The Law Reform Commission of Canada studied the matter closely. The Canadian Bar Association and the Law Society of Upper Canada provided detailed recommendations in this area. Changes and reform have been urged by a great many groups and agencies, from church representatives and spokespersons for social workers to a variety and a number of important women's groups. Not all of these parties have called for the same changes; it would have been surprising if they had. However, what is noteworthy is that for a great many years many people have asked for change and reform to our divorce laws. In point of fact, the Minister of Justice has been promising great and sweeping changes for almost as long as he has held his portfolio. When he took over his responsibilities he said that divorce reform was a "top priority". Time and time again the Minister in various fora, in newspapers and in front of the media across the country, promised that new legislation
Divorce Act
would be introduced immediately, if not sooner. Every time I picked up the Monday morning edition of The Globe and Mail there was another article featuring the Minister promising divorce reform and the introduction of sweeping legislation during the course of the coming week. We were repeatedly disappointed until the Minister finally brought forward Bill C-10 as a result of enormous consideration on his part and that of his colleagues.
The fact of the matter is that with all the trumpeting and fanfare preceding the introduction of this Bill, Canadians expected comprehensive, well thought out, effective legislation which would deal with the many problems involved in marriage breakdown and the possibility of salvaging relationships between human beings. We have had reason to expect that, but now I am sorry to report that, as a result of all this cogitation on the part of the Minister and his colleagues, he has come up very much short of what might have been expected on his part.
The Hon. Member for Durham-Northumberland (Mr. Lawrence) has termed the proposal before us as shallow, superficial and simplistic. My colleague was always a Member noted for his understatement of a point of view. When he says that about this particular piece of legislation, I know he knows about which he speaks.
The Minister has addressed himself to the relatively easy question of grounds for divorce. For all intents and purposes he ignored far more difficult and contentious issues, such as maintenance and child custody. In terms of this kind of legislation, unless we deal with these matters the legislation in itself will be wanting and subject to great criticism across the country.
I would like to indicate the depth of concern which has been expressed with respect to this legislation. Many Hon. Members will remember that when the Minister brought down his Bill it was met with the usual approbation by "The Toronto Trudeau Star". It was very much applauded as being a forward-thinking piece of legislation. Even The Toronto Star has now had second thoughts and realizes that the legislation is seriously lacking. In terms of editorial opinion and representations by people who follow the issue and are concerned about it, such as women's groups across the country, they are together and consistent in their criticism of the legislation, not so much because the Minister has tried to do only a few things but because there are many items which should have received attention but received absolutely none.
I could refer to the editorial comments in newspapers across the land, but I would like to quote from the Vancouver Province and its editorial of January 25, which characterized the Bill as "short on courage". A small portion of that editorial reads:
After all the preening and advanced promotion of its divorce law changes, the federal Government has brought forward a mouse ... For six months the Justice Minister ... heralded the proposed changes as his "top legislative priority". The end product is the work of a tired administration sapped of political courage.
That is precisely the point. This Bill does not even come close to dealing adequately with the subject matter. It is a

February 24, 1984
Divorce Act
calculated attempt to give the appearance of action while in fact doing very little at all. It is clear that the Bill requires a great deal of consideration and work to turn it into an acceptable Bill, if it is at all possible. Canadians must be given the opportunity to express their views on such a fundamental topic. It must receive a fair and thorough examination in committee so that we in this Party, as well as Members of the other Parties in the House, can do the job which the Government has apparently abdicated.
I am concerned as well with the legislative initiatives which have been brought forward at this point in time by the Minister and whether we will have sufficient time in the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs to deal in a proper manner with the legislation. He has brought in an omnibus Bill which requires two pages to carry around concerning amendments to the Criminal Code. He has brought in this divorce legislation. His colleague the Solicitor General (Mr. Kaplan) has brought in an important piece of legislation which we are now debating dealing with a civilian security service. A further Bill has been languishing on the Order Paper for some years now. It deals with the grievance procedure in the RCMP. I ask whether or not the Government is serious when it says that it is interested in reform or whether or not this is window dressing with no anticipation of being able to complete our work in committee, even if we worked morning, noon and night to deal with the many topics which the Minister of Justice and the Solicitor General have brought before us for consideration and for ultimate consideration by the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.
Much has been made of the fact that if this Bill is passed the traditional grounds for divorce would be eliminated and replaced by the sole ground from this time forward of marriage breakdown. This approach is justified on the basis that fault grounds "encourage the view of divorce as an adversarial conflict between an innocent and guilty spouse". I have already referred to some of the drawbacks in an adversarial system. I have already talked about whether or not the adversarial system is the appropriate one to deal with marriage breakdown.
However, I want to raise with the Minister some of my concerns with respect to the reform that he proposes should be accepted by Parliament. Any lawyer who practises in the field of family law will say that the questions of maintenance, property division and custody of children are the contentious issues in a marriage breakdown. It is on these issues that adversarial conflicts are joined. If there is agreement with respect to these matters, the question of grounds or fault is often of little significance. I suggest that it makes no difference under the present law in my experience.
Although I have not specialized in the practise of family law, members of my law firm who have been involved in it confirm this point. No matter if the grounds are three years, five years, adultery or cruelty, in terms of the dispute that takes place in the court that is often insignificant, if not completely secondary. Where the real dispute takes place is
with respect to the level of maintenance and the whole question of custody.
To be sure, the process of apportioning fault, finding one party guilty of misconduct, may exacerbate the feeling of hurt and embarrassment. However, the elimination of these so-called fault grounds will not necessarily mean the end of the adversarial process. The danger with what the Minister is suggesting is that he may well be throwing the baby out with the bath water. In his attempt to lessen adversarial conflict by eliminating fault grounds, he may well be giving rise to new problems if those grounds are entirely eliminated.
I pose to the Minister that it is not necessarily a question of grounds for divorce being based on fault. Very often they can be regarded as being on the basis of necessity. I want to pursue that and try to examine what might occur in a great number of instances with this proposal which requires a one-year waiting period in all circumstances.
What of the woman who becomes pregnant by a man other than her husband while the marriage is still extant? With the traditional ground of adultery or infidelity gone, the possibility of immediate divorce is eliminated. In fact, if this Bill is passed, the divorce will not be obtained until some time after the child of that liaison is born.
What of the wife who is subject to extreme physical cruelty at the hands of her husband? It may well be that it is in both party's interests, when that circumstance exists, by virtue of the doctrine of necessity, to have an immediate dissolution of the marriage. I ask the Minister this rhetorical question: Must a woman under the circumstances I have indicated be obliged to wait for a rather long period of time, causing great anguish and difficulty?
I want to make another point with respect to the elimination of necessity grounds. In my experience, under the present law judges are often reluctant to make orders for interim relief that may not be made final for an extended period of time. This is based on the knowledge gained by judges that facts that are alleged on interim applications often are in conflict and do not coincide with facts in the final disposition of any matter relating to marriage breakdown or divorce.
Under this Bill, interim relief could and would often extend for a year before such relief could be made final. The Minister will say if there is cruelty that you issue the divorce, and although you cannot get a final decree for a year, you can apply to the judge for a decree of interim alimony. I say to the Minister, because of the experience that I and many lawyers who deal in family law have had, that this may be a great disservice to the party who has every right, because of cruelty or whatever reason, to be living separate and apart from her husband.
The realistic facts are these. In these interim agreements judges have been somewhat reluctant to grant reasonable and adequate interim alimony, even under the present law, pending the completion of the litigation. We should consider these matters in terms of the effect that the sole ground for dissolu-
February 24, 1984

tion may have with respect to people in very difficult circumstances.
The move to eliminate the grounds of necessity requires serious consideration. I understand what the Minister is trying to do with this Bill. By dropping some of the grounds, we may find in the course of our deliberations that it should be sufficient for the parties to have the right to proceed immediately to divorce. We should look at this as the present law may not ameliorate the difficulties that surround the adversarial system.
The second major difficulty with this legislation is in its approach to the whole question of maintenance. This in turn involves the dual question of maintenance criteria and maintenance enforcement. 1 know the Minister spent a long period of time on this matter. I am sure he is sensitive to the very serious criticism that has been put forward regarding the lack of adequate provisions dealing with maintenance enforcement.
In dealing with the issue of maintenance criteria, this Bills sets out a number of objectives that the court should consider in making a maintenance order. While these objectives may well be desirable, what is conspicuously absent from them is any sort of precision. It will be left to the courts to try to establish a systematic method of achieving those enumerated objectives.
The absence of precision, coupled with the clear ambiguity, is objectionable for a number of reasons. First, it is much easier to arrive at a negotiated settlement between lawyers or through mediation if the rights and obligations of the parties involved are precise. The clearer and more explicit the criteria, the fewer things there are to fight about.
If you want a demonstration of this principle, Mr. Speaker, you need only look to provincial laws concerning matrimonial property. In many provinces the law now states that there is a presumption that matrimonial property is to be divided on a fifty-fifty basis. The parties are aware of this, and hence litigation and consequent expenses are significantly reduced. Instead of lawyers' fees eating up the family assets, they now go to the parties involved in the dispute.
A second problem with the stated objectives is that they do not ensure adequate maintenance for one type of situation in particular. I am referring to the common case of a woman who has been married for 20 or 30 years being faced with divorce proceedings. She has devoted her life to her home, husband and family and, as a consequence, the unfortunate fact is that she has few if any marketable skills and little prospect of being in a position to obtain the kind of training to put her back into the workplace so that she can sustain herself or be self-sufficient. Realistically, if her husband petitions for divorce she is not going to be able to support herself.
The Bill presented to us today does not adequately deal with this situation. It is often impractical to suggest that a woman in such circumstances can become economically self-sufficient. Yet even if the court recognizes this, there is no guarantee that the wife will receive maintenance sufficient to live in the manner to which she was accustomed. While her ex-husband
Divorce Act
may still have significant earning potential, the woman may be sentenced to a life of penury and deprivation. Surely it is up to us to direct our minds to seeing if we can structure this legislation to provide as much protection as is possible for women who find themselves in those unfortunate circumstances.
At least as important as the question of how maintenance is determined is the question of how maintenance orders are to be enforced. A maintenance order is of absolutely no use if the maintenance debtor refuses to pay and cannot be forced to pay. It is difficult to say precisely how many maintenance orders are in default at any one time, but estimates indicate that up to 75 per cent of maintenance orders are in default at this time.
This is a shameful and scandalous situation that has been tolerated for far too long in this country. It is too easy for a spouse to evade payment of a court ordered maintenance obligation by simply leaving the jurisdiction. Even if the spouse simply refuses to pay, it leaves an onerous obligation on the other spouse, who is obliged to bring an action to enforce the legitimate order. It invariably results in the administration of justice being brought into disrepute. The spouse, generally speaking the woman, has gone through a harrowing and traumatic divorce proceeding. She has obtained a maintenance order from the court obligating her husband to make payments. Her husband then refuses to pay. How can you explain to that woman that the justice system cannot force her husband to do what the court said he must? You cannot, of course. Meanwhile another person has lost faith in the system which is supposedly in place to protect her and her family.
The other obvious problem with the general unenforceability of maintenance orders is that the Financial burden for family support is lifted from the individual, where it belongs, and transferred to the state, where it does not belong. Surely if the husband has the ability and legal obligation to help support his children, and perhaps his ex-wife, he should be made to do so. The Minister cannot justify his inaction in this area by claiming it is one of provincial responsibility. He has not seen fit to implement the recommendation made by the federal-provincial committee on the enforcement of maintenance and custody orders in Canada.


Mark R. MacGuigan: We have.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: These recommendations were brought down last year and the Minister has had ample time to consider them. Certainly the proposal put forward by the committee deserves serious consideration.
In addition, they came down clearly in favour of the establishment of a central registry for maintenance and custody orders. The Minister has now said they are giving the most serious and immediate consideration to the final implementation of this concept. However, these are things which should have been pursued with great vigour prior to bringing in this legislation. This should not have come up after the Bill was

February 24, 1984
Divorce Act
introduced in the House. In a planted question on the floor of the House, the Minister was able to stand up and say: "Well, we finally got around to considering this matter and things are looking good. I want to thank my colleague, the Minister responsible for the Status of Women, for all the assistance she has given me".
That, Mr. Speaker, should have been dealt with by any self-respecting Minister of Justice in order to bring it to a conclusion. I believe, and it has now been verified by the Minister himself, that the provincial governments had been prepared to co-operate. He now tells us this is the case. Not before the Bill is brought in, but afterwards, which gives some indication of the bona fides with respect to the amount of time and energy the Minister expended to reach this very important agreement. Even though maintenance enforcement is primarily of provincial concern, surely it is up to the federal Government to show some leadership in resolving the horrendous problems which now exist. Uniform provincial agreements to permit nationwide enforcement of maintenance and custody orders are clearly necessary. No longer should it be possible for a spouse to escape his or her legal obligation simply by pulling up stakes and moving out of the jurisdiction where the original order was made.
When I began my remarks this afternoon, Mr. Speaker, I mentioned the difficulties which can arise when matters end up in the courts and the legal system and lawyers are inserted into the complex factors surrounding marriage breakdown. Unfortunately the legal process often exacerbates many problems rather than diminishes them. A large property or maintenance award may well be obtained at high cost in emotional and psychological terms. Unfortunately it is not possible to completely eliminate this difficulty. However, there are things which can be done to offset the negative aspects of divorce proceedings. In my view this should have been pursued by the Minister and his Government in order to bring some sanity to this whole question.
The Minister will know that we have across this country pilot unified family court projects. These resulted from federal-provincial agreements and involved not only judges with jurisdiction in both the federal and provincial areas of responsibility in these matters, but judges who can hear all these matters as superior court judges. But they also have a very unique capacity which I think is an important ingredient in any so-called reform and our divorce law. That, Mr. Speaker, is the capacity to make available to people faced with this unfortunate circumstance in their marital relationship good pre- and post-divorce counselling services.
I think one of the most successful parts of a unified family court is this unique counselling capacity which exists in the system. I know in my own home city of Saskatoon that we are indeed fortunate to have a unified family court system. I am sure the Minister will agree that these have been very successful enterprises. I think this is the direction in which we as legislators and as Members of Parliament must encourage divorce reform. We can all understand the pre-marriage breakdown counselling. Husband and wife have come in, their
minds are set on dissolution of the marriage, but there is available a service which will bring perspective to the custody of and access to children. It will remove the adversarial atmosphere which exists in the courtroom. From the people I have spoken to who deal in family law, it is amazing the enormously good work which has been done in these counselling services.
This is the kind of expenditure of public funds we on this side of the House would very much encourage the Government to get involved in. It is a meaningful expenditure which, in the final analysis, will save Canadian taxpayers literally millions and millions of dollars lost when one spouse, usually the wife, finds herself on welfare and unable to support herself or her family.
I would also point out, Mr. Speaker, that pre-divorce consultation may in fact have the advantage of allowing people to consider reconciliation in a meaningful way. However, I suggest the post-divorce counselling services are equally important for individuals who have just had their world shattered. The normal situation in a divorce proceeding is that the last we see of these people is when they leave the courtroom hearing with a decree absolute. There is no provision except through welfare departments in some provinces for any kind of counselling in order to assist these single parent families where the change has been very difficult.
When we consider a Bill which will, according to some of the Minister's utterances, facilitate divorce, 1 think we have the responsibility of considering how best to implement counselling and mediation. One way which has worked, as I say, is through the unified family court concept.


Mark R. MacGuigan: Manitoba has done it; speak to
Saskatchewan.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Well, Mr. Speaker, there are examples across this country and I want to bring some to the attention of the Minister. A further example of initiatives in this area can be seen in the approach to mediation and custody disputes in Ontario. The Children's Law Reform Act provides a mechanism whereby a mediator can, at the request of the parties, be appointed. The role of the mediator is to consult with the parties, attempt to reach an agreement between them and ultimately file a full report with the court on the results of the mediation. I think this represents a novel and constructive approach and, along with similar concepts should receive comprehensive review by the committee. I agree with the Minister. Let us look at the experience in Manitoba, in Ontario and in Saskatchewan to see whether we can bring forward proposals that will enhance and improve the legislation.
The long and the short of it is that the Minister promised much and delivered little. We are getting used to that from this Government, of course. Unfortunately, it is the hundreds and thousands of Canadians who will seek divorces in the next
February 24, 1984

few years who will suffer because of the lack of government action.
There are a number of areas that I could deal with but I do not want to spend an inordinate time on this. Many of my colleagues feel strongly about the legislation, feel strongly about support of the family unit and feel strongly about the protection of the rights of people affected by divorce. My colleague, the Hon. Member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald), who is this Party's spokesperson on women's issues, has had a long and distinguished career standing up for the rights of women, particularly the disadvantaged women in our society, those who often have suffered the trauma of divorce. I look forward to her remarks on some of the inconsistencies in this legislative package. She will deal with matters to which I have only had an opportunity to allude in a general way. I look forward to a full and reasonable debate.
There are aspects of the Bill which I think may lead, willy-nilly, to results contrary to those that the Minister intended. For example, we should consider the Minister's idea about trying to take the whole question of divorces arrived at by agreement out of the courts. I understand the motivation of the Minister in this regard.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I regret to interrupt the Hon. Member but his time has expired. He may continue with the unanimous consent of the House. Is it agreed?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: I want to conclude with one example, Mr. Speaker. In the present circumstances the law is that even when there are settlements with respect to maintenance and other things that come before a judge in a divorce action, the court is not required to accept that agreement arrived at by the spouses. The idea the Minister put forward would obviate the necessity of a trial where there is consent to divorce proceedings and where all items such as maintenance, dissolution of marriage, custody and other ancillary matters have been settled. It is my experience that in a great number of cases, after observing the litigants first hand and having had an opportunity to examine and cross-examine the parties, the judge will come to the conclusion that such an agreement is not in the best interests of one party or the other. He may feel that the wife is accepting it because she has been harangued and harassed and would be in a difficult position if she did not accept the husband's offer. In those circumstances, whether the parties like it or not, the judge may not accept the agreement and rule that the maintenance be twice as much, for example, and if the wife does not want to pursue it, then so be it.
These are the things that I think we must examine. We must examine the Bill and determine whether it is constructive and thorough and if it will bring about appropriate reform. The Minister has taken a one dimensional approach, I think, but we need an approach that is consistent with the welfare of the men and women concerned, that is consistent with the welfare
Divorce Act
of the children of those marriages and consistent with the principles of equity and fairness regarding maintenance orders and the enforcement of them.
I can assure the Minister that on this side of the House we regard this as a very important piece of legislation and he will receive a number of constructive suggestions from my colleagues.
I want to thank Hon. Members for their indulgence in allowing me extra time to speak, Mr. Speaker. I also want to tell the Minister that because we find the Bill lacking in so many essential elements in its present form, we in this Party are unable to support it.


Ms. Lynn McDonald (Broadview-Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be able to take part in this extremely important debate on divorce. This is the first reform in our divorce legislation in Canada since 1968. There are roughly 60,000 divorces in the country every year, half of them involving minor children. It has been estimated that up to 40 per cent of first marriages presently undertaken will end in divorce, so it is a matter that touches a large number of people.
Reform is needed, Mr. Speaker, and the Bill will accomplish one major reform. It also deals with a few minor reforms. However, it is grossly deficient in a number of other matters, especially in the area of maintenance. I shall deal with these deficiencies at some length.
Let me begin with the area in which there is broad agreement, that of marriage breakdown as the sole grounds for divorce. It has been said that divorce does not cause marriage breakdown; unsatisfactory marriages do. A decree of divorce does not kill a marriage; it certifies that it is dead. This is the spirit behind the approach to marriage breakdown as the sole grounds for divorce. It is a principle that the New Democratic Party has accepted for many years. It has been on our books since 1967, and a large number of women's organizations have recommended recognition of this principle as the sole grounds for divorce. There is overwhelming support for it among women's groups. Let me quote from a couple of them, Mr. Speaker.
The Catholic Women's League, an important women's organization in Canada, in its brief to the Minister of Justice (Mr. MacGuigan) said that the present system of having to air one's marital laundry in a public court room seems both demeaning and time consuming. It is obvious that at a time when the matter is being heard by a divorce court judge, any possibility of reconciliation has long since dissipated. The organization says that the present system appears to lend itself to a good deal of mutual disrespect and disposes of any possible future friendship the spouses may have. Furthermore, it believes that the accusations and counter-accusations of the present adversarial system seem to do a great deal of harm to the familial relationship which oftentimes must survive the dissolution of a marriage because of children.
Of course, Mr. Speaker, it is especially because of the children that we are concerned to see marriage breakdown established as the sole grounds for divorce. Having it so

February 24, 1984
Divorce Act
established will make it easier for arrangements for custody and maintenance to be facilitated.
The National Association of Women and the Law says that to attempt to focus upon a single marital fault on the part of one of the spouses as the cause of the breakdown of marriage is most often a distortion of the marriage relationship. It says that hostility between the spouses on the issue of grounds must necessarily taint negotiations between the parties on corollary issues where important decisions must be made on more relevant considerations such as the best interests of the children.
The one-year waiting period to establish marriage breakdown, of course, is more controversial. Some people think it is too short and some think it is too long. Some women's organizations have suggested that there ought to be no fixed waiting period at all. The National Association of Women and the Law and the National Action Committee on the status of women have taken this position, and they have reasons for doing so. Let me quote the National Action Committee. It says:
Marriage must be recognized as an equal partnership, entered into voluntarily by a woman and a man. Once one of the parties has decided that the partnership is not working, the relationship is clearly ended and no legal rule will make it work. The spouses should be able to declare that the marriage has broken down, and that declaration should be regarded as sufficient to prove the breakdown. Proof of separation or fault should not be required.
This is quite an extreme statement and lots of people would disagree with it. Clearly, the one-year period to establish marriage breakdown is a compromise between those who think it is too long and those who think it is too short. I suspect that there would never be a period on which we could agree as being ideal for all situations.
I consulted a number of ministers and priests in my own riding. We had an excellent discussion on this subject. Some felt that one year was too short. Some felt that there might be greater reconciliation achieved if there were a longer period. None of them, however, felt it was easy to arrive at a time, and there were no great objections to the period of one year. The one year seems at least not unreasonable.
With respect to support for the family, some groups, particularly the Catholic bishops, have argued that instead of making divorce easier, we should be making marriage more difficult. It is indeed true that it is easier to get a marriage licence than to get a driver's licence. Certainly, I myself and the New Democratic Party have vigorously supported all kinds of measures to assist the family; family allowance, maternity benefits, parental leave and daycare provisions. I welcome as well the provision in this legislation which would promote reconciliation within the marriage itself. However, I have to remind people who would like to see marriage made more difficult that marriage itself comes under provincial jurisdiction. It is not possible in the course of amending the Divorce Act to deal directly with that question. We, of course, do have responsibilities as parliamentarians to support the family with many other provisions.
With respect to custody arrangements, here again we do see some improvements, and I welcome them. It will be clearly stated in the legislation that the best interests of the child will be the principal factor in determining custody. There are provisions for awards of joint custody and for persons other than the parents to have custody, possibly the grandparents, and access could be established for the grandparents in a court order. This is certainly an important reform. There is also provision for independent representation of the children in court.
I feel that the Bill could be more explicit in establishing the criteria by which the best interests of the children would be determined by a court. The Law Reform Commission of Canada made some recommendations back in 1975, and these have been taken up by Ontario, and, indeed, used more widely in Canada. I will cite some of them; the emotional tie of the child to the persons claiming custody, the preferences of the child, the length of time the child has had with the person claiming custody, plans for the upbringing of the child, the capacity of the parents for guidance, education and providing the necessities of life, any special needs of the child, the stability of the custodial household, and the relationship to the child, whether by blood, adoption or any other kind. We do, therefore, have some criteria and perhaps it should be in the legislation. Other lists could be provided, and the National Association of Women and the Law, I believe, has a very good list as well. It refers to the mental, emotional and physical needs of the child and the ability of each spouse to provide for such needs. There is the effect of disruption on the child's sense of continuity and need for stability, the views and preferences of the child where such can be reasonably ascertained, the need to foster access to the non-custodial spouse, and the relationship among other children in the family. I believe some greater specificity on the criteria would be important to have in the legislation.

Even though we agree with the principle of marriage breakdown being the only ground for divorce, we of the New Democratic Party do not support this Bill on second reading. The drawbacks of this Bill are much too serious and, if it is adopted, it will have dire consequences, especially for women and children who are economically dependent. Although current alimony payments are already inadequate, the proposed amendments, will make the situation of dependent women and children even worse than it is today. The trend nowadays seems to be towards lower alimony payments over ever shorter periods of time. Yet this Bill goes further in the sense that it advocates fixed periods of time and even less generous alimony payments. Why? Apparently because this Bill considers economic independence as something which is due. Indeed it is a reasonable objective, particularly in the case of young childless couples where both spouses are still working. I am reading the text of the Department of Justice on divorce.
It may be true that in many instances the dependent spouse ought to be entitled to long-term financial support, but that is
February 24, 1984

not always the case. After leaving the labour market in order to run the household and take care of the children, the dependent spouse may find it difficult, if not altogether impossible, to earn a decent income after the divorce. This decrease in one's ability to earn a living is a direct consequence of marriage and should be taken into account when figuring out the amount of financial support. In many cases, however, the dependent spouse might be able to return to the labour market, particularly if measures are taken to enable him or her to get vocational training or go back to school. Some day, that spouse might become self-supporting and financially independent.
The Department is aware that it may be impossible for some women to become economically independent, according to this Bill, yet the Bill does imply that all women are financially independent. Quite simply, the Bill fails to take into account the real situation of a great many women who have looked after the household and raised their children on a full-time basis over a number of years.
Let us admit that there is indeed economic dependence in such a case. Take for instance a women aged 55 who has not had a paid job for 30 or 35 years. She quit working when her first child was born. Her work at home has made it possible for her husband to take the technical training needed to pursue his own career. At the age of 55, that woman cannot make up for lost time. Without any experience on the labour market, what can she do? She could earn a living washing dishes in a restaurant, but is that fair? Let us suppose that this woman had been the wife of a doctor, a lawyer or a Member of Parliament. Is it reasonable for her standard of living to go down that much? Are the highly abstract principles of economic independance, justice and maintenance of a comparable standard of living without significance for the lawyers at the Department of Justice? Unfortunately, the Bill is firm in this regard. The only criterion applicable to maintenance payments is avoidance of serious economic conditions. Maintenance payments will no longer promote economic independence and avoid hardship. That is all! According to the criteria proposed in this Bill, I would say that the principle of economic independence for every man and woman should be outweighed by the concept of justice.
There are various types of marriage. Especially where marriages having lasted a long time are concerned, other criteria should be developed. The other basic deficiency I find in this Bill is the absolute lack of practical provisions for the collection of maintenance payments. As we know, unfortunately, most maintenance payments ordered by the courts are never made. About 75 per cent of maintenance payments are in arrears with the result that thousands of women and children are living in proverty without adequate means of support. These figures are well-known and cannot be questioned. In addition, many practical solutions have been suggested to change the alimony system. During the summer of 1983, a federal-provincial task force came up with recommendations
Divorce Act
for the reform of the present system. Yet, this Bill contains no practical answers.
A reform of our divorce legislation is not acceptable without a reform of the provisions to enforce maintenance orders.
We have heard too much talk about this Bill legislating no fault divorce. The fact is that really it legislates no responsibility divorce. The provisions for maintenance in Bill C-10 are unrealistic, short-sighted, unfair and will cause real harm to women predominantly, and in some cases to children, if it is passed.
In the rarified atmosphere of the Ministry of Justice the pursuit of an abstract principle, that of economic independence, is considered more important than dealing with the real problems we all know too much about. The goal of economic independence is suitable for many divorced people. The paper outlining the Bill admits it is not realistic for all. It is what is in the Act that counts rather than what is in the discussion paper when it comes to a case in court.
Many women's groups and expert individuals have made very good and persuasive arguments for different provisions. I would like to quote Judge Rosalee Abella from a paper entitled "Economic Adjustment on Marriage Breakdown". Judge Abella notes that spousal independence should not be taken too literally. "Independence will not be possible for every one". It should not be used, as it has been, prematurely, and certainly not where the realities of the marketplace and community make it impractical. If the wife is at home, it is usually because both spouses expect it and often want her there. To suggest to these women that they should become independent when their marriages dissolve is to ignore the economics of their situations. Though they are legally considered equal partners in their former marriage, because of the marriage and because of community expectations, they undertook a role which, though it created equal status, did not create equal access to independent sources of income.
According to Judge Abella, maintenance should not be paid because the wife was formerly her husband's dependant but because she was and is his equal partner who has needs which the partnership created and encouraged. Ideally these payments should be at a level to permit both of them to continue at the same standard of living they had in the marriage.
The years when the husband was increasing his educational and career prospects were years which increasingly diminished the wife's prospects in the labour force. It is the traditional marriage partnership itself over the years which creates an economic disability. The economics of indefinite support flows naturally from the economics of most current marriage relationships.
The National Action Committee on the status of women has made its recommendations on maintenance very clear. They are more realistic and fairer than the ones in the Bill before us today. The National Action Committee suggests that we con-

February 24, 1984
Divorce Act
sider three different types of marriage. For some the principle of economic dependence simply as it is is quite adequate. These are younger couples who split up without either partner having been harmed in the sense of an economic dependence being created in the course of the marriage. When a spouse's capacity to support herself or himself has been reduced by the division of tasks within the family, temporary support should be granted to allow that spouse to continue to be a full-time parent and allow time to upgrade skills and re-enter the labour market. This should include general education up to and including university.
Let us look at the situation of a long-term homemaker where a permanent dependency has been created. In divorces following marriages of long duration where one spouse was a homemaker and a permanent dependency was created, longterm maintenance should be ordered and the criteria used should be fairness and justice. Such wholly dependent spouses should not be expected to seek employment in occupations far below their previous living standards. For example, a homemaker married to a doctor for 30 years should not be denied long-term support for the reason that she could support herself if she found a job as a sales clerk or cleaning lady.
The National Association of Women and the Law has offered a set of similar criteria beginning with a mutual obligation to take all reasonable steps to become financially independent, but conceding that where this is not possible because of the duties undertaken in the marriage, long-term maintenance is required.
Most maintenance payments ordered by the courts are not made. It is true that to improve collection much must be done at the provincial level and some changes require joint action of the federal and provincial Governments. Many measures could and should be taken under federal jurisdiction. One of the main contributions the federal Government could make is in the location of persons defaulting on court ordered maintenance payments. If a defaulter leaves the province to avoid payment, he may be receiving unemployment insurance or paying his income tax and there are records by which his new address could be located. There is a concern for privacy, but I would suggest this does not outweigh the concern that children be supported and dependent spouses receive justice. All federal records, save the census, should be open for the location of addresses of defaulters in the case of court ordered maintenance.
Legislation is needed to provide such access and should be dealt with, if not in the same legislation, in companion legislation at the same time. Given the complacency of the Ministry of Justice, I am not optimistic that we can wait for it to deal with this matter. The recommendations of the Law Reform Commission of Canada on this subject go back to 1976. The Royal Commission on the Status of Women in Canada reported on the deficiencies in 1970. It has had a long time to work out practical criteria with the provinces.
Consistent with the proposal for improving access to addresses to locate the defaulters is the notion of interception. Wages and salaries are subject to garnishment for non-payment. I suggest the same principle should hold for other moneys under federal jurisdiction. Income tax refunds, unemployment insurance, interest on Canada saving bonds, and pensions are all moneys under federal jurisdiction. Why should they be exempt? In the time of the marriage itself these moneys would be shared for the support of the whole family. After a divorce why should they become the private property of only the breadwinner, while other members of the family suffer want as a result? It is time the federal Government stopped blaming the provinces for inaction and did what it can under its own jurisdiction.
Good divorce law should take into account pensions. After all, pensions are deferred wages and salaries. When a couple divide their labours so that one joins the work force and earns an income and the other stays home to look after the home and raise the children, there is an implied contract that that income is for the support of all of them. The same should hold for pensions which are simply a carry-over of that income. Pension splitting is only fair, but Bill C-10 does not deal with it.
In the Budget reference is made to the Government's intention to split Canada Pension Plan credits on marriage breakdown. Certainly the Government is recognizing the principle and the Minister referred to it earlier today saying it would be done for other pensions under federal jurisdiction. I remind Hon. Members that this was not said in the Budget and we have not seen the legislation. Given the slowness of action on the part of the Government and the complacency on this subject, I would not be optimistic. 1 would like to see all pensions under federal jurisdiction dealt with promptly. That would include pensions of MPs, Senators, judges and federal public servants.
Last year the Judges Act was amended but this was not dealt with. It could have been dealt with then. After all, judges are making decisions about the livelihood of dependent members in families. Their own pensions do not permit credit splitting. Judges should have model provisions for pensions if they are going to be enforcing the law for other people.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, I would like to refer to the issue of unified family courts. This is a very important reform. Lawyers, social workers, women's organizations and so forth have recommended the institution of unified family courts on a comprehensive basis. Experiments have been made and it has been found that they are better. They provide counselling services, they are less expensive for access and for changing maintenance orders. There are many conveniences in having unified family courts. It is difficult for people to go from court to court, from superior court to provincial courts and to family courts. This is a reform which must be dealt with. 1 am just not satisfied that the recommendations on it are being considered. There should be legislation on it. It should be possible for any province that wishes to establish a unified family court to do so.
February 24, 1984

To conclude, I say that Bill C-10, is grossly deficient. It must go back to the drawing board. I do not accept the Minister's excuse that we cannot do more in the present context. The Minister himself is an expert in omnibus Bills. We had a 306 page Bill on criminal law legislation. Surely this is an area on which there should be an omnibus Bill. It should be omnibus on divorce, to deal with all the related issues such as the enforcement of maintenance payments, the establishment of unified family courts, credit splitting of pensions by judges, and income tax access and statistical record access for the location of defaulters. These are all federal statutes which need quite modest amendments. However, the principle is important. When this does not take place people really do suffer.
If the Department cannot draft suitable legislation, it ought to hire someone who can. I suggest that the Minister withdraw the Bill and bring it back with suitable amendments. We do not need more study because we know what needs to be done. I can assure the Minister of my Party's support for speedy passage when he brings back a Bill that really deals with the issues of maintenance, a Bill which is fair and deals with the issue adequately and concretely.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I know the Hon. Member is seeking to ask questions but questions are not permitted with the first three speakers. Questions may be permitted with the round I am starting. We will welcome the intervention of the Hon. Member from Hamilton at that time.
When I look at this Bill, I call it swinging door legislation. Marriage in Canada is destined to become a swinging door affair. It is extraordinarily easy to get married, notwithstanding the rather strict requirements of many established churches for people to attend marriage preparation courses. While many people take those courses, and I am pleased that they do, they in themselves are no guarantee that a marriage may not break down. A mere trip to a justice of the peace, the deputy registrar of vital statistics in any city or some "marrying Sam" is evidence enough that if certain people perhaps have an amorous or physical desire for one another they can satisfy themselves under the cover of legality. But surely a marriage based upon that alone will not last.
What I and, I am sure, many Hon. Members and hundreds of thousands of Canadians are concerned about is that this Bill is frankly an attack on the family and its continued existence. Marriage should not be buried as a traditional way of life that has gone out of style. That is not the purpose of marriage.
The purpose of marriage is essentially the procreation and raising of children by a man and a woman. Through the years it is married people who have produced and raised children. Are we now to make a sort of rabbit colony relationship in which man meets woman, man likes woman, woman likes man, bingo, they live together and produce children? Is that going to be our concept of life?
Divorce Act
I suggest to the House that this Bill is in many ways part of this, shall we say "easy does it" mentality of the 1960s and 1970s that has permeated through to certain academic levels, certain levels among social workers, among the so-called intelligentsia and sophisticates. The mentality is that if a couple of people get tired of one another or if a particular way of life is not satisfactory, the man need only go out and shuck his wife as he would discard his suit or the wife may discard her husband as she would her year-old dress. This Bill merely reflects that attitude. I do not know that Canadian society will improve as a result thereof.
This Bill has encountered a good deal of opposition. One might expect the Conference of Catholic Bishops to have their say, and to their credit they have done so. It is an area in which they have a right and obligation to speak. There are other church groups and organizations which must look after the children of many of this mismatings and casual matings that we have in modern day society. They also have to look after wives who are discarded.
Incidentally, this divorce law is in many ways no different from some of our veterans affairs legislation. That legislation allows a veteran, under the insurance plan, merely to put aside his wife and live notoriously in the open with another woman. After a year, if he is not in a position to get remarried, he can merely designate his female companion as a beneficiary under the policy. There are other similar features about common law living with regard to veterans' pensions. It is "easy does it."
We must reflect upon whether Canadian society has become a rabbit hutch society. Many of my colleagues have criticized the philosophy behind this legislation. May I say that I have before me a Department of Justice hand-out of information which is printed in the National Review that is published by the Canadian Bar Association. The only thing I can say about the Department of Justice publicist who wrote this is that I wish he had learned his English. We are at repeated points. Just to take one, the word "alternatives" is used to describe numerous options. Let that individual go back and find out what the word "alternative" means. It means one of two, not one of many. There is a column replete with the misuse of that word. That is not good enough for the Department of Justice. We are faced here according to this learned person, with a span of 15 years from the last divorce amendments and consequently there must now be a change in the Divorce Act to comply with social developments. What utter piffle!
We remember before when the Divorce Act was changed when cruelty, desertion for three years, adultery, and several other sex-related crimes were the sole grounds of divorce. Of course, that really did set up, at times, an adversarial form of dealing with divorce, an accusation of adultery perhaps when quite often there was not that situation. There was the business of spurious grounds for divorce in manufactured cases, the old motel room routine; what we used to see so often before the Private Members' Committee of the Senate on Divorce. There was a whole industry in the Province of Quebec, which did not

February 24, 1984
Divorce Act
on any grounds allow for divorce. We had this sort of set up divorce machinery. Yet the statistics referred to in this Department of Justice release show that only one in 20 divorces may be contested. Usually divorce is not contested on the grounds of whether there was cruelty or whether there were grounds for divorce. The divorce is contested as a result of a refusal to agree or an inability to agree on the separation of assets, or on the size of the monthly maintenance for the spouse and, if there are children, for the children. That is the nub of why there are contests.
Then, I regret to say, there are some cases that finish up before the court because of the crass ignorance and incompetence of counsel who are advising the parties concerned. I am ashamed sometimes to see the performances of some of my fellow barristers, particularly in matters of this kind. There was always the fee hunter who did not care about what he had to do under the Act but wanted to finish up in court because he could then collect more in fees. Not only ambulance chasers do you find among the legal profession, but divorce hounds. That has its influence on that one person in 20. 1 would go as far as to say that possibly one in 30 divorces is contested. Is that sufficient reason, one in 30, to get into this open door of no fault? After one year of the filing of a petition for no fault divorce, the decree may be granted. But, Mr. Speaker, there are 90 days of cohabitation allowed, either continuously or cumulatively, after that one year following the filing of the petition. What is this filing for petition for divorce with weekend rights, visation and cohabitation? That is really a fine way of doing it, is it not? I will admit that it might be hard to penalize a person who has made a serious effort at reconciliation who has lived with his or her spouse during that period of attempted reconciliation for two or three months and then finds it is absolutely impossible to reconcile. Therefore, that person is excused. But I know how it is going to work out in the courts, the same way as it was 15 years ago when the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), as Minister of Justice, brought forward the changes in the Divorce Act. That was supposed to provide for marriage counselling and an attempt at reconciliation. I know for a fact that that was the biggest hoax ever perpetrated on Canadians. Divorce lawyers did not even pretend to refer anyone to a family counselling agency. There was mere lip service paid to that provision. That is why I say this Bill pays the same lip service to reconciliation and to efforts to preserve the marriage. That is why I am against this Bill.
If marriage is worth something, it is worth people putting something into it to make it work. That includes going to marriage consellors, proper marriage counsellors, not some social divorce lawyer who may take off his coat and say, "I am a marriage counsellor now," to make the marriage work possibly after a serious spat.
I invite Hon. Members or anyone who reads or who hears what I have had to say to look into their own family to see how many young couples have separated over a stupid little quarrel where each one took the high ground and gathered around himself or herself people who said, "Yes, you are doing the right thing." They may be people who were possibly unprepared for marriage. But there are people who fall into the hands of right-meaning relatives, clergy, counsellors or family service bureaux. If people really mean anything to one another they will make a sincere effort to see if they can find a way to patch up their differences. Sometimes it takes an extra step or an extra mile to achieve success. Apparently that is not the rule today. It is too much effort to patch it up and it is too easy to get a divorce. They feel, what is the difference; they can be married to someone else within six months. Maybe the girl the chap has married is not as glamorous over the breakfast table as she was at some dinner or at some dance; maybe he has halitosis in the morning or he is grumpy. Well, if all those things cannot be cured by some good will and change on the part of both parties, both of them are pretty poor stuff to start with.
I say that this Bill is deficient in that it makes insufficient provision for appropriate counselling and efforts at reconciliation to preserve the marriage. What should be the objective of any matrimonial legislation? It should not be to split the parties but to preserve them, if at all possible. I have seen some actions involving serious marriage offences. As a matter of fact I could cite two examples of young couples who were married in September and obtained their decree absolute the following March.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: Order, please! I regret to interrupt the interesting remarks the Hon. Member is making, but the time allocated to him has expired.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I could continue or take questions.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: We will proceed to the ten-minute period for questions or comments relevant to the speech of the Hon. Member.


Stanley Hudecki: Mr. Speaker, I would like to make one or two observations which coincide very much with what the Hon. Member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) has just enunciated. Personally I would like to see very few divorce actions, but the reality of today is such that this is not possible. Divorce actions really penalize a third party, the children, and are certainly the basis of a great deal of misbehaviour and insecurity on the part of children and further breakdown of families. However, I want to expand somewhat on the aspect of divorce about which the Hon. Member for Edmonton West spoke so eloquently, that is, the responsibility of the legal profession in assessing whether or not proper counselling or support has been given to the couple considering divorce.
As I understand it, every lawyer is expected to sign a warrant to the effect that every conceivable approach has been taken in order to keep the marriage together. This may vary from province to province, yet when one hears the duration between the time an action is started and divorce is granted, it
February 24, 1984

appears that this has not been carried out. Among the people I have seen in the practice of medicine, there has been very little attempt made to bring these couples together. This is a reflection of negligence on the part of the legal profession. In the medical profession, the greater the challenge, the harder the research work and the harder the practitioner works to find a solution to the problem. In the legal profession the common practice has been to go through with divorce actions as rapidly as possible and not give the needed social support to the couples.
A second aspect which is of concern to me is again the one year duration in the Bill. A divorce action is a very serious emotional experience for both men and women. Much reference has been made to women, but I would like to indicate that men go through the same emotionally disturbed period. There are many who require as much as a year to think rationally and to plan their lives as they had originally intended. Some steps must and should be taken to assess whether or not these people were able to assimilate intelligently the counselling and support given in order to keep a marriage together.
I agree with the Hon. Member for Edmonton West that very often the obstacle or barrier to bringing a couple together is minimal and with expert support could be remedied. On that account I feel that one year is too short a period of time to bring about corrective, remedial action. I feel that that period of time should be reconsidered.
I just wanted to bring those two observations to the attention of the House in the hope that they will be considered further in the deliberation of this Bill.


Donald W. Munro: Mr. Speaker, unlike most of those who rise to speak on Bills and say that they are delighted to have the opportunity, I do not intend to make any such statement at the beginning of my comments. I am anything but delighted to speak on this Bill or enter into debate on it. 1 am definitely and deeply displeased to have to speak in this debate because I feel that the Bill is a shoddy piece of work, brought before the House immaturely, and is really a disservice to the House in its present form. It is ill-considered, to put it at its mildest, and it is a disgrace as law and an insult to the institution of marriage.
However, I am on my feet and I intend to indicate my views on this Bill. First, I think it is odd. Perhaps odd is not the correct word. There may be another word which will generate itself as I continue. However, there are three Bills now before us which are intended to go through the House on second reading and be referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs. I cannot really make out whether it is honestly intended by the Government that these three Bills should become law or whether they are just being put forward as a token of the intention of the Government to do something about the three matters.
One subject is of course the security intelligence Bill which has been before the House but second reading of which has not been concluded. The second one is this divorce Bill, which I
Constitution Act, 1867
say is a disgrace to the House and is offensive in the manner in which it has been put forward and the manner in which it covers the purported matter of the Bill. The third one is that very thick Bill, the Criminal Code amendments, which again offends every good legislative taste. I am not sure whether the intention is that these three Bills be passed by the House or whether it is just a device.
If I may call it four o'clock, Mr. Speaker, I will continue at the next opportunity.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: Order, please! It being four 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

["Order. The hour provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired. It being five o'clock p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 3, this House stands adjourned until Monday, March 5, 1984, at eleven o'clock a.m.\nAt 5 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order 2(1).", 'Monday, March 5, 1984']
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: Shall all orders and items listed under Private Members' Business preceding Order No. 102 be allowed to stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Stand!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: Stand.



[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Friday, January 20, 1984, consideration of the motion of Mr. Isabelle that Bill C-206, an Act to amend the Constitutional Act, 1867 (national capital of Canada) be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.
Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I think we have a rather unusual and even bizarre situation here this afternoon. About two or three years ago, we debated a proposal tabled by the Hon. Member for Hull (Mr. Isabelle) on-I am not sure it was the same subject-the amalgamation or twinning of Hull with Ottawa, to make them both the capital of this country. Or maybe it was to create a National Capital Region that would include Hull. In any case, it concerned the City of Hull and area. However, this time, something funny is going on with the period set aside for Private Members' Business. We start with a first draw for fifty, more or less. Then, when it is a Member's turn to present a Bill or a motion or some Private Bill, he has the right to do

February 24, 1984
Constitution Act, 1867
so. However, I see that on January 20, Bill C-206 was debated for one hour. The Hon. Member presented his Bill, and subsequently my colleague from Lanark-Renfrew-Carleton (Mr. Dick) spoke to the Bill, and also my colleague from North Vancouver-Burnaby (Mr. Cook) and finally the Member for Kootenay West (Mr. Kristiansen). But if we look at the list of private bills, who do we see under No. 11? The same Hon. Member for Hull with Bill C-205. Now, how can we have 205, which is also about Hull how can we have both 205 and 206 in the name of the Member for Hull? Who is playing games here? Who is fiddling with the rules? Somebody must have fiddled with the formula for presenting private bills or motions, because the same Member is not supposed to have two in succession. A Member can only have one option in the first fifty. Yes, but this is all in the same session. Do you see? So-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: The Hon. Member for Hull, on a Point of Order.


Mr. Isabelle:: I think the Member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) is somewhat mistaken, because the normal procedure was followed. In fact, he must know the procedure far better than I do. Do you know why, after the debate on January 20, the Bill was allowed to stand and fell to the bottom of the list? Because, Mr. Speaker, no one could be found either on the opposition side or on this side. So I was asked whether I was prepared to speak to the Bill. So I said yes. And as for the matter of debating the other Bills, the other Bill or the same Bill, if you prefer, this was because my name was selected at random from the first ten. That is why the Bill is being presented today. There was no fiddling, and if there was, it was not me.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: No, Mr. Speaker-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: Order, please. First of all, I would like to point out to the Hon. Members that, at the beginning of Private Members' Hour, I asked whether all the items preceding No. 102 were to stand. I received unanimous consent. I also want to add that it is normal that we should be discussing at this moment the substance of Bill C-206 and that the subject under consideration is not how the bill numbers are drawn or the order in which they come before the House. The Chair has been informed that the normal procedure was followed when the Bill sponsored by the Hon. Member went down to the bottom of the list the last time it was debated. All those who appear before him on the list were contacted and no one was willing to proceed.
It must be noted that today is Friday. We are discussing item No. 102 and I would ask the Hon. Members who wish to take part in the debate to deal with the contents of Bill C-206 now under consideration.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, if you had followed my comments, you would know that I was saying that there were two
Bills at issue and that it was difficult to identify their contents. The Hon. Member interrupted me because I believed and still believe that we have distorted the procedure. The Hon. Member is not to blame! It is the bureaucrats. Well, listen! I know what happened and I am going to say so. This will have to be explained and it is not up to the Chair to consider this matter because the Chair has nothing to do with it. The Chair should not interfere in the debate! We are considering including the City of Hull in the area called the National Capital of Canada. The Bill simply states that it is hereby declared that the National Capital of Canada and the seat of the federal Government of Canada shall consist of the City of Ottawa, in the province of Ontario, and the City of Hull in the province of Quebec, and also of such surrounding area as prescribed from time to time by the Parliament of Canada. This simply means, first of all, according to the comments made by the Hon. Member, that the City of Hull will be included in the National Capital area. It does not say anything about the city of Nepean or that of Kanata. All it says is "the city of Hull and its surrounding area". There is a complete lack of definition. It does not say anything about Rockliffe or Vanier or Gloucester either. If you ask any out-of-towner who is visiting the national capital, Ottawa, and who has no idea of the limits of the many cities and towns within the Ottawa area . . . Does the Hon. Member himself know where are the limits between the City of Gloucester and that of Ottawa?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: The Hon. Member for Hull (Mr. Isabelle) rises on a point of order.


Joseph Gaston Isabelle: I must regretfully tell my Hon. colleague that he should read the Bill as it is, because what I really want to do is to replace Ottawa as the national capital-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: Can the Hon. Member resume his seat? This is not a point of order. The Hon. Member for Hull may not agree with the Hon. Member for Edmonton West, however the latter has the floor and should be listened to.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, actually, I know what the Hon. Member is attempting to do ... Listen, I have much sympathy for what he is attempting to do.
Legally, the National Capital is encompassed within the very narrow limits of the City of Ottawa. I suggest there are as many people, if no more, who live in what they consider as Greater Ottawa, an area we think of as the National Capital! I know that my colleague from Lanark-Renfrew-Carleton (Mr. Dick), and also the two Hon. Members who spoke before favour the idea. Yes! That may make sense! But it must be remembered that, just because Air Canada mentions Ottawa-Hull in its schedules, that does not mean that Ottawa-Hull is the National Capital. No more than Toronto-Hamilton, which appear as twin cities in the same schedule are one city. They
February 24, 1984

are neighbour cities, but not part of the same urban centre. There are many such examples.
I can see some constitutional problems. Naturally, some of you will remind me that there should be consultation with the provinces about the site of the Capital. I know that there is a National Capital Region unilaterally declared by the federal Government and which includes some areas in Quebec, like the entire Gatineau Park, but no agreement has been reached on that point, at least I do not know of any. The Hon. Member suggests that a legal authority exists and that we would merely need an order in council to determine the area included in the Capital. It would be the National Capital Region including appropriate towns and suburbs. I am not quite so sure. It seems to me that it could give rise to a confrontation, especially with the Quebec government. I think that it would almost be like a declaration of war. The province of Ontario could very well say: the provinces are entitled to establish towns within their limits and if necessary to alter the limits of cities or municipalities under such or such an administrative procedure. Well, what can you expect? And we have seen municipalities on the other side of the Ottawa River being merged and made into one city through by-laws under the authority of the Government of Quebec. We all know that. But now, however, we are talking about an order in council issued by the federal Cabinet and stating that henceforth the City of Hull will be part of Canada's capital. Hull would be in the National Capital. What would be the legal consequences? I read the speech of the Hon. Member, but I did not find any reference to the legal consequences of such action. Of course, he did mention certain advantages which would flow from that and would affect the region of Hull as well as Ottawa, but we have not heard anything about some of the negative consequences and it seems to me that we are entitled to a word of explanation before we even consider adopting this Bill, or any other on the same subject, and sending it to Committee. It is not after adopting the Bill that we should have explanations which might perhaps make us change our mind and decide to withdraw our support. You know, Mr. Speaker, we have a practice here whereby, if a Bill is passed on second reading, the principle of the Bill is adopted. I for one do not see it that way and I say that it is wrong because Bill C-206 appears on the Order Paper for second reading and reference to such or such Committee of the House where the Bill would be considered and then reported. It might be reported with an amendment which would have been approved by the majority on the Committee and which might or right not be accepted by the House. An amendment could very well be tabled and debated in this House and the Bill could then be read for the second time. This is the way it goes. The report of the committee of the whole is then agreed upon and the Chair says: "The Bill is read for the second time." We are now being told that, after going through this stage in committee of the whole and after the Bill has been voted on at second reading, it has definitely been accepted or approved in principle. That is false, complete-
Constitution Act, 1867
ly false, but the truth has to be pointed out to these people, beginning with the Prime Minister, because he is always saying that once you have agreed to a Bill you are marked forever, which is completely false, because the Bill is accepted in principle only after its referral here, to the committee, and after the Chair has called the vote at the second reading stage. The same is true, Mr. Speaker, with the procedure in this case. Committee chairmen who do not accept that you put forward amendments because the principle of the Bill has been adopted and the amendment flies in the face of that principle. So this cannot be, you did not present it a second time for acceptance.
I would appreciate that, as a conclusion to this debate, the hon. member speak of certain legal implications he anticipates, and also indicate his view as to the attitude of the Province of Quebec and the Province of Ontario, which are the provinces affected. Frankly, I would have this to say, Mr. Speaker, in conclusion. Do you know that the people in Edmonton would have something to say on the composition of the national capital? It belongs to them and to me, a resident, a property owner in the City of Ottawa, as much as to the hon. member for Hull (Mr. Isabelle).
Hon. Members opposite also, and the citizens of their towns have a voice as to what should happen to the National Capital.


Mr. George Baker (Gander-Twillingate):: Mr. Speaker, I decided to say a few words about the Bill presented by the Hon. Member for Hull (Mr. Isabelle) because having observed his attempts over the last few years to accomplish this change I can see that even now there is some disagreement or lack of understanding of what he is trying to do. Basically he is simply trying to amend Section 16 of the Constitution Act of 1867; in other words to have the national capital of Canada designated the national capital area.
Over the last few years the Hon. Member for Hull has tried to convince Parliament that since 1858 things have changed drastically and so other things should change as well. One of the changes is introduced in the Bill. On numerous occasions he has pointed out that Parliament has expanded to the Quebec side, that the National Capital Region includes municipalities in Ontario and Quebec. He therefore asks the question, why not make it the capital of Canada? Ottawa and Hull and the surrounding areas equal the National Capital Region.
If we look at the remarks made by the Hon. Member for Hull when introducing the Bill, we will see that on January 20, as reported at page 617, he said:
-if we refer to the history of the national capital area, we see that since the small village of Bytown was selected by the Queen in 1858, it was then ridiculed and called a forest centre and a capital of logs, the City of Ottawa as such has constantly developed.
The reason why I am asking for that amendment is that since the time of Sir Wilfrid Laurier, Sir Robert Borden and even the Right Hon. Mackenzie King, we have always wanted to make of the capital of Canada a national symbol, the seat of our national languages or, if you prefer, the beating heart of our nation.

February 24, 1984
Constitution Act, 1867
Up to now, I think that we have always thought of the capital of Canada as a city in Ontario. I have nothing against Ontario or Ottawa, but throughout the years, we have asked the Federal Government to contribute to the beautification of the region and we have been saying that it should not be restricted to the city of Ottawa. Parliament has continued to expand the region on the Quebec side, in the Outaouais region, and we are now saying that the National Capital Region is a product of Canadian federalism and reflects many of the familiar political, social, linguistic and cultural differences and ambiguities of Canadian society. It is typical of Canada.
In other words, it is a simple matter. The National Capital Region should be the capital of Canada. The Hon. Member for Hull has referred to the positive results of such change over the years. One of the things he has always concentrated on is that it would lead to increased co-operation not, as the former speaker said, to problems. What the Hon. Member for Hull is saying is that it would lead to increased co-operation between the municipalities. He explained that in his last speech when he said:
Whenever we have asked for the co-operation of the various regional governments, it has always been a difficult proposition. This is why over the years I have always advocated a federal district, in order that the federal Government be at home here. But this is not for tomorrow, because we know what came out of the so-called co-operation between the various levels of government, both local and provincial.
The Hon. Member for Hull represents his constituents as well as or better than most Members in the House. He made a statement in introducing his Bill which I thought was interesting. I believe his comments were to the effect that because of the present situation on both sides of the river, it is the most over-governed and overtaxed region of Canada. Why is that, Mr. Speaker? The Hon. Member for Hull says it is because of this complete lack of co-operation between the various levels of government, local and provincial.
In reviewing the objections to the Hon. Member's proposition over the years, a couple of things stand out. It has been said that it is not a simple matter to do this; it is very, very complicated; it is difficult to amend Section 16. I should like to refer the House to what the Hon. Member has said repeatedly over the years. It is reported at page 618 of Hansard as follows:
To those who suggest that an extraordinary process is required for amending Section 16, I say all that is needed is an Order in Council, simply adding Hull and the surrounding municipalities on both sides of the river, so that Canada's National Capital truly reflects the daily life of every Canadian. Because certainly visitors, whether they come from British Columbia or from New Brunswick or Prince Edward Island, are not particularly enthralled when coming to Ottawa to visit just another Ontario City.
When the Hon. Member presented his Bill, some politicians provincially and some federally accused him of trying to "get rid" of Ottawa. In all the statements the Hon. Member has made he has clarified this matter. I should like to quote briefly from his speech of January 20, 1984 in the Chamber when he said, as reported in Hansard at the botton of page 618:
-we should make Ottawa part of the National Capital Region just as all the other municipalities which are now part of the National Capital Region. And I am sure that members of the House are aware of this major problem of a capital for a young country such as Canada, for we have had a flag for some twenty years and we have a practically new, at least freshly patriated Constitution. In my opinion, what really matters now is to endow ourselves with a capital which clearly reflects the wills, aspirations and modus vivendi of all Canadians.
At that stage, Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member got to the exact point of his campaign over the years with this Bill. He went on to say:
It should occupy a neutral ground, outside the territory of any individual province-
The Hon. Member for Hull (Mr. Isabelle) continued:
-I just cannot understand how a province such as Ontario can logically have two capitals. If there is disunity, if the West feels alienated, it may be because we have no meeting point where we could all get together and feel at home as Canadians. People from western Canada think that they are away visiting eastern Canada when they come to this Ontario city, and those from eastern Canada think they have gone West when they are in the same Ontario city.
How true that is, Mr. Speaker. The Hon. Member for Hull went on to say:
Therefore, to dispel any doubt and give Canada a new image or impetus, in line with the novelties we have known over the past few years, including the flag,
I think it is a matter of individual self-esteem and national pride to have a capital which reflects the character of all Canadians from coast to coast.
That, Mr. Speaker, is basically what the hon. gentleman is proposing in this legislation, and basically what he has said over the years in trying to accomplish his objective. He is saying to us all that we do not as a whole understand exactly why he has been proposing to amend Section 16 of the Constitution Act, 1867 that the national capital of Canada become designated as the national capital area. It is a fact of life today that Parliament, that the federal Government, has expanded to the Quebec side. The National Capital Region itself includes municipalities on both sides. Why not make it the capital of Canada? He is also saying that there will increased co-operation between municipalities. He is making the accusation that this area is presently, and I will quote him exactly, " . .. the most over-governed and over-taxed region of Canada." He said it is so because of a total lack of co-operation between various levels of government, local and provincial. He makes the point that it is a simple matter, and something for Government to think about, to amend Section 16 of a simple Order in Council. He is not saying that he is trying to get rid of Ottawa.
I commend the hon. gentleman for his persistence and perseverance on behalf of his region and on behalf of his constituents. I believe that, regardless of what happens now, we will see in the not too distant future the Hon. Member's proposition become a reality.


Donald W. Munro: Mr. Speaker, before embarking upon the comments I have prepared for this debate today, I should just like to make a few comments on the remarks which have just been made by the Hon. Member for Gander-Twillingate (Mr. Baker). He said that Parliament had expanded to the other side of the Ottawa River into Hull. Parliament had expanded? I wonder if he knows what Parliament is, Mr. Speaker. Later on in his remarks, the Hon. Member said that the federal Government had expanded its operations across the river. I believe that is probably what he meant. I hope he did not mean that Parliament has expanded in that way. I would suggest, therefore, that perhaps the Hon.
February 24, 1984

Member could be permitted to correct his first statement so as not to be on the record as having made a statement he did not intend to make with respect to Parliament expanding across the river, because, to my knowledge, Parliament has not.
1 am surprised, Mr. Speaker, that this Bill is now before us, that it was accepted by the Table officers. Presumably it was examined for legality before being presented to the House. I do not feel it would stand the test in the courts, with all due respect. If it became law despite its unconstitutionality- because I am satisfied it is unconstitutional-it would be tested in the courts of the land. I am sure of that. Even the most recent constitutional documents which eventually became the Constitution Act of 1982 provide adequate justification for my comments. 1 can go back earlier than that to the British North America Act of 1867 where again there is a provision suggesting that this is an unconstitutional document.
It has been brought to us, Mr. Speaker, improperly and I intend to demonstrate that. I will choose the most recent document, which of course is not the law of the land, and look at this particular Bill against the background of the Constitution of 1982, as I must. This is a Bill which has to mesh or be found not to mesh with that particular Act. I draw your attention, Mr. Speaker, to Part V, Section 38(2) of the Constitution Act of 1982 wherein the following is found, and I will paraphrase it in order to make it a readable sentence: An amendment made under subsection 1 that derogates from the proprietary rights, or any other rights or privileges of the legislature, or government of a province, shall require resolution supported by a majority of the Members of each of the Senate and the House of Commons, and, Mr. Speaker, the Legislative Assembly is required under subsection 1.
You will notice that the wording of this particular Bill before us, which was presented by the Hon. Member for Hull, purports to declare that the national capital of Canada, " ... shall consist...". This is a declaration of the House of Commons. Presumably, he would expect it to be declared also by the other place, otherwise it could not become law. But are we legally competent in face of what I have just cited, Mr. Speaker, to make any such declaration? I contend that we are not. We are acting beyond the powers that this particular Parliament of ours possesses under a law which was passed by this Parliament and approved by the legislatures of the provinces. I suggest to you, therefore, Mr. Speaker, that Bill C-206 is faulty, is before us improperly and is merely inviting a ruling by the Supreme Court of Canada to declare it ultra vires.
More than that, Mr. Speaker, the following is to be feared. I feel that legislation of this Parliament should be aimed at doing something positive to hold the country together. If one of the provinces were to contest this Bill before the Supreme Court of Canada, should it become law, the only result would be acrimony. Why are we considering a Bill which would produce acrimony in the country? Surely we have had enough of that. Legislation should not do that. I have suggested, as has the Hon. Member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert), that
Constitution Act, 1867
this is more than invasion of provincial jurisdiction; it is an invasion of municipal jurisdiction.
The Constitution of 1982 has all sorts of appendices. One of them is what I still call the BNA Act of 1867. It describes the exclusive powers of the provincial legislature. One of them is property and civil rights. We are dealing with property here. This is incorporating the property of two provinces into a single unit. This is offensive to the BNA Act of 1867, Section 92(13). Property and civil rights are dealt with there and, to the best of my knowledge, that has not been withdrawn.
Section 92(8) deals with the exclusive jurisdiction of provincial legislatures. How can this Parliament dare-and I use the word advisedly-to consider legislation which derogates from Section 92(8) of the Constitution of Canada? It is invading a provincial jurisdiction by presuming to say that Ottawa and Hull are part of the national capital under the jurisdiction of this Parliament. That is absolute effrontery. The Member who proposed this Bill should have had the good grace to suggest that it would be expedient, once this Bill had been passed, to request the authority of the provinces to accede to the wishes of Parliament. However, this Bill purports to declare that something shall happen. There is nothing more affirmative than that. There is no concession or recognition that there is any other jurisdiction at all.
To whom would the residents of this capital pay their provincial tax? He had not thought of that, had he? The taxes in the Province of Quebec are a little high and people may not want to pay them in Quebec. Perhaps they could pay their taxes to the federal authority which now declares that this incorporated area is the capital of Canada rather than paying provincial tax. It worries me, Mr. Speaker, that we are considering a Bill beyond the powers of this Parliament to consider.
I would like to refer to Section 43 of the Constitution Act of 1982 which was proclaimed in front of this building. This Bill purports to amend the Constitution of Canada. I was surprised to hear the Member for Gander-Twillingate say there was going to be an Order in Council. This is now an Order in Council; this is a legislative Act being proposed.


George Baker: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The hon. gentleman is misquoting. If he had been listening carefully he would have known I was quoting the Hon. Member for Hull.


Donald W. Munro: Mr. Speaker, I withdraw. The Hon. Member for Hull ought to have known better. There is no Order in Council here at all. This would be a legislative Act if it were accepted in its present form.
Section 43 of the Constitution Act of 1982 reads:
An amendment to the Constitution of Canada in relation to any provision that applies to one or more, but not all, provinces, including
(a)	any alteration to boundaries between provinces-
That is virtually what this would do. It would ignore the boundary between the Provinces of Ontario and Quebec. The section goes on to say:
(b)	any amendment.. . may be made by proclamation issued by the Governor General under the Great Seal of Canada only where so authorized by resolutions

February 24, 1984
Constitution Act, 1867
of the Senate and House of Commons and of the legislative assembly of each province to which the amendment applies.
In his wildest imagination does the Member think the National Assembly of the Province of Quebec is going to cede territory to the federal Government? What does he mean by "the capital"? Is it to be some sort of vague area? We were talking about the jurisdictions of municipalities. Who will levy the municipal taxes in the conglomerate which is being gathered up here?
I know the Member has worked on this for a long time but, with all due respect, I believe he might have thought about it a good deal more clearly and fully in order to realize these implications. For instance, what tax will we pay on the gasoline which we buy, whether in metres or gallons? Would you buy in one place because it is cheaper than in another?
I honestly do not believe that the Hon. Member went into it as well as he should have. Maybe he just dredged it up before the Constitution Act of 1982 had become law and brought it forward in this form.
I am not blaming the Member for drafting the Bill, because I am sure he had legal advice. We all need legal advice when drafting a Bill because very few of us are legislative draftsmen. It worries me that a Bill so badly drafted should have been accepted for presentation to the House in this form. Even if it were to be passed, all it would do is to incite opposition in one province or the other or both and create a situation which this country does not need.


Mr. Dave Nickerson (Western Arctic):: Mr. Speaker, first let me congratulate the Hon. Member for Hull (Mr. Isabelle) on his preparedness. You have explained why it is that for three Private Members' hours in a row we have been discussing matters concerning the National Capital Region, and particularly the constituency of Hull, that have been brought forward by the Hon. Member from that city. I guess it reflects upon the rest of us when we are not prepared for the eventualities of Private Members' Business under the new rules.
In the few minutes that remain let me address very briefly the constitutional issue which was touched upon by my colleague, the Hon. Member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert), and gone into in some detail by my colleague from Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Munro). If we look at Section 16 of the Constitution Act, formerly the BNA Act of 1867, we find that the determination of the capital of Canada is stated under this section. It reads:
Until the Queen otherwise directs, the Seat of Government of Canada shall be Ottawa.
I think the Hon. Member for Gander-Twillingate (Mr. Baker) would have been quite right had his remarks referred to the situation 100 years ago when he said that strictly through executive action, through Order in Council, a change could be made. I strongly suspect that it is quite conceivable
that in those far off days the capital of Canada would have been changed fairly quickly.
I do not know why Ottawa was chosen. Maybe there were some military considerations, such as the existence of the military canal close by or the fact that Ottawa was a little farther away from the St. Lawrence River and the Great Lakes so it could not be readily attacked by our enemies then, now our friends south of the border. Perhaps it was another great Canadian compromise, having something right on the border between Canada East and Canada West as it existed before Confederation.
I suspect that there was a possibility that the capital might have been moved. It had been moved from Kingston and Montreal, if I remember correctly, in times past. As years went by things have changed. If one looks at the remarks of Mr. Justice Cartwright in 1966, in the Munro versus National Capital Commission case, one can see that his interpretation at that time, some 20 years ago, was that the authority, prescribed by Section 16, of the Queen to change the location of the seat of Government of Canada would now be exercisable by Her Majesty in right of Canada, and that while the section contemplates executive action, as cited by the Member for Gander-Twillingate, the change could doubtless be made by an Act of Parliament in which Her Majesty acts with the advice and consent of the Senate and the House of Commons of Canada. At that time it was suspected by the Supreme Court that the change could not be made by executive action alone but that it would require an Act of Parliament to make the change.
Since that time we have had the Constitution Act of 1982. I think that constitutional traditions and constitutional conventions have developed in the intervening period to the point where right now we would be satisfied with the arguments made by the Hon. Member for Esquimalt-Saanich that to change the capital would indeed be a constitutional change requiring the consent of the provinces.
To get away from the technical constitutional arguments, let us take a wider view. The Bill we have before us addresses itself to the question of the location of the capital of Canada. If we have that in mind, why can we not at the same time consider other possibilities than the present location? One hundred or more years ago, this was the centre of the population of Canada, the centre of the wealth of Canada. There was very little to the West at that time.
Things have changed in 100 years. The West is built up. Before there was only Prince Rupert Land. Now there are cities like Vancouver, Edmonton and Calgary. This is where the rapid growth in population has been. This is where the new wealth of Canada has been created over the years. Why can we not now look at the possibility of changing location to a place that is approximately at the geographical centre of Canada? I am not suggesting that we necessarily go to Gimli, Manitoba, but we might at least look at the possibility of moving to Winnipeg. It would be a lot easier for western Members of Parliament to go to Winnipeg than it would be to take a plane to Toronto, then change planes in Toronto and
February 24, 1984

come to Ottawa. As years go by and the make-up of the House of Commons changes, as it should do, that argument will become more and more relevant.
Another series of problems that we have with Ottawa as the capital of Canada is that this is very much a company town. The one industry here is Government. This gives rise to all manner of problems. There is no cross-fertilization of ideas between people who are principally involved in government and people who are principally involved in business or some other endeavour. For that reason I think sometimes the decisions made in Ottawa, in the comfortable ivory towers in the capital city, do not reflect the thinking of Canadians who live elsewhere in this country. It is not right when there is an isolation of the people who do the governing from those who are governed. I think there is a lack of knowledge on the part of many people in Ottawa, especially those who work in the
Constitution Act, 1867
Government Departments here, pertaining to the real life of Canada and Canadians.
If we were to buy this argument, then we might want to move the capital of Canada to a place like Toronto.


Mr. Gauthier:: Never.


Dave Nickerson: Or Montreal.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Never.


Dave Nickerson: An even worse suggestion.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: Order. The hour provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired. It being five o'clock p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 3, this House stands adjourned until Monday, March 5, 1984, at eleven o'clock a.m.
At 5 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order 2(1).

Monday, March 5, 1984