1985-05-22

Mr. Jean-Claude Malepart (Montreal-Sainte-Marie):: Mr. Speaker, tomorrow is an important day, for that is when we will find out the true intentions of this Conservative Government. We will see whether the Conservative Government lives up to its election promises and whether its consultations were nothing more than make-believe. Tomorrow we will find out whether the Government pays more attention to financiers than to ordinary Canadians, middle- and low-income earners. Tomorrow we will find out whether Canadian men and women enjoy a sunny or cloudy day. Mr. Speaker, tomorrow we will find out whether the Government intends to redress its injustice towards needy senior citizens aged 60 to 64, and whether it will make all needy Canadians living alone eligible for the spouse's allowance. Tomorrow we will find out whether the Government intends to correct the unfair situation it created by slashing $17 million off the residential renovation and rehabilitation program in Quebec. Tomorrow we will find out whether the Conservative Government will slap a tax on gasoline to offset losses incurred through tax incentives to the oil multinationals. Tomorrow we will find out whether families with dependents will be penalized, particularly middle-income families.
Mr. Speaker, I dare hope-


Mr. Speaker:: I must inform the Hon. Member that his time has expired. The Hon. Member for Prince Albert (Mr. Hovdebo).


PRINCE ALBERT RAIDERS WIN JUNIOR HOCKEY CHAMPIONSHIP
Mr. Stan J. Hovdebo (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, the Prince Albert Raiders are the best junior hockey players in Canada. They proved it last Saturday by winning the Memorial Cup.
The forestry capital of Canada, Prince Albert, Saskatchewan, produces pulp, lumber, and grain. Prince Albert also produces Prime Ministers and championship hockey teams.
After winning four Centennial Cup Tier II National Junior Championships, the Prince Albert Raiders moved up to major junior hockey in the Western Hockey League just three years ago. Last Saturday, in Drummondville, Quebec, Prince Albert defeated the Shawinigan Cataractes to win the Memorial Cup, the highest award for junior hockey in Canada.
Coach Terry Simpson of the Raiders distinguished himself world-wide five months ago when he coached the Canadian team to the World Junior Hockey Championship in Helsinki, Finland.
Coach Simpson and the Prince Albert Raiders have produced, and will continue to produce, outstanding citizens through their hockey program. Prince Albert is proud of the Raiders' accomplishment and their contributions as ambassadors to the world.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Rob Nicholson (Niagara Falls):: Mr. Speaker, environmental concerns are very much on the minds of all Canadians, and the people of my riding are no exception. There is an increasing awareness that all pollution, wherever found, must be stopped, and that preservation and enhancement of our environment must become a major focus of government and the private sector.
On this occasion I would like to bring to the attention of the House a resolution forwarded to me by the Kiwanis Club of Stamford, which is located in my riding of Niagara Falls. The Kiwanis Club of Stamford, along with other citizens in my riding, are concerned and recognize the current serious state of our environmental situation. Their resolution states that they fully support the protection of our environment and, in particular, they encourage public education and legislation that provide for cleaner air, cleaner water, and proper conservation of land and vegetation. I have assured them that I will do everything to promote that cause, and I know that I have the support of all Members of Parliament in this endeavour.

May 22, 1985


THE PRIME MINISTER
Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops-Shuswap):: Mr. Speaker, since Confederation, the Province of British Columbia has felt distant from the political, economic, and social forces of Central Canada. The geographic distance between British Columbia and Ottawa is approximately 4,000 kilometres, yet the psychological distance is nearer to 10,000.
The previous Prime Minister did very little to reduce this sense of distance and alienation. Indeed, many of his own Party members regularly asked him not to visit British Columbia, for his presence was not always seen as a positive one for the Liberal Party in that part of Canada.
However, it would appear that the new Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) must be receiving similar advice. Although near nine months have passed since the Prime Minister took office, he has not yet found time to visit the people of British Columbia.
Considering the isolation and alienation British Columbians have experienced over the years, and the extremely difficult economic times as reflected in the excessively high unemployment rates and numbers, the Prime Minister's failure to visit, meet, and consult with the People of British Columbia is totally unacceptable.
During the last election campaign the Prime Minister said that the people of British Columbia were a priority for his Government. But his own actions and behaviour appear to indicate otherwise.
* *
*


NATIONAL SOIL CONSERVATION WEEK
Mr. Bill Gottselig (Moose Jaw):: Mr. Speaker, as this is National Soil Conservation Week I would like to address the very important issue of soil degradation. Soil degradation is one of the most vital concerns facing Canadian agriculture today. It is so vital that the attention of industry, universities, and Governments of all levels, is focused on it.
Soil and water conservation initiatives should be a priority item for all levels of government. We must recognize Canada's soil for what it is, the very foundation of our national wealth. We must maintain the productivity of our land, as well as the quality of our water, to sustain growth and prosperity for future generations.
With grain stocks at their lowest level in 40 years, the time to take a decisive action is now. I call on all levels of government to develop an effective strategy to halt and reverse the long term effect of land degradation, recognizing the importance of the primary producer in this plan.


NOMINATION TO CN RAIL BOARD OF DIRECTORS
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Mr. Speaker, the Tories need to get their act together on patronage. The Minister of Transport (Mr. Mazankowski) announced the nomination of twice defeated Tory candidate in Nipissing, Marie Marchand, of North Bay, to the board of directors of CN Rail. The Minister will know that this nomination has been so unpopular with North Bay Tories that the local people have written letters of protest to the Government. Furthermore, the nomination prompted the Tory Member for Nipissing (Mr. Mantha) to say about the nominee: "If you can't say something nice about somebody, you shouldn't say anything at all."
When asked about her experience in railways, Mrs Marchand said that there is more to this than only patronage. After all, she said, she lives in North Bay-a railroad town. She further added to the newspaper that her grandfather was a well known railroader in the Maritimes. If that does not make someone qualified, what does? Are these the qualifications which the Minister used as a basis to appoint this person? Or is it the fact that she was a defeated Tory candidate? In order to find out the answer we will have to wait until Friday morning to see who will get the PAW award this week.


FORESTRY
Mrs. Mary Collins (Capilano):: Mr. Speaker, forestry agreements mean jobs. Energy agreements mean jobs. Together they mean more jobs and economic health for the people of British Columbia. That is what this Government has been doing for the people of British Columbia.
This Saturday in Vancouver our Minister of State for Forestry (Mr. Merrithew) will sign a $300 million forestry agreement with British Columbia, an agreement which has been lauded by industry and labour alike. What does this landmark agreement mean? Renewed forests, replanting of 600,000 hectares, intensive silviculture, and jobs, 15,000 person-years of employment. This is only part of the $575 million ERDA-IRDP agreement between our government and the Province of British Columbia which will herald a new era of economic activity for our westernmost province.
That is not all. When the Energy Minister negotiated the Western Energy Accord a few months ago, we knew it was good news for British Columbia. Now we have solid proof. Most recently three energy companies announced their application to build a $600 million fertilizer plant on Annacis Island in Delta. The decision to proceed with this project was based on the efforts of the B.C. Government, but particularly, by the progressive policies of this Government to dismantle the heinous national energy-
May 22, 1985


Mr. Speaker:: I must advise the Member that her time has expired.


MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT
Mr. John Parry (Kenora-Rainy River):: Mr. Speaker, parliamentarians were dismayed to see in yesterday's Ottawa Citizen that a student entrepreneur is using a life-size cardboard image of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) for "photo opportunities". Right thinking Canadians will be quick to condemn this trend toward artificiality in politics, although they will, of course, acknowledge the poetic justice in that it is the Prime Minister whose presence is being so artfully simulated.
Several possible remedies for this fraudulent practice suggest themselves. Perhaps the presidential stance, or some outstanding physical characteristics, might be patented, copyrighted, or registered as a trademark to prevent counterfeiting.
In any case measures must be taken to nip this practice in the bud before it becomes too widespread. Consider the dangers. While most Canadians can probably tell the difference between the Prime Minister and a cardboard likeness, imagine the difficulties they would have if one-dimensional replicas of the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Nielsen) were to start springing up around the country. Dissension and dismay would spread as citizens argued over who had seen the real Member for Yukon and whether or not his lips moved.
In short, this practice could destroy by excessive exposure the images that the Government has worked so diligently to build up. It is a public menace, and must be stopped.


CANADA POST CORPORATION
Mr. Howard Crosby (Halifax West):: Mr. Speaker, it has been said before, but it bears repeating. Parliament must review the operations of the Canada Post Corporation in the interests of all Canadians. In 1981 Canada Post accepted a challenge from the Parliament of Canada to improve the postal service. Four years later it is clear that Canada Post has failed to respond adequately to its statutory mandate.
There is a long litany of complaints, and no real evidence of improvement: $425,000 and more was spent on consulting fees to monitor transmission times for letters; private couriers were engaged to deliver important post office mail; thousands of dollars were wasted on full page ads telling Canadians how to use the mail. The real offence against the Canadian public is the zero growth policy which destroys the right of new Canadian households to receive postal service.
Oral Questions
Canada Post has the statutory monopoly on postal services in Canada. It must serve all Canadians, whatever the cost. It is time for a parliamentary review of all aspects of the operations of Canada's postal service.


THE CHARTER OF RIGHTS
Ms. Sheila Copps (Hamilton East):: Mr. Speaker, when the Government was elected it promised that women would have equal opportunity. It promised that women would have a chance to compete equally in the market-place. It promised that equal pay for work of equal value would be a benchmark-


Some Hon. Members:: Louder. Louder.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. All Members are entitled to make their statements and be heard, at least by the Speaker. The Hon. Member for Hamilton East (Ms. Copps).
S)


Sheila Maureen Copps: In fact not only is the Government not backing its promises to women, to aggravate the situation further it is ignoring the city of Hamilton.
When I heard that the equality committee was travelling across the country to hear what women had to say about the equality clauses in the Constitution, I was shocked to discover that, after only nine days of notice, the Minister decided that Hamilton was not an important enough place because the response had not been great enough. If the mountain will not go to Mohammed, Mohammed will come to the mountain. I invite the constituents in my riding to come to Ottawa to let the Government know how the equality provisions are as important to the people of Hamilton as they are to the people of Baie Comeau, and that they want to be heard in Hamilton on this very important issue.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Donald J. Johnston (Saint-Henri-Westmount):: Mr. Speaker, I do not see too many targets over there today. However, in the absence of the Minister of Finance, the Prime Minister, and the Deputy Prime Minister, I will direct my question to the Acting Prime Minister. Everyone in the House realizes that tomorrow is a day long awaited by Canadians, in fact eight months. There are great expectations. Of course there is some fear as well. I want to ensure the Minister of

May 22, 1985
Oral Questions
Finance, through the Acting Prime Minister, that we on this side of the House wish him well as he puts on his new shoes tomorrow and delivers his Budget to the House of Commons and to Canadians.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald James Johnston: With your indulgence, Mr. Speaker, I would ask you to add that to my very limited time.
The Minister of Finance has been derailed often enough in the last eight months, and we want to see him get back on track. Would the Acting Prime Minister, using his good offices, discuss with the Minister of Finance a problem which has come to bore us as Canadians, namely, the dragging out at every opportunity of all the tired and shop-worn complaints about the previous administration, based upon a distorted Tory view of history?


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Donald James Johnston: It is their Government; it is their agenda; no more excuses. Will the Acting Prime Minister assure us that he will convey that message to the Minister of Finance, get rid of those shop-worn complaints and get on with the job? We want to look to the future, not to a distorted view of the past.


Hon. Barbara McDougall (Minister of State (Finance)):: Mr. Speaker, I would suggest to the Hon. Member that the best thing he can do between now and tomorrow is hold his breath.


FINANCE
Donald James Johnston: Mr. Speaker, Canadians have been holding their breath for over eight months.

Now, if I must direct my question to the Minister of Finance, that is-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. With great respect to the Hon. Member, I cannot hear his question because of the noise in the House, and it is not coming from that Hon. Member's Party. May 1 hear the question, please?
[ Translation]


Donald James Johnston: It is a fair ruling and much appreciated.
The Minister has said that his Budget will be tough and fair, and it is to be hoped, Mr. Speaker, that it will at least be intelligent, not the pitiful document produced on November 8, when the Minister was obliged to review a whole set of ill-conceived cut-backs. Could he and could she give the House
the assurance that an impact study of the Budget has been made with respect to employment, research, inflation, the regions and the environment, and that the study will be tabled here in the House with the Budget?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague, the Minister of Finance, will be intelligent, as always, in addition to tough and fair.


EFFECT OF POSSIBLE BUDGETARY CUTS
Donald James Johnston: Mr. Speaker, I wish the Minister of Finance were not in hiding today and had not sent forth his emissary, the Minister of State for Finance, who is hardly forthcoming.
In any event, in my last supplementary, Mr. Speaker, let me point out to you something you know well. The Liberal Party and the people of Canada look to this Budget above all to create jobs, not just for tax lawyers and accountants, not just for the people on Bay Street, and I know you agree with this approach. Will the Minister of Finance, through the Minister of State for Finance, agree to table in the House of Commons, which he refused to do the last time, those studies of the Department of Finance which show the job loss in all sectors and all regions arising from the cuts which the Prime Minister assured us would be in the Budget?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, the expelling of wind in the House today is really quite extraordinary. Since the economic agenda there have been over 200,000 jobs created in this country, and I can only reiterate: intelligent, tough, and fair.


WESTERN ACCORD-EFFECT ON TAXPAYERS
Mr. Russell MacLellan (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. The Western Accord will reduce federal government revenues by over $1 billion this year alone. Since the Prime Minister has told us that the cost of that Accord must be borne equally across the country, will the Minister tell us how it will be shared among Canadians?


Hon. Pat Carney (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, as I have told this House, there is nothing in the Western Accord which would lead to the results indicated by the Hon. Member. His comments are sheer speculation.
May 22, 1985


MULTINATIONAL OIL COMPANIES
Russell Gregoire MacLellan: Mr. Speaker, the Government is saying the Budget is going to be tough but fair. It is going to be fair to the multinationals and tough on the consumers? Three of the multinationals are saying that further spending and job creation will depend on future world prices for oil and even more tax concessions. Will the Minister tell us if she is going to give further monies to the multinationals?


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, I fail to understand the basis for the Hon. Member's question. A number of projects have been announced which have created jobs since the Western Accord was signed. I have at least $15 billion worth of work and thousands of jobs in projects which are on my desk and which have been announced since the Western Accord was signed.
I am sorry that the Hon. Members opposite are indifferent to the information I have to offer, and that they are unable to listen to me talk about jobs for Canadians. Possibly they feel that their questions do not deserve an answer.


EFFECT OF ACCORD ON CONSUMERS
Mr. Ian Waddell (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Energy and I hope she will be kind enough to give me an answer. The Independent Petroleum Association has said that, as a result of the Western Accord, $1.2 billion will go to the oil companies through deregulation of oil. The Financial Post has said if you add in the PGRT, a tax which the Government is forgoing, it amounts to about $9 billion in government revenues to the oil companies over five years. Does the Minister still stand by her claim that this $9 billion shortfall in government revenue will not be taken out of the pockets of ordinary Canadian consumers?


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, again the figures used by the Hon. Member are clearly speculative. The consumer is the major beneficiary of the Western Accord because, through deregulation, we are going to a system where competition will rule in the market-place, rather than administered prices. Consumers have more clout in a competitive system than they have in a regulated system.


MINISTER'S LETTER
Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, those were not my figures; they were from IPAC and The Financial Post.
Is the Minister aware that the Minister of Finance has written to me personally-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
Oral Questions


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Wait until you hear what the letter says. He has said that tax changes are contemplated to pay for the shortfall as a result of the Western Accord. Is the Minister aware of that?


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Broadbent:: Pardon, Pat?


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that-


John Edward Broadbent: What are you saying, Pat?


Mr. Speaker:: Fair is fair. I would like to be able to hear the Minister's answer as well. Perhaps we could have some quiet in the Chamber.


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that the Hon. Member could possibly table that letter.


INTERPRETATION OF LETTER
Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, I would be pleased to take the Minister up on her invitation to table this letter, but I would like to ask a further question. In the letter which was written under the Freedom of Information Act, in reply to my question about the Government's forecasts for getting back its revenue as a result of giving away the PGRT, the Minister of Finance cited Clause 18(3). I would like the Minister to comment on what he said. He said that there would be a "contemplated change in tariff rates, taxes, duties or other revenue sources". Is there any other interpretation that Canadian consumers can put on this letter and on the present deficit situation other than that the Government has given away $9 billion to the oil companies and will take the money back by taxing the Canadian consumers?


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, again I cannot comment on a phrase from a letter which I have not seen. I can say that the speculation contained in the Hon. Member's question does not deserve an answer.


PUBLIC SERVICE
Mr. John Nunziata (York South-Weston):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Acting Prime Minister and concerns the Mystl Management case. There is no question that the four civil servants in question breached Treasury Board conflict of interest guidelines and for that they must be seriously disciplined. What is troubling is the fact that these four civil servants advised their Assistant Deputy Ministers and/or Deputy Ministers in advance of their intentions, and those Assistant Deputy Ministers or Deputy Ministers failed to take

May 22, 1985
Oral Questions
any action to stop the formation of this proposed company. Would the Acting Prime Minister not agree that, by failing to take action, the Assistant Deputy Ministers and/or Deputy Ministers displayed extremely poor judgment and for that reason should be seriously disciplined for their inaction?


Hon. Perrin Beatty (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I can respond in my capacity as Acting President of the Treasury Board. The Hon. Member's question points out precisely what I cautioned him against yesterday, and that is his demanding that something be done before he gets the facts. He has asked that all of these people be fired, and has now made serious allegations about Deputy Ministers and Assistant Deputy Ministers. While these individuals did in fact talk to their superiors, it is not the case that in all instances they talked to Deputy Ministers or Assistant Deputy Ministers. To the best of my knowledge, in no instance was a Deputy Minister aware of this matter.


COMMUNICATION WITH ASSISTANT DEPUTY MINISTER
John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, I have the facts. I have a confidential memo that was sent from Mr. Spinks, the president of Mystl Management, to the Assistant Deputy Minister of the Department of Transport. This confidential letter describes the business, and goes on to say:
While I do not consider there is any conflict of interest in the activities which we will be undertaking, I wish to provide full disclosure of our proposed business and be seen to operate in the full spirit of the policy.
In view of the fact that this secret memorandum was sent to the Assistant Deputy Minister on April 3 and was received on April 11, will the Minister of Transport not agree that by failing to take action, and by failing to tell these individuals that what they were about to do was wrong, this particular Assistant Deputy Minister displayed extremely poor judgment and, accordingly, should be seriously disciplined?


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, the information I have is that the ADM of Finance did in fact speak verbally to Mr. Spinks and suggested that it would be unwise for him to engage in the kind of activity in which he had intended to engage, and that it would be perceived as a conflict of interest. The ADM of Finance awaited further contact from Mr. Spinks but further contact was not forthcoming. However, as we indicated yesterday, this whole matter is being investigated internally by the Director of Staff Relations. All aspects of this matter will be looked into, including the actions of the ADM, the Deputy Minister, and all other people involved. The facts will be made available in the next two or three days. It would probably be in the best interests of all to stop making these innuendoes and charges, and wait until the facts are brought before the House.
[DOT] (M30)


WESTERN ACCORD-EFFECT ON GASOLINE PRICES
Mr. Ian Deans (Hamilton Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also directed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Given the answer which my colleague from Van-couver-Kingsway received from the Minister of Finance with regard to the possibility of a tax increase in order to recover the revenues lost to the Government as a result of the Western Accord and other measures, would it be fair to suggest to the motoring public of Canada today that they should fill their gas tanks before the Budget comes down?


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, Hon. Members know that the subject matter which they have raised is budgetary and, therefore, is sheer speculation. For the record of the House I would like to point out that the famous letter which Mr. Waddell mentioned, from Michael Wilson, the Minister of Finance, simply deals with the process of accessing information under the Access to Information Act, and certainly does not deal with the matters which have been raised.


Mr. Speaker:: I am sure the Minister meant the Hon. Member for Vancouver-Kingsway, for the record.


CONTENTS OF MINISTER'S LETTER
Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, with regard to the answer which was given by the Minister, I would like to ask her whether she denies that in the letter which was sent to my colleague from the Minister of Finance it clearly stated that the reason why my colleague could not receive the information which he sought was the following:
18. The head of a government institution may refuse to disclose any record requested under this Act that contains-
(d)(iii) a contemplated change in tariff rates, taxes, duties or any other
revenue source,
Does that not mean it is because there is a tax increase pending?


Pat Carney: No, Mr. Speaker.


PUBLIC SERVICE
Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport and it concerns the Mystl Management issue. I want to remind the Minister that it was the President of the Treasury Board who admitted yesterday that the guidelines had been broken, not opposition Members in the House, and he should not accuse my colleagues of saying so.
May 22, 1985

Yesterday, when asked by my colleague, the Hon. Member for Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe, when the Minister had been informed of the affair and by whom, the Minister replied that his Deputy Minister had told him, but he neglected to tell the House when exactly he found out about the issue. Would the Minister now tell the House who told him, exactly when he found out and when his Deputy Minister found out about this whole affair?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, 1 sincerely apologize for not giving the information yesterday. I inadvertently omitted to do so.
1 was informed about the incident late on Friday night at my home in Vegreville. I was given further details on Saturday, and apprised myself fully of the details yesterday. I believe the Deputy was first advised on the sixteenth day of May.


REQUEST FOR INDEPENDENT INVESTIGATION
Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, as Deputy Ministers and ADMs are ultimately responsible to their Ministers, I would like to direct a question to the Acting Prime Minister, reminding him that the four Ministers in question must be taken to task in the matter. Will the Acting Prime Minister immediately order an independent and external investigation of the whole affair, such investigation to deal with the conduct and negligence not only of the ADMs and the Deputy Ministers, but as well of the four Cabinet Ministers who are involved?


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, I am always grateful for the Hon. Member's suggestions, which I know will be taken as seriously as they were given.


Don Boudria: What about the investigation?


Henry Perrin Beatty: I do not know whether the Hon. Member wants an answer or not, but I am quite anxious to give him one.
I think at the outset it would be appropriate if he would ask his colleague who sits next to him to tender his evidence that, in all cases, Deputy Ministers and Assistant Deputy Ministers knew about this. Or is his evidence the one letter to one Assistant Deputy Minister, which I acknowledge? But the allegation which was made was that in all cases Deputy Ministers or Assistant Deputy Ministers knew. That highlights exactly what I was warning about yesterday. When the Hon. Member makes wild allegations and demands-


John V. Nunziata: You are responsible.


Henry Perrin Beatty: Again they try to shout me down when I give information. When the Hon. Member demands that people be fired first and tries to get information afterward, that is a denial of basic justice. Mr. Speaker-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Is the Hon. Member finished?
Oral Questions


Henry Perrin Beatty: No, Mr. Speaker. I would like to finish if 1 could, because I think the House is entitled to answers on this subject and I am anxious to give them.
What I would ask from the Opposition is that the basic principles of natural justice be allowed. Surely in a country such as Canada even public servants are entitled to simple justice.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, I communicated to the House that an investigation is under way at the present time-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, if I could have order I could indicate to the House that-


Mr. Speaker:: Clearly the answer is taking an unusual length of time.


FINANCE
Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for Finance who will be well aware of the struggling state of small businesses in Canada and the crisis in the farm community. In her own family she is well aware of the plight which young people face today in Finding a job in the shrinking job market.
Would she not acknowledge, at this very critical time in the economy of Canada, that even a 1 per cent increase in tax would be considered especially harsh, tough, and essentially unfair?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, let me just add something to the information which I have already given to the House. The Budget will not only be tough and fair, it will be appropriate.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


POSSIBLE EFFECT ON SMALL BUSINESSES
Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Minister of State for Small Businesses. I will try a more direct question. The Minister has indicated on a number of occasions that jobs in Canada would be created by that sector. He knows how critical it is. I would like to ask him the same question. Would he not agree that a 1 per cent increase in tax on small businesses today would be considered especially tough and certainly unfair to impose at this time-


Mr. Speaker:: I indicated to the Member yesterday that a hypothetical question which is simply repeated is not appropri-

May 22, 1985
Oral Questions
ate. I must do the same thing today. The Hon. Member is simply repeating the same question.

[ Translation]


SMALL BUSINESS
Mr. Alfonso Gagliano (Saint-Leonard-Anjou):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State (Small Businesses). Small businesses spend a lot of time and effort collecting sales tax on behalf of the Federal Government. Often they are obliged to pay this tax to the Government between 45 and 60 days before receiving the money from their customers. Is the Minister of State (Small Businesses) prepared to give this service the recognition it deserves and to recommend some manner of fair compensation for the businesses that collect the tax?


Hon. Andre Bissonnette (Minister of State (Small Businesses)):: Mr. Speaker, I think the Hon. Member's question is very apt. We all know that small businesses must collect this tax. It is certainly not new and was introduced a number of years ago. However, if the Hon. Member is asking us to review the matter, I am willing to do so.


PAYMENT OF SALES TAX TO GOVERNMENT-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Alfonso Gagliano: Mr. Speaker, it is a well-known fact that small businesses are an excellent source of job creation, provided they have sufficient liquid assets. Does it not seem unfair to the Minister that a small business should be forced to lend to the Federal Government, without interest, for a period of 60 days or more? Does the Minister think it would be fair to allow 60 days' grace for payment of the federal sales tax, and if he does, what does he intend to do?


André Bissonnette: Mr. Speaker, I think the answer I just gave applies here. If the Hon. Member for Saint-Leonard-Anjou is asking the Government to review the tax refund issue and the deadline, which is now 30 days, I think his request can be appropriately considered, whether the Hon. Member is asking for 30, 60 or 90 days. I am not saying what the answer will be, but I am prepared to look into the matter.


THE ECONOMY
Mr. Iain Angus (Thunder Bay-Atikokan):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion. The Minister is no doubt aware of the malaise and lack of confidence in Canada's manufacturing industry. Its output is down, its shipments are down and, most serious of all, its employment levels are down. It shows no willingness whatsoever to step up activity on its production lines and put people back to work until it sees more solid signs of increased demand from both consumers and business. Does the Minister not agree, given this situation, that continuing with deficit reduction and imposing even more cut-backs and tax increases on ordinary Canadians, will only serve to reduce consumer demand and confidence further, much as we have seen in British Columbia, and thus will defeat our efforts to put Canadians back to work?


Hon. Sinclair Stevens (Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, I would have thought that the Hon. Member, instead of having such a voice of despair, would have been encouraged by the falling interest rates which we are experiencing in Canada. Undoubtedly the Hon. Member has noted the number of jobs which have been created since September 4, which was a very momentous day in Canada.


Iain Francis Angus: Perhaps the people of Canada would have more confidence if there was a guarantee that those rates would not go back up again.


GOVERNMENT POLICY
Iain Francis Angus: The Minister will remember from last year's election campaign a quote from the Prime Minister as follows: "Clearly there can be no drastic reduction in the deficit until interest rates are lower and the country gets back to work. Massive cuts now would guarantee a recession". Would the Minister explain to this House, and to the people who elected him and his colleagues, why the Government is now doing a complete about face and bringing in deficit reduction policies which would guarantee a recession?


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, I only wish the Hon. Member had read his question before he asked it in the House, because the Prime Minister anticipated falling interest rates and made it clear that that is one way to help reduce our deficit.
May 22, 1985


HOUSING
Mr. Reg Stackhouse (Scarborough West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister responsible for housing. The over-all apartment vacancy rate in the City of Scarborough and throughout Metropolitan Toronto is well below the national average and is becoming critical. In view of the report of the Metro Planning Board which claims that initiatives must be taken by all levels of government if adequate housing is to be assured in the future, what action does the Government of Canada plan to take to help the municipalities of Metro Toronto meet this challenge?


Sheila Maureen Copps: Cuts, cuts.


Hon. Bill McKnight (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I recognize the seriousness of the Hon. Member's question and share his concern. In the next two months we will be meeting again with the provincial housing Ministers.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: I hear from the Opposition that it does not want us to consult with the housing Ministers or the metropolitan housing authorities who have accepted, and will continue to accept, their part in providing housing for Canadians. We cannot provide housing singly. We have to do it in co-operation with the provinces and municipalities involved, and I look forward to assisting the people of Canada in that manner.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of the Environment. Could the Minister tell the House why she insists on denying that her Department has a responsibility to assess the impact of toxic chemicals on sea-gulls as a way of anticipating the impact of toxic chemicals on human health?


Hon. Suzanne Blais-Grenier (Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, I should think that the Hon. Member for Davenport has all the answers on that subject. He has been asking the same question in the House for the past six months and I have always given him the same answers.


REQUEST THAT MINISTER MEET SCIENTISTS
Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, since the scientific community has repeatedly expressed concern about the cancellation of that monitoring program by the Minister, would she at least be so kind as to meet with the scientists who
Oral Questions
are raising their concern, listen to them, and perhaps reconsider her decision? Would the Minister be prepared to do that?


Suzanne Blais-Grenier: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, but I must repeat the same answer. The program has been reinstated at the Burlington centre and monitoring continues.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. John R. Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Employment and Immigration. In the Economic and Fiscal Statement of November 8, 1984, under the heading "Unemployment Insurance", the Minister of Finance, on behalf of the Minister of Employment and Immigration, said:
A discussion paper will be published shortly by the Minister of Employment and Immigration, followed by appropriate parliamentary review.
Can the Minister tell this House when we can expect this discussion paper on unemployment insurance?


Hon. Flora MacDonald (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member refers to the economic statement of last November. The Minister of Finance stated at that time that there would be a review of the unemployment insurance fund. I can assure the Hon. Member that that will be undertaken shortly.


REQUEST FOR CONSULTATIONS
John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that in that Economic and Fiscal Statement the Minister of Finance said that the review would be "undertaken on an urgent basis", and in view of the fact that there is a lot of tough talk about what is going to be in the Budget with respect to unemployment insurance changes, can the Minister assure this House that no structural and important changes will be made to the Unemployment Insurance Act until she has consulted with ordinary Canadians about unemployment insurance benefits?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I wish that Hon. Members of the New Democratic Party would make up their minds about consultation. One day they are saying: "Don't consult with the Canadian people about foreign policy", and the next day they are saying: "Consult with the Canadian people about unemployment insurance".


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

May 22, 1985
Oral Questions


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Obviously we want to consult with the Canadian people-


Ms. Jewett:: You've had eight months.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: -and I can assure the Hon. member that that is indeed what we will be doing.


John R. Rodriguez: A further supplementary, Mr. Speaker.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair allowed a supplementary question.

[ Translation]


TRANSPORT
Mr. Darryl L. Gray (Bonaventure-Iles-de-la-Madeleine):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport and has to do with the PCB spill in Eastern Canada over the past weekend.
As the Minister knows, a truck from the Magdalen Islands spilled part of its load while travelling across New Brunswick and the Matapedia Valley.
I would like to ask the Minister what have been the consequences of this unfortunate incident for people in the area and what measures will his department take.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, a Transport Canada inspector is investigating this particular incident. Samples are being evaluated and tested for PCBs by Environment Canada officials. The results of those tests will be made available this week. Until such time as the investigation is complete it is difficult to contemplate what action will be taken. However, I can advise the Hon. Member that the protective direction which was issued by myself last month was in fact received by Hydro Quebec, and any action with respect to prosecution or clean up will be decided next week.


SALE OF COME-BY-CHANCE REFINERY
Mr. Brian Tobin (Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. It concerns the sale of the Come-By-Chance refinery in Newfoundland for which five bids have been received. A senior political adviser in the Prime Minister's Office is quoted as saying that Canadian businessmen in the Middle East are being quietly warned of negative repercussions for Canadian business in the Middle East if that refinery is sold to an Israeli-based concern. Will the Minister tell this House what criteria in fact will be used in determining who the successful bidder will be? And will she assure this House that Newfoundland economic concerns and conditions, as bad as they are, will be her primary criteria, not geopolitical concerns in the Middle East, in deciding who should be the successful bidder for that refinery?


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, the priority which we have given to Newfoundland I think is proven by the fact that we signed an Atlantic Accord with Newfoundland which will bring great economic benefits to the province, which the former Liberal administration failed to do.
In terms of the actual issue the Hon. Member raises, I can assure him that the nature of the bids are not being released at this time until they are reviewed by Petro-Canada.


REPORTED ESTABLISHMENT OF PROVINCIAL COMMITTEE
Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, if we do not start getting more serious answers to questions, we are going to have to insist on having a breathalyser installed at the door of the House of Commons for government Members.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some Hon. Members:: Withdraw.


Brian Vincent Tobin: My supplementary question is directed to the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion.


Some Hon. Members:: Withdraw.


Mr. Clark (Yellowhead):: Why don't you apologize?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: That is going too far.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think the Hon. Member knows there is a level of comment that is inappropriate. The Hon. Member has a supplementary question.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion.


Some Hon. Members:: Withdraw.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please!


Sheila Maureen Copps: Down boys.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Hon. Member has a supplementary question.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My supplementary question is directed to the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion. A senior Minister of the Newfoundland Government has indicated in The Globe and Mail this morning that the Newfoundland Government has set up a special committee
May 22, 1985

to meet with one of the five bidders and is considering, in his words, providing incentives for that bidder to reactivate the refinery in Newfoundland. Has the Minister received any communication whatsoever from the Government of Newfoundland requesting that a joint federal-provincial fund, or initiative, be established to assist in helping one particular bidder reactivate that refinery?


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, I can assure the Hon. Member that the Government of Newfoundland has not made any such representation to us at this time. We are certainly not considering that possibility at this time.


FISHERIES
Mr. Ray Skelly (Comox-Powell River):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. I am wondering if he might share with us some more of the elements in his personal campaign of patronage. Would the Minister confirm in the House that he has released, or terminated, a number of wharfingers in Prince Edward Island without any cause or complaint whatsoever? That is a repeat of what has happened in New Brunswick. It is a repeat of the patronage situation that is occurring in Comox-Powell River. Could the Minister confirm to the House that he has done it again?


Hon. John A. Fraser (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans):: Mr. Speaker, I can confirm that wharfingers have been replaced in the provinces that the Hon. Member mentioned. I suggest that if the Hon. Member thinks there is any need to replace wharfingers in his own riding, I would be prepared to listen to him.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Raymond John Skelly: Mr. Speaker, I, for one, am appalled that the Government is not prepared to provide any process of natural justice to people who are doing an excellent job. I would not be a part of that.


APPEAL PROCESS REQUESTED
Raymond John Skelly: Mr. Speaker, I ask that the Minister guarantee the House that he will put in place some form of appeal through which these people can at least hear the complaints made against them. They should not be replaced on the basis of some vague innuendo made by a Member of Parliament who wants them replaced on the basis of their Party card.


John Allen Fraser: Mr. Speaker, apparently the Hon. Member has no complaint with wharfingers in his own riding. As a consequence, I do not
Oral Questions
think there is any need to worry about a process in that particular part of the country.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Agriculture. Last week the Secretary of Agriculture in the United States announced a $2 billion program of grain bonuses to promote export sales. This could have a very distorting and devastating impact on the price of grain in the world. It could perhaps even touch off a price war.
Can the Minister tell us whether the Government of Canada has protested this action by the Government of the United States? What action is the Government taking to protect the traditional markets of our grain producers and the Canadian Wheat Board?


Hon. John Wise (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, the U.S. Secretary of Agriculture took the time and courtesy to inform me of this action late last week. There is no question that I expressed some concern. We expect to have further discussions in the very near future in relation to the issue. Due to the improved relations between our two countries which have developed since September 4, we can take some satisfaction from the fact that the U.S. Secretary of Agriculture indicated to me that he would do everything possible to ensure that we would not get caught in the cross-fire.


Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, it sounds to me like the Minister was more of a pussy-cat in his meeting with Secretary Block than someone really defending the interests of agriculture in this country.


CANADA-UNITED STATES RELATIONS
Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, the Minister talked about the alleged friendship of the Prime Minister and the President. In order to forestall the U.S. Department of Agriculture dumping its stored grain on to the international market, would the Prime Minister and the President be prepared to negotiate a new international grain agreement which would guarantee reasonable floor prices for grain and ensure the viability of grain producers in western Canada?


John Wise: Mr. Speaker, I would not slough off the fact that relations between the two countries have indeed improved. There is no question about that. I am sure that the agricultural industry in our country will benefit from that improved relationship. However, it is inappropriate for me to respond at this point in time as to exactly what discussions or negotiations may take place in the future between the Prime Minister and the President of the United States.

May 22, 1985
Oral Questions TRADE


GATT NEGOTIATIONS ON EUROPEAN BEEF EXPORTS
Mr. Gordon Taylor (Bow River):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Hon. Minister of International Trade. Have the GATT negotiations been completed with regard to agricultural products?


Hon. James Kelleher (Minister for International Trade):: Mr. Speaker, I presume my hon. colleague is referring to the discussions we were having with the European Common Market on beef. I can advise that those discussions have been completed. The settlement has been initialed, but as required under the GATT procedure it must be ratified by both the European Community and Canada. We expect that that will happen within the next week. We will be in a position to disclose the terms of settlement at that time.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. During his weekend visit to Washington it was reported that the Minister had informal discussions with the Secretary of State of the United States concerning compensation for the nine Canadian victims of CIA-funded brain washing that was done in Montreal more than 25 years ago. Would the Minister tell the House why these discussions were held on an informal basis in private, as opposed to being part of the formal agenda of his meetings? More important, could he tell the House and the victims what progress was made in those talks?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, the matter was raised in the private and informal part of my discussions with the U.S. Secretary of State precisely because I wanted to make it abundantly clear that this was a matter of very real concern to me personally as well as in my capacity as Secretary of State for External Affairs. It was not a matter of concern simply on the official level, but was very much a matter about which Canadians of all Parties had expressed concern. We have not yet received the kind of response that the Leader of the New Democratic Party and I are looking for. I hope the conversations I had on the weekend with Mr. Shultz will advance the interest shared by all Members of the House in getting adequate compensation for the people affected by the procedures he has described.


COMPENSATION FOR CANADIAN VICTIMS
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, the CIA has admitted publicly in the United States its responsibility for this abominable act. It has offered a mere $25,000 per victim, which is an insult to the Canadian victims as well as to Canada as a whole. Could the Minister tell the House what the
Government plans to do next in order to obtain, at long last, just compensation for these Canadians?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, without associating myself with all of the language of the Leader of the New Democratic Party, some of which I think was excessive, I can certainly assure the House that the Government of Canada intends to continue, through every avenue that is open to it, to encourage the American authorities to respond with a higher level of compensation.
I cannot report more progress today, except that the matter has been raised personally, directly and forcefully by myself with the U.S. Secretary of State. I share the anxiety, and the determination, if I may say so, of the Leader of the New Democratic Party to achieve a higher level of compensation.


Mr. Speaker:: One very short question.

[ Translation]


PUBLIC SERVICE
Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Mr. Speaker, my question was meant for the President of the Treasury Board but, in his absence, I will direct it to the Acting Minister.
Last February 4, I asked a question of the Minister concerning job overclassification in the Public Service and, in light of the Prime Minister's election campaign commitment to make classification standards a negotiable issue, I would like to ask the Minister whether he can announce or promise today that classification will be negotiable in the near future.


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, I apologize to the Hon. Member. I do not have the answer to this question. Certainly I recognize that he is making a representation, and I will certainly ensure that it is brought to the attention of the President of the Treasury Board.


CLERK OF PETITIONS' REPORTS
Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that the petitions, with the exception of one, presented by Hon. Members on Tuesday, May 21, 1985, meet the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.
The petition presented by the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Cassidy) does not meet the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.
May 22, 1985



POINTS OF ORDER


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Last evening during the Adjournment Debate, at page 4947 of Hansard, the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Dick)
said:
Mr. Speaker, the Government views this matter as a moral issue, not an economic issue. This has been stated in a letter addressed to the Government House Leaders of the two Opposition Parties sent to them on January 28, 1985, outlining what the Government is proposing and seeking the views of the two Opposition House Leaders. As yet the Government has not heard from the two Opposition House Leaders and has not been able to go ahead.
I want to draw to the attention of the Parliamentary Secretary something about which I think he may not be aware. As one of the two House Leaders in question, I did in fact respond to the January 28 letter. I responded on January 30 to the Government House Leader and set out quite clearly the views of the New Democratic Party with regard to this issue. I would very much appreciate if the Parliamentary Secretary could correct the record in this regard.


Hon. Herb Gray (Windsor West):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same point of order. I would remind the House that our position on this matter has been stated very clearly in the House by our leader and by our critic. It is the responsibility of the Government to take its decisions and present its proposals to the House.
If it really wants to act in this matter, it does not need our consent, and by not acting it shows a shallowness, emptiness and lack of commitment on this important issue of Japanese Canadians.


Mr. Paul Dick (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans) for the information which he has passed on to me. It merely shows that the fact is that the House Leader of the Official Opposition has not replied in the sense of co-operation that we would like to have around here.


Mr. Speaker:: I believe that all the participants in this point of order know the degree to which it is not a point of order but, perhaps, a grievance.



STATEMENT ALLEGED UNPARLIAMENTARY OF MR. TOBIN

Hon. Ray Hnatyshyn (President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order with respect to proceedings which took place during the course of Question Period. I am inspired to do so by comments made by the Hon. Member for Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke (Mr. Hopkins) who rose to speak in the House with respect to the demeanour in which we conduct ourselves in the debates. He made some observations, to which you responded, about the way in which we conduct ourselves on the floor of the House of Commons.
Point of Order-Mr. Hnatyshyn
I rise on a point of order today because of the comments and statements made by the Hon. Member for Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe (Mr. Tobin) during the course of Question Period. The Chair will know that there are certain terms that are unparliamentary and that it is unparliamentary to accuse an Hon. Member of certain activity. There are lists of precedents and words that have been the subject of rulings by Speakers throughout the years.
I think it does us well to reflect on what we are doing and on some of the obligations that we have as Members of Parliament not only to this institution that we all respect very much but to the public's growing cynicism about the way in which we conduct ourselves in the House.
During the course of Question Period-apparently dissatisfied with a response given by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Miss Carney)-The Hon. Member made a statement that on the basis of the answer we should have a breathalyser stationed at the entrance to the House of Commons.
I know that the Hon. Member has respect for the House. However, these terms imply, without directly saying so, that an Hon. Member-in this case a Minister-is in fact giving an answer which she did not intend because she was under some influence. Such a direct statement would be unparliamentary.
I rise because I think it is important for all of us, regardless of which side of the House we stand, to be careful with this kind of allegation. We have different points of view and we can and do argue strenuously on the issues. I think that is expected by the public and by the Members of the House. However, I do not think it adds anything to the debate when such an allegation is made, no matter which Hon. Member utters the words.
I hope we can reflect on our conduct in the House of Commons not only with respect to noise in the Chamber but with respect to personal allegations concerning Members in the House. I think that is something that we all want to avoid and we should seriously consider in terms of our future conduct.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, since the comments by the Hon. Government House Leader (Mr. Hnatyshyn) concern the comments that I made this afternoon, I think it would be appropriate that I be given an opportunity to respond to him.
First, I want to thank him for acknowledging the respect that he said I have for the House, because I do have a great deal of respect for this institution. However, I suggest to the Hon. House Leader that he is perhaps best known in this Chamber, of all 282 Members, for his ability to quip under his breath and for his entertaining and heckling during the Question Period on a persistent and regular basis. For a while I was wondering whether he had lost his sense of humour because he knows, and I suggest to him that I made no statement today that was unparliamentary.
It was quite clear that I was referring to the quality of the answers and the seriousness with which the questions that I
4962

May 22, 1985
Point of Order-Mr. MacKay
was raising were being answered. That was the only reference I made. I made no reference to sobriety, which is the word he used, not I. I make no such reference now. I think that would be inappropriate. I would never do such a thing, and I hope the Hon. Member does not believe that I have done such a thing.
As one of the best quipsters in the House, the Hon. Member knows precisely what I was doing. I was reflecting on the lighthearted and flippant manner in which Ministers were answering questions today. He knows that full well and he knows that no offence was meant.
Assuming that he has not lost his sense of humour, I hope that he understands that no offence was meant. Even though these coming days will be tough and, we are told, fair ones for Canadians, I suspect they will be a lot tougher for Members opposite, and I beseech them to keep their sense of humour.


Mr. Speaker:: I can assure Hon. Members that if I thought that language or a charge had been made about the honour or lack of honour of a specific Minister, I would have indicated at the time that the language had to be withdrawn. I did rise but I did not indicate at the time that I thought the language had to be withdrawn. I find the point of order to be similar in quality to a point of order raised earlier.
I do, however, want to say that the fact that something may be in order does not necessarily make it appropriate. I think there are times when some of us err here in the language we use, and I think Hon. Members know that in the heat of battle we sometimes say things we do not want to say. That is why I indicated at the time that, whatever the intentions were that lay behind the phrase, I did sense some Members of the House took it perhaps in a way which the Hon. Member indicated he did not intend it to be taken. That is why I indicated at the time that I thought the language or the comment was inappropriate. I think I will leave it at that.



CORRECTIONAL INVESTIGATOR


Hon. Elmer M. MacKay (Solicitor General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. On Wednesday, April 3, 1985, I tabled the annual report of the Correctional Investigator for the period June 1, 1983, to May 31, 1984. I was under the impression at that time that the Standing Orders provided for a referral of this report to the committee. However, I subsequently realized that this was not the case since the tabling of the report is not required by statute. Under the circumstances, I would ask the House to disregard my request pursuant to Standing Order 46(4).


Mr. Speaker:: I am sure the House is in agreement with that and the records will be changed.


Mr. Robinson:: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Solicitor General made reference to the annual report of the Correctional Investigator which he had purported would be referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs. He indicated that upon reflection he felt that the report need not be referred. In the circumstances, Mr. Speaker, would it be appropriate for the Solicitor General to seek the consent of the House, if that consent is required, in order that this very important report might be referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs where it can be given a careful examination and the scrutiny it deserves?


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Solicitor General may have an indication. May I suggest that we wait until Motions are called and the Solicitor General may make such a motion or seek unanimous consent to waive notice, if that is his intention. Otherwise it would require a formal notice procedure. Perhaps I will recognize the Solicitor General under Motions.



POINT OF ORDER


Mr. Jack Shields (Athabasca):: Mr. Speaker, last night during Private Members' Hour an occasion arose when I paraphrased a quote from Shakespeare, when I referred to the casting of pearls before swine. In the context that I did it, I think it falls into the category which you just outlined. Although it was not ruled out of order, not being unparliamentary, it was not an appropriate comment. The Hon. Member for Algoma rose and asked for the remarks to be withdrawn, which I did not do. A Member from the New Democratic Party also rose and asked that I withdraw the remark.
Upon reflection, I would like to withdraw the remark because I certainly did not want to cast any aspirations on any Members of this House sitting on the other side.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: I think we will correct Hansard one more time and say that I think the Member meant allusions-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps it is aspersions.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I thought I would rise at this point to talk about the business of the next day or so. Today, as has been indicated previously, we will continue the discussion and, hopefully,
May 22, 1985

make progress, possibly even complete second reading, with a bit of good luck and co-operation all around, on the divorce legislation so that we can have this important matter in committee and allow the committee to hear representations not only of Members of Parliament but of the people of Canada generally.
That leaves tomorrow to consider. We might start the day off on the right note and continue, as the Deputy Speaker made reference to with the motion in the name of my colleague, the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion (Mr. Stevens), relating to time allocation under Standing Order 82 on Bill C-15, Investment Canada.
Following that Bill it will be my intention to call Bill C-32, which is a Bill to amend the Fisheries Act. I am hoping we can, during the time available to us tomorrow, make progress with respect to these important amendments.
As Hon. Members know, by order of the House, tomorrow will be a government day commencing at the usual hour of 11 a.m. At four o'clock, proceedings will be interrupted and suspended at that time for half an hour. The speech of my colleague, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson), relating to the Budget of Canada will commence at 4.30 p.m. Proceedings of the House will continue in the usual tradition until the spokesperson for the Opposition has had an opportunity to rise and give the usual preliminary remarks. This procedure will continue on the first day of the budget debate which will be Friday.
As I indicated previously, Mr. Speaker, it is my intention to carry on with the second day of the budget debate on Monday. We will monitor the situation from time to time. I am hoping that we will be able to make progress on the time usually allocated for budgetary matters, but I will be in constant and continuing contact with the distinguished Opposition House Leaders to discuss the order of business from time to time as may be appropriate.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Miss Aideen Nicholson (Trinity):: Mr. Speaker, I have the Honour to present the fourth and Fifth reports of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts. If the House gives consent, I intend to move concurrence in the fifth report later this day.
[Editor's Note: For above reports, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]
Petitions


FINANCE, TRADE AND ECONOMIC AFFAIRS-SIXTH REPORT OF STANDING COMMITTEE
Mr. Don Blenkarn (Mississauga South):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the sixth report of the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs. The report asks for an extention of the time allowed the Canadian Commercial Bank to make its report until Friday, June 14, 1985.
[Editor's Note: For above report, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]


CONSUMER AND CORPORATE AFFAIRS
Hon. Michel Cote (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 46(2), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the report of the Commission of Inquiry on Pharmaceutical Industry.


CANADA COUNCIL
Hon. Marcel Masse (Minister of Communications):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 46(2), I wish to table, in both official languages, copies of the Supplement to the 27th Annual Report of the Canada Council for the year 1983-84.


Mr. Speaker:: Petitions. The Hon. Member for York Centre (Mr. Kaplan).


PETITIONS
Hon. Bob Kaplan (York Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the petition of a group of Canadians resident in Ontario urging the federal Government to enter a treaty for the exchange of prisoners with the State of New Jersey so that Bruce Curtis, a Canadian citizen imprisoned in New Jersey, can be transferred to serve his time in his own country.


Mr. Speaker:: Further petitions?

May 22, 1985

Petitions


Mrs. Therese Killens (Saint-Michel-Ahuntsic):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour of tabling a petition on behalf of residents in the federal ridings of Calgary West, Calgary North, Calgary South and Calgary Centre, who wish to ask the House that people between the ages of 60 and 64 who are single, separated or divorced and who are in need, be made eligible for the spouse's allowance available to widows and widowers.
I have a second petition from the riding of Rosemont, next to my own riding in Montreal, from residents who are opposed to the fact that the spouse's allowance is restricted to widows and widowers only. They are asking that the program be extended to people between the ages of 60 and 64, who are in need, and who are single, separated or divorced.
Mr. Speaker, my third petition is from constituents in the riding of Thunder Bay-Nipigon, in Ontario, who now avail themselves of their ancient and undoubted right to present a grievance common to your petitioners in the certain assurance that your Honourable House will therefor provide a remedy. They are asking that the Government of Canada extend eligibility for the spouse's allowance to all people between the ages of 60 and 64, who are in need and who are single, widowed or separated.
My last petition, Mr. Speaker, is from residents in Calgary West, Calgary North, Calgary South and Calgary Centre, who see the spouse's allowance program for widows and widowers between the ages of 60 and 64 as a social injustice where people who are single, separated or divorced are concerned.
They are asking this Honourable House to extend to them the same privileges granted to widows and widowers under Bill C-26.


Mr. Ken James (Samia-Lambton):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present to the House of Commons a petition signed by members of my riding of Sarnia-Lambton who are exercising their fundamental and democratic rights by petitioning this House to seek redress of certain grievances.
My constituents are concerned about the current situation in Central America. They ask that the Canadian Government state openly that we are against the attempts of those Governments of Central America which block genuine freedom and reform, and that we work to aid the people of that region who so desperately need our help.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition signed by a number of residents of Kamloops-Shuswap. These people are objecting to the provisions of Bill C-26 which unfairly discriminate against single people between the ages of 60 and 64. They wish immediate redress to ensure that these people will be allowed benefits.
[ Translation]
Mr. Speaker, I have another petition signed by 25 residents of Sainte-Anne-de-Prescott in the great riding of Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, who are opposed to the fact that Bill C-26 discriminates against people between the ages of 60 and 64 who live alone and are single, divorced or separated.
I also have a petition signed by 94 residents of the village of Embrun in the electoral district of Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, and the 94 undersigned are asking that Bill C-26 be amended to enable people who are in need, between the ages of 60 and 64, and who are single, divorced or separated, to benefit under the new legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I have another petition, signed by residents of Plantagenet, Ontario. Mr. Speaker, you will be glad to hear that these people are also asking to have Bill C-26 amended so that people in need who are single, divorced or separated and between the ages of 60 and 64, will be able to benefit from the provisions of Bill C-26.
Mr. Speaker, I have a petition signed by members of the Senior Citizens' Club of Chute-a-Blondeau, Ontario. These 18 residents are also asking to have Bill C-26 amended to enable people living alone, who are in need, and are single, divorced or separated and between the ages of 60 and 64, to benefit under Bill C-26 and receive the spouse's allowance.
I have one last petition, with your permission, Mr. Speaker. It is signed by people of Saint-Albert, Ontario, which is in my riding, and the 63 undersigned humbly pray that the discriminatory provisions of Bill C-26 be amended to enable people who are in need and are single, divorced or separated, and between the ages of 60 and 64, to receive the allowance and to remedy forthwith the injustice that is being perpetrated against 80,000 Canadians.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Richmond-Wolfe (Mr. Tardif). Petitions.


Mr. Alain Tardif (Richmond-Wolfe):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to table a number of petitions concerning the same thorny issue of Bill C-26. A group of constituents from my riding of Richmond-Wholfe have felt it necessary to speak out officially against the discrimination of which single, separated and divorced persons are the victims.
Here is another petition, Mr. Speaker, again from my riding of Richmond-Wolfe, which states that the exclusion of single, separated and divorced persons from the benefits of Bill C-26 cannot be justified.
I have here another petition, again from my riding; it is from some 40 of my constituents who expressly deplore the totally discriminatory treatment made to people 60 to 64 years

of age, many of whom are in dire financial need and who are excluded from the benefits of Bill C-26.
Another petition, this one from a neighbouring constituency, strongly deplores this discriminatory legislation against some Canadians between 60 and 64 years of age.
I have another petition in which the petitioners oppose the unacceptable, unfair and discriminatory treatment of single, separated and divorced persons between 60 and 64 years of age. They insist on a new amendment being introduced to make them eligible to these benefits in accordance with a basic principle of social justice.


John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, I have several petitions to present to the House. The first petition is from the residents of the federal riding of Essex-Kent. They are petitioning the Prime Minister (Mr. Mul-roney) and asking him to extend eligibility for the spouses' allowance, which has been granted to needy widows and widowers between 60 and 64 years of age, to all Canadians who are either single, separated or divorced and who have identical needs.
I have a further petition. It is similar to the first one. It is from residents of the federal ridings of Calgary West, Calgary North and Calgary South, and several from Calgary Centre. This particular petition is asking the Government to extend the eligibility for the spouse's allowance, which has already been granted to needy widows and widowers between 60 and 64 years of age, to all Canadians who are either single, separated or divorced and who have identical needs. Mr. Speaker, 80,000 persons will suffer discrimination and social injustice if the Prime Minister overlooks the amendment they are proposing to Bill C-26.
I have a further petition signed by 19 residents of the federal ridings of North Vancouver-Burnaby, Capilano and Vancouv-er-Kingsway. These petitioners as well are petitioning the federal Government to extend the benefits in Bill C-26 to all Canadians who are either single, separated or divorced and who have identical needs.
The last petition I wish to present today is from a number of residents of the federal riding of Rosemont in Quebec. These citizens, who are very concerned about Bill C-26, are asking the federal Government to extend the eligibility for spouse's allowance to all Canadians who are either single, separated or divorced and who have identical needs.


Mr. Speaker:: Presentation of Bills.


Jean-Claude Malépart: Petition.


Mr. Speaker:: Presentation of Bills. I had called it, I am sorry.


Jean-Claude Malépart: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: What is the question of privilege?
Petitions


Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, strangely enough, my privileges as a Member of Parliament are being jeopardized by your attitude.
My colleague has just finished with his petitions. I rose immediately, and you have twice refused me-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. It is clearly not a question of privilege. It is also very clear to the Member that I had called petitions three times.

I called petitions three times and the Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie (Mr. Malepart) did not rise. I waited-


Jean-Claude Malépart: But, Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: I am sorry. I am indicating to the Member that there is no question of privilege. I had called petitions three separate times. The Hon. Member for York South-Wes-ton came in after the Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell had finished. He came in and I called "further petitions", and the only Member who rose was the Hon. Member for York South-Weston. He was the only Member who rose. When he was finished I had already called it three times, and I therefore moved to the Introduction of Bills.


Mr. Guilbault (Saint-Jacques):: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Saint-Jacques (Mr. Guilbault) on a point of order.


Jacques Guilbault: Mr. Speaker, I simply want to point out that I believe that you were looking the other way. I saw what happened. Since my colleague was on his feet before you called the next item, there is no reason for not recognizing him on petitions.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the Hon. Member indicating he wishes to challenge the Speaker's ruling? Is the Hon. Member indicating that?


Jacques Guilbault: That is not what I meant. Mr. Malepart: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I have indicated to the House that as far as I am concerned everybody who had indicated they wished to present petitions had been heard. That is it.

May 22, 1985
Petitions


Jean-Claude Malépart: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The Hon. Member for Ontario (Mr. Fennell).


Mr. Fennell:: Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to introduce a Private Bill, the purpose of which-


Mr. Speaker:: Mr. Fennell, seconded by Mr. Kempling, moves for leave to introduce a Bill entitled An Act to Amend the Criminal Code (Capital Punishment).
[ Translation]


Jean-Claude Malépart: It is unacceptable! On a point of order. [English]


Some Hon. Members:: Sit down!


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House-


Some Hon. Members:: Sit down!


Mr. Speaker:: I will ask both Members to resume their seats. I have indicated what I have done. I called petitions three times. The Hon. member says I did not. The fact is he was not in the Chamber.


An Hon. Member:: That's right.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. If the Hon. Member persists, he will leave me no choice.


Jacques Guilbault: Do it.


Jean-Claude Malépart: On a point of order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The Hon. Member for Ontario (Mr. Fennell).


Jean-Claude Malépart: Go ahead, throw me out! You will not prevent me from speaking. We have the right to express our views here.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie leaves me no choice; I must name the Member for disregarding the authority of the Chair. He leaves me no choice.


Jean-Claude Malépart: We are not going to let the Chair dictate to us. We want to have impartial justice, not partial justice.


Mr. Speaker:: I invite the Hon. Member to withdraw his challenge. It is very simple. Under the circumstances I have no choice but to name the Member unless he chooses to resume
his seat and not pursue this matter. He is creating a disorder in the House by refusing to accept the authority of the Chair. I invite the Hon. Member to leave the matter-if he rises, I must name him.


Jean-Claude Malépart: Are you recognizing me, Mr. Speaker? [English]


Mr. Speaker:: I have to name the Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie.

I have no choice.


Jean-Claude Malépart: Question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, I have the right to speak.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I do not know, is the Hon. Member prepared to accept the ruling of the Chair? If not, I am obliged to move a motion, which I am reluctant to do, naturally. We make our points in this place, but if the Hon. Member is serious about challenging the Chair, then it leaves me no alternative but to move a motion.


Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, may I say something? You have decided on this issue without hearing me out. I cannot, therefore, accept the fact that the Chair can deprive me of the right to speak without giving me an opportunity to be heard. This Parliament is not only for Members of the Progressive Conservative Party, but for Members of all parties.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I very much regret to have to move this motion:
That the Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie be suspended from the service of the House for the remainder of today's sitting.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: All those in favour please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Speaker:: All those opposed please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Speaker:: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five Members having risen:


Mr. Speaker:: Call in the Members.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion carried. I must now order the Hon. Member to leave this chamber pursuant to Standing Order 38(2).
And Mr. Malepart having withdrawn:


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Thomas Scott Fennell: for leave to introduce Bill C-240, an Act to amend the Criminal Code (capital punishment).


Mr. Speaker:: Shall the Hon. Member have leave to introduce the said Bill?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Thomas Scott Fennell: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure at this time to introduce this Private Members' Bill. The purpose of the Bill is to restore the death penalty for substantiated first degree murder and high treason. The Bill also provides for a more humane method of implementing the punishment.


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


Howard Edward Crosby: for leave to introduce Bill C-241, an Act to provide assistance for victims of crime.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall the Hon. Member have leave to introduce the said Bill?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Howard Edward Crosby: Mr. Speaker, this Bill enacts a new statute called the Crime Victims Assistance Act. The provisions require that a crime victim be kept informed respecting the investigation of the crime and the prosecution of the offender. At present, the victim has no status in the legal process.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.
[Stage Direction]
May 22, 1985
Order Paper Questions PUBLIC ACCOUNTS

['Agreed.']
Aideen Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, if the House gives its consent, I move that the fifth report of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts presented to the House earlier this day be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Paul Wyatt Dick: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 154, 176 and 220.


Mr. Orlikow: Has the Defence Research Board cut any projects in its science and technology programs in order to absorb the reduction in its expenditures required by the economic statement made by the Minister of Finance in the House on November 8, 1984 and, if so, what are they and what are the projected costs?


Mr. Robert Wenman (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Defence):: No.


Mr. Stackhouse: 1.	On the last day for which information is available, how many Canadian hospitals had abortion committees and how many did not?
2.	How many were Department of National Defence hospitals?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: I am
informed by the Departments of National Health and Welfare and National Defence as follows:
1. In its report, the Committee on the Operation of Abortion Law (appointed by the Pricy Council, September 29, 1975 and chaired by Robin Badgley) indicated that out of 1,348 nonmilitary hospitals, 559 were eligible to establish therapeutic abortion committees in terms of their major treatment functions, the size of their medical staff, and their type of facility. Out of these, 271 hospitals had established therapeutic abortion committees by the end of 1976, and 288 hospitals had not.
The latest data obtained from Statistics Canada (Institutional Statistics Section) pertains to 1982. In that year there were 1,218 non-military hospitals in Canada of which 261 maintained therapeutic abortion committees. No information
is available on the number of non-military hospitals that were eligible for such committees in 1982.
2. None.


Mr. Howie: For the year ending March 31, 1984, were any personnel released from the Canadian Armed Forces and, if so, how many?


Robert Lloyd Wenman: During the period April 1, 1983 to March 31, 1984, 5,078 personnel were released from the Canadian Armed Forces.


Paul Wyatt Dick: I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Paul Wyatt Dick: Mr. Speaker, I ask that all notices of motions for the production of papers be allowed to stand.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall all Notices of Motions for the Production of Papers be allowed to stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motions of Mr. Crosbie that Bill C-46, an Act to amend the Divorce Act; Bill
May 22, 1985
[Stage Direction]
C-47, an Act respecting divorce and corollary relief; and Bill C-48, an Act to provide for the release of information that may assist in locating defaulting spouses and other persons and to permit, for the enforcement of support orders and support provisions, the garnishment and the attachment of certain moneys payable by Her Majesty in right of Canada, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.
Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to see the Government move forward with its divorce legislation. On behalf of my Party I have done everything I can to co-operate to see that the Bill moves forward expeditiously to the committee in the hope that it might even become law by the summer. In fact, I suggested to the Government House Leader (Mr. Hnatyshyn) that the three Bills that relate to the divorce question be read together at all stages. That order has found approval. Therefore, I am rising to speak to the second reading of all three Bills dealing with the question of divorce.
We have had some loss of time this afternoon but I want to reiterate the intention, which I know is shared by the New Democratic Party, to try to conclude second reading of the Bill this afternoon and see it referred to the Justice Committee. I must say that I was disturbed that the Minister took so long yesterday in his remarks. I would have wanted to speak yesterday and would have been prepared to do so if he had left some time for that purpose.
What disturbed me even more is to have read in the media yesterday that the Government does not expect that any of the Bills of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Crosbie) will become law before the summer. This applies to the drunk driving legislation, which was part of Bill C-18 that is now before the Senate, and it applies to this Bill as well as to the Government's initiative on street soliciting.
I want to make the position of our Party very clear on these subjects. As early as last December we were offering our full co-operation to get the drunk driving legislation on the books in time for Christmas. We would have co-operated in moving toward that goal if the Government had had the initiative to do so.
With respect to the question of soliciting, our Party recognizes that it is a serious problem which, in some parts of our country, becomes even more serious during the summer. I want to put on the record for the Government once again that while we do not agree with the entire Bill that the Government brought forward with respect to street soliciting, we wanted to get it into committee. We would have co-operated with a short second reading debate so that the Bill could get to the committee. We could then determine if the Government is aware that its drafting of the Bill poses dangerous consequences for civil liberties and for prostitutes themselves. The Government recognizes that this would continue to be a problem even with its legislation on the books.
We wanted to hear from the Minister how the extra crime that appears to be the consequence of his legislation would be countered. What would happen to prostitutes under the legis-
Divorce Acts
lation as he proposes it? Would their lives be subject to greater danger, greater pressures from possibly corrupt policemen, from pimps, and from customers? We have a lot of questions about that Bill. At the same time, to read in the newspaper yesterday that the Minister is not prepared to get that legislation through by the summer should make it clear to the Canadian people that it is the Government that is responsible for these problems remaining with us. We are ready to cooperate on this side of the House. We would like to see the divorce Bill through. We would like to see a solution implemented in the area of street soliciting. We would like to see drunk driving legislation on the books. These Bills are not on the books because this Government is not organizing its business properly.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Robert Phillip Kaplan: It has the full co-operation-


Mr. Speyer:: What about the Senate?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: -of this side of the House in moving-


Some Hon. Members:: Not true.


Mr. Gormley:: What about Bill C-15?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: You talk about what is happening today. I am not talking about Bill C-15. That is a different story. Bill C-15 is not a Bill that we are prepared to assist the Government in passing. We are prepared to see the Government move forward on these other three matters. I am sorry but before the delay today, before we had an opportunity to indicate on the floor our position on these other Bills, the Government was already throwing up its hands. I hope that I will not hear the Minister of Justice (Mr. Crosbie) say during the summer that street soliciting is the problem of the Opposition because the Opposition is not co-operating. We are co-operating. Let the Canadian people know where the responsibility is for the failure of this legislation, these three important Bills, to move forward now.
I would like to say a few words on the subject of divorce. I will reduce my remarks beyond perhaps what they should be and certainly beyond what I had in mind because I am anxious to see the Bill get to committee, perhaps by the end of the day.
We agree that divorce legislation needs to be reformed and that reform is overdue. We agree that the legislation now in effect tends to increase the contentious nature of a divorce proceeding. When that happens, reconciliation becomes less likely rather than more likely. We wanted to see legislation introduced that would make divorce less contentious. We are happy to see legislation brought forward that makes the divorce procedure less expensive and less drawn out.
The existing legislation requires if no fault can be found, that there must be three years of separation. That is a very lengthy period of time. We on this side of the House do not believe that a broken marriage, broken for one year, is more

May 22, 1985
Divorce Acts
likely to survive if a three year period of separation is required. In other words, we think one year is long enough. We think also that the procedure could be streamlined. That is addressed in this legislation. What is the necessity in an uncontested divorce of the court appearance and the court proceeding? Divorce does not have to be as expensive and as lengthy before the courts as it is.
We are pleased to see legislation brought forward that deals more directly, more humanely, in a more contemporary manner with the consequences of divorce and with the question of maintenance, to which I want to come back later in my remarks. We are glad to see that it is addressed and that there is a better rationale, more in keeping with the equality of spouses and more in keeping with the nature of a marriage nowadays. We are also happy that custody is addressed and the problem that now exists in the area of custody is being addressed somewhat in this legislation.
I would like to remind the House and the Government that all of these problems were known to the former Government and were the subject of the legislation brought forward by the former Government. I want to pay tribute to my former colleague, the Minister of Justice Mark MacGuigan, who brought forward a very good bill that addressed all of the issues addressed by this Bill, except for one or two matters that I hope to have time to deal with and offered the same solutions.
What is interesting is that when the former Government brought forward its Bill, we did not have an Opposition Party that said it was going to co-operate to improve the divorce law. The former Opposition, the present Government, laboured anxiously and met in caucus to discuss how it would deal with the Bill. The present Minister of Employment and Immigration (Miss MacDonald) announced what the Government's position on that legislation was.
The Tories were going to fight it, they were against it and even though it was exactly the same in all important respects as the legislation being brought forward now-I will deal with the differences-the Tories said, "After intense discussion, we have come to the conclusion that the existing divorce Bill,"- namely the one of the former Government-"is shallow, superficial, and simple." They were stuck with having characterized the divorce Bill brought forward by Justice Minister Macguigan as shallow, superficial, and simple. The Tories were stuck when September 4 came along with the problem of having to address divorce. They have agreed in what they have done that the matter is a priority but, not being able to do exactly what the former Government did, even though in substance the Tories have brought forward the same thing, they engaged in a search for a face-saving tactic to bring forward essentially the same legislation, allowing them to live with the remarks they made while in Opposition.
Let me say what I like about the Government Bill. What I like are the essential parts which copy exactly what was in the former legislation. I will then have to say what I do not like about it, which is the face-saving technique the Tories found to differentiate their Bill from the Liberal Bill. It is a face-saving
technique to which I would concede if it were not damaging, but it is damaging to the divorce Bill. It is a mistake to do what the Tories are proposing to do to differentiate their Bill. I am referring here to the very superficial frill the Tories have added on the subject of fault, Mr. Speaker.
Let me first go over the features of the Bill we welcome, that we think are overdue and should have been in effect for a year or more than a year had the Bill introduced by the former Government been passed and not fought so hard by the former Opposition.
We are moving away from a contentious type of divorce. The old requirement of a three-year separation for marriage breakdown made the other grounds more attractive and the parties tended to be driven into a situation where they were wanting to characterize themselves with one as the innocent party and one as the guilty party and so get a divorce on the basis of fault. We are glad the Bill follows its Liberal predecessor in moving away from the contentiousness that has characterized divorce in our country until today.
We are glad not only for its own sake but because it makes divorce a more dignified process that we recognize it is. In fact, this is a divorce procedure which encourages reconciliation more than the present procedure does. Like the Liberal Bill, there is an incentive and a requirement for attempted reconciliation during that one year of separation.
We do not believe, as the Government does not believe, that having tough divorce laws makes for stronger marriages. In other words, if it is hard to get a divorce, people will try for that reason to make their marriages work. We do not agree with that. People who are trying to make marriage work do not look over their shoulders at what the divorce law is. I cannot accept the argument of those who want tough divorce as a way of showing the sanctity of marriage or as a way of showing that spouses should work to make their marriages work. As long as they want to make their marriages work, they are not looking over their shoulders at what the divorce law is. When a marriage does break down, and the grounds are to be set out in the Bill-we accept them-divorce should be realistic. Divorce should be contemporary and above all, as is the tenor of the Bill before us, the divorce procedure should try to encourage reconciliation. Better than the existing law, this Bill tries to encourage reconciliation. I will not go into the details as they were placed on the record by the Minister in his statement yesterday.
We are glad that the Bill reduces the amount of legal process in court proceedings. This is a Bill which, like the Bill of the former Government, will not require that the spouses appear before a judge when there is no contention or no contest and when all matters are settled. Also, we are glad to see a modern philosophy of maintenance which is based upon a recognition of the equality of the spouses but which recognizes that, where one spouse is dependent, there is an obligation on the other spouse to assist the spouse in achieving economic independence if it is possible. If it is not possible, that is

recognized and maintenance of the dependent spouse is provided for.
Although the Government introduced fault as a ground for divorce, it specifically detached the issue of fault from the issue of maintenance. I am worried that that detachment, which is formally provided for in the Act, will not work and that because the Government brought fault into the Act, it will find its way into the maintenance issue. I will explain how I think that will happen, regrettably, in a moment when I come to urging the Government to withdraw the face-saving component it added on the question of fault.
We are also glad that custody is addressed. When we get to committee, we will want the Government to consider the issue of custody because more than it should, custody has developed in divorce situations to be custody of one parent or the other. The time has come to recognize that joint custody is a viable basic concept and that divorce itself should not be a ground, as often as it is, for the judge confronting the issue of which parent should have primary custody and what the rights of the other should be. Joint custody works very well in some jurisdictions in the United States. Having been dry run in the United States, we think it needs to be brought more than it is into the Canadian context. When that feature of this package of legislation is addressed, we will want to express our views about it.
In a final area, I want to indicate that the Government went further than the former Government in the area of enforcement of maintenance orders. We are happy about that, but we do not think the Government has gone far enough. In our legislation in the last Parliament, we talked about going to the provinces and speaking with them about enforcement. The new Government considers itself to be in a very different position in relation to the provinces. The new Government feels that it has a very good relationship with each province. I am prepared to concede that it has a better relationship with a lot of the provinces than did the former Government. If the Government has that good relationship, why is it not using it to try to get a better system of maintenance that the one proposed? It talks about an exchange of information and about entering into agreements with provinces. I would like to see more.
Given its claims about good co-operative relations with provinces, it should have put more on the table now. We will be asking the Government in committee to put more on the table, to protect dependent spouses and dependent children, and to ensure that the wealthier spouse is in a position to make the payments. We would like to see more machinery and more recourse contained in this legislation to assist dependent children in getting what is their due. The Minister made a good sounding speech about it. He recognizes the cost to other taxpayers when dependent spouses and children are unable to collect from more independent spouses the payments ordered by the court, but I would like to see more machinery to give effect to that.
I mentioned that the Government was faced with a dilemma because it wanted to produce all these good things. I have outlined them and the reasons we support the Bill. However,
Divorce Acts
government Members could not have simply reintroduced the Liberal Bill because they had criticized it when they were in Opposition. Thus they introduced the concept that, notwithstanding a general no fault philosophy, fault-that is, cruelty or adultery-would be a continuing ground for divorce without having to wait for one year. I do not suppose we are in a position as one small opposition Party to prevent the Government from introducing the concept of fault, but we will try to convince it that it is wrong in the general framework of the legislation we have discussed and of the good things included in the legislation, borrowed, as I said, from the former Liberal Government, to add on this little frill about fault.
I will refer to the information which the Government put forth. It claims to want the divorce process to be less adversarial while increasing chances for the reconciliation of the spouses or, where this is not possible, providing a more humane and fairer resolution of the consequences of divorce. Mr. Speaker, you can see the problem. If fault and cruelty are grounds for an early divorce, there will be a tendency in some situations, if not by both spouses then by one or the other, to want to use those grounds to obtain an early divorce without waiting for the year. If those are available grounds, I submit that even if the legislation indicates that fault should not go to maintenance, there will be a negotiation which takes account of the possibility of early divorces between spouses. In many cases one will put pressure on the other to go the fault route in order to obtain an earlier divorce at the price of some concessions on maintenance. I think that is wrong and that fault should be taken out for that reason alone.
There is another reason as well-the custody issue. I see nothing in the Bill which unties custody from the fault issue. What I am worried about-and I will want the Minister to deal with it-is how we will assure that custody is decided on proper grounds and that custody is not side-tracked into the cause of an early divorce where fault becomes one of the grounds. I do not want either of the spouses or the court to be directed, because of this little face-saving fault issue, into taking fault into consideration unduly in the awarding of custody. I am worried that the Bill, the way the Minister presented it, will lead to custody being affected inordinately by considerations, which may not even be very serious considerations of fault, designed by the couple to allow for an earlier divorce.
Also 1 think that the addition of fault will tend to work against the reconciliation machinery provided in the divorce Bill, and that we will see couples avoiding the reconciliation route which is in the law because the Government has found it necessary to provide for a divorce by way of adultery or cruelty on a quicker basis.
The Minister was very uncomfortable with the issue of fault. We could see that from the speech he delivered in the House yesterday. I wondered how he would resolve the dilemma of favouring the no fault divorce yet including a provision for a divorce by way of established fault. When I listened to him, looking for the way he would resolve the dilemma, I found that

May 22, 1985
Divorce Acts
he did not resolve it at all. He said, as reported at page 4933 of Hansard:
A major criticism of the present system is that it focuses overly on the alleged fault of the spouse or spouses. It polarizes a conflict situation. It creates increased tension. It discourages reconciliation.
Yet, having made all that criticism of fault, he introduces it in this bill. He also said:
-an accusation of fault is certainly not conducive to mediation of the possible consequences of divorce. If we want divorce to occur in the proper kind of atmosphere and in the proper circumstances, where the parties think what is the best way of dealing with the problem, what is the best way of looking after the children for whom we are now responsible, then we need to remove the fault grounds and deal with the consequence that a particular marriage has broken down.
Later he continues:
It is still an atmosphere of conflict-antagonism and fault.
If the Minister feels so negatively about fault that he would go to such lengths to criticize it in the same way the former Government criticized it, why not follow the model of the former Government and leave that ground out and come back to the grounds provided for before? He does not even think that fault will be used very much. At page 4934 he says:
My guess would be that in four or five years' time the use of the fault grounds will be very rare.
I hope he is right. But if he is, why put it in to complicate the package? The fault ground is counter-productive and it can only lead to more acrimonious divorce and provide a back-door entry to fault as an issue in maintenance or custody; it can also decrease the likelihood of reconciliation taking place.
[ Translation]
Those are the comments I wanted to make on Bill C-46, Bill C-47 and Bill C-48. I had a long list of my colleagues-I have three other colleagues who told me that they wanted to speak on this issue on second reading. However, to be helpful to the government which would like to refer the bill today to the Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs for consideration and public input, I will conclude now. I will not carry on the debate to urge the government to remove the concept of fault contained in the bill. Finally, it is the responsibility of the government to take a decision considering its huge majority. However, the Liberals will do their utmost to make sure that the legislation is amended before it is enforced this summer.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise and take part in this debate on the most significant overhaul of Canada's divorce legislation since 1968. This Bill represents a major improvement over the previous Bill tabled in this House by the former Minister of Justice in the spring of 1983. Where it has been improved most significantly is in the area of enforcement of maintenance orders. I want to pay tribute not only to the many groups and individuals from across Canada, including the National Action Committee on the Status of Women, the Canadian Advisory Council on the Status of Women, and other such groups, but also to single out the contribution made by my colleague, the Hon. Member for Broadview-Greenwood (Ms. McDonald). In her capacity as justice critic in the spring of 1984, on behalf of the federal New Democratic Party caucus, she worked very hard to bring to the attention of the Government our concern about the deficiencies in the Bill, particularly in the area of maintenance and the enforcement of maintenance orders, access to government data banks, and the whole question of pension splitting. I believe that much of the credit for the improvement in this legislation today must lie with that Hon. Member for the work she did on behalf of our caucus in this area.
The question of divorce is one which has touched the lives of literally hundreds of thousands of Canadians. The most recent figures show that over 65,000 divorces were granted in 1983, a decline from 1982 when there were over 70,000. Of course, the statistics show as well that some four out of ten marriages in Canada today end in divorce. It is a rather sad commentary that almost half of the marriages in Canada today end in divorce. It is a rather sad commentary that this is happening at a time when we see in our society the phenomena of increased alienation, loneliness and pages and pages of ads in newspapers of people looking for companions. It is a rather interesting irony that while marriages are breaking down and families are splitting, there are still many Canadians who seek relationships. Certainly many of us regret very deeply the number of divorces and the extent of divorce in our society. It has touched, as I say, hundreds of thousands, including Members of this House. Indeed, I myself have been through the experience of divorce and thus can empathize with the feelings of pain and hardship which is experienced in the process.
Over half the divorces in Canada involved young children. In 85 per cent of those cases, custody is granted to the mother. The difficulty at present is that half of all single parent families in Canada headed by women live in conditions of poverty. When one combines those statistics, we can see that we must do a great deal more to ensure that women of single parent families have the means to bring up their children. Perhaps one of the most telling statistics are those disclosed in a recent study in the U.S. which show that following divorce the standard of living of men increased by some 42 per cent, whereas for the women it dropped by some 73 per cent. So, while we certainly have to look at the grounds for divorce and the question of enforcement of maintenance orders, we have to recognize as well that the position of women following divorces, generally speaking, is far worse than that of men.
Compounding those difficulties is the fact that social assistance levels in Canada today, and I might say particularly in my own Province of British Columbia, are far too low. In many cases they force women to live in what can only be described as abject poverty, and not just women but also their children.
The most important innovation in this legislation, Mr. Speaker, is the introduction of the concept of marriage breakdown as being the sole ground for the granting of a divorce. Marriage breakdown is to be evidenced by a period of separa-
May 22, 1985

tion of at least one year. I want to say without reservation that we in the NDP strongly support this move. Indeed, as long ago as 1967 we adopted a policy calling for the introduction of no-fault divorce in Canada. That followed hearings by the special joint committee in 1966 and 1967. Indeed, it was in 1967 and 1968 that the last major overhaul of the Divorce Act took place. At that time my colleagues in the NDP argued for marriage breakdown as the sole ground for divorce. I want to pay tribute to the far-sightedness of former Members like Grace Maclnnis, Andrew Brewin and John Gilbert, along with other Members, who argued for the kind of enlightened legislation which is being brought forward today.
At the same time, I would like to pay tribute to two gentlemen who perhaps more than any others fought to ensure that the House of Commons recognized that divorce law in Canada was archaic and had to be changed. Those two gentlemen were Arnold Peters and Frank Howard. They single-handedly conducted a filibuster in this House by bringing each individual petition for divorce from the Province of Quebec before the House. Back in the 1950s and the 1960s, as you will recall, Mr. Speaker, it was the case that divorces in the Province of Quebec could only be obtained by bringing an individual petition to the House of Commons. It was Arnold Peters and Frank Howard who said that that kind of nonsense had to end.
There are those who have expressed concern about the fact that we are not retaining the 14 or 15 grounds of fault which are contained in the present Divorce Act even though realistically, only three or four of them have been used in the courts on a regular basis. Perhaps it was the Catholic Women's League that put it best in its brief to the House with respect to the question of no fault divorce. The brief indicates the following:
The present system of having to "air one's marital laundry'' in a public courtroom seems both demeaning and time-consuming. It is obvious that at a point of time where the matter is being heard by a Divorce Court Judge, any possibility of reconciliation has long since dissipated. 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, the accusations and counter-accusations of the present adversarial system seem to do a great deal of harm to the familial relationship which often-times must survive the dissolution of a marriage because of children.
Accordingly, it is our submission that the best interests of all parties concerned, including children would best be served if the only ground for divorce were permanent breakdown of the marriage.
As I said, that was the position taken by the Catholic Women's League. It is rather interesting that it would appear to be in some conflict with the position taken by the Catholic bishops. I would certainly defer to the wisdom of the Catholic Women's League on this particular issue.
The Government has decided that it will effectively eliminate the fault provisions of the Divorce Act, but instead of accepting the argument that we should eliminate entirely the fault grounds on the basis that a marriage breakdown is a complex situation and that to ascribe the breakdown to a particular act or series of acts denies the reality of the mar-
Divorce Acts
riage, the Government has attempted to retain the fault concept by permitting couples to obtain a divorce after a separation of less than one year on the grounds of adultery or cruelty. We have serious concerns about the retention of these fault grounds and I would like to take a moment to explain why it is that we believe that this is not the most appropriate course for the Government to take and that in fact its provision for a one-year period of time before marital breakdown is established should be the sole ground for divorce.
First I would note that by retaining the grounds of adultery and cruelty, children will still be called upon to testify with respect to violence. Children will still be called upon to testify as to how daddy beat mommy. We will still have a situation where fault is ascribed and the marriage breakdown is pinned solely on one party. That cannot be a step forward for Canada today.
As well, by retaining the ground of adultery, couples will still connive even though conniving and collusion is illegal. 1 think most Hon. Members know that when couples wish to obtain a divorce earlier, they will go through the motions of establishing evidence of adultery by hiring private investigators who burst into motel rooms at in appropriate times with flashbulbs flashing. The charade which is involved in establishing the ground of adultery will continue. Private investigators will still peer through the windows of individuals after which they will swear affidavits. I had hoped that those days would be gone. Unfortunately, the Government has decided to retain those two grounds for divorce. I hope that the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs will consider carefully whether this is indeed in the best interests of Canadian men and women whose marriages have broken down.
It has been argued that these grounds will be relied upon only in rare circumstances. I would like to point out that the evidence from other jurisdictions is very much to the contrary. In fact, in jurisdictions which grant divorces on both fault and no fault grounds, fault grounds are used more often than no fault grounds. In 1974, for example, in England and Wales where there is a two-year period of separation before a no fault divorce can be granted, slightly over 60 per cent of divorces proceeded on fault grounds. I would point out as well that if one wants to prevent couples from making too hasty a decision to divorce, it does not seem wise to maintain in the Act grounds which would facilitate a divorce after only a few weeks or months. Surely a one-year minimum is appropriate in those circumstances.


Mr. Thacker:: What about the pregnant woman?


Svend Johannes Robinson: Other Members have raised concerns about issues related to this matter and I am certain that in the context of the committee hearings on this Bill, those concerns will be aired fully. The Canadian Advisory Council on the Status of Women has raised its concern that in some instances, the retention of the grounds of adultery and mental or physical cruelty may in fact receive undue consideration in determining custody arrangements in provincial courts.

May 22, 1985
Divorce Acts
There are some who ask about the situation in which the woman is pregnant as a result of adultery. They ask if she should not be able to get out of her marriage even more quickly than the one-year period provided by the Act. Fortunately, in Canada today, the stigma of illegitimacy has disappeared. That is a concern, but we should weigh the pros and cons involved in retaining the grounds of fault. Despite that concern, which I do recognize, I feel that on balance it is not wise to retain the grounds in these circumstances.
I think it is also important to note very clearly that when we are dealing with a Divorce Act, we are dealing with marriages which have broken down and with relationships which have failed. Those who argue that by easing the pain and suffering involved in these circumstances we are somehow facilitating divorce are flying in the face of the reality of these relationships. Of course we want to do everything in our power to strengthen marriages and the role of the family in our society. However, where relationships have broken down, we should not be perpetrating measures which simply add to the pain, suffering and hardship involved in what is already a very difficult situation.
We should be supporting families through economic means. There should be better provision of child care, improved family allowances, shelters for battered women and economic equality for women. We should be ensuring that people in our society are better prepared for marriage itself. There should be more provision for pre-marital counselling in our communities and there should be better marriage preparation.
At this point, I would like to pay tribute to those church and other organizations that do engage in pre-marital counselling. In my own constituency of Burnaby, the Burnaby Christian Fellowship in conjunction with a number of other churches has embarked upon an excellent program of pre-marital counselling as well as counselling for those couples whose marriages have run into difficulty. The objective there is to attempt to salvage the marriage. But there is the recognition where that marriage has broken down, that the relationship should not be aggravated and the hardship which is faced by children should not be aggravated by forcing couples into the courts to point fingers with respect to allegations of wrongdoings by one party or the other.
In addition to strengthening marital relationships and ensuring that adequate funds are available for premarital counselling programs, we should do everything in our power to promote mediation and counselling at the point at which couples feel their relationship has begun to flounder. Unfortunately, it is still the case in too many provinces that the resources which are made available for mediation and counselling are totally inadequate. In the Divorce Act there exists a legal requirement for lawyers to point out to couples which are contemplating divorce any resources which might exist in their communities for mediation and counselling. Yet, as is too often the case, that obligation in the Divorce Act is a mere formality. In many communities there are inadequate resources for
mediation and counselling. While there should continue to be an obligation on members of the legal profession to advise on the services which are available, as well, federal funding should be made available to ensure that those services are, in fact, a reality. Once again, hopefully, marriages can be salvaged rather than proceeding to divorce.
In too many cases it is the children who are the real victims. They are helpless victims in a divorce. The pain and scars which children too often feel can last for many, many years. I would hope that one of our most important and fundamental objectives in the area of divorce would be to ease the pain which is felt by children. One of the most important ways of doing that is to ensure that the Divorce Act does not, in effect, represent a tug of war between two parents over their children, but rather, recognizing that it is the best interests of the children, which should be the only relevant factor, that wherever possible those interests should be promoted through the use of joint custody. Instead of assigning custody of the children to one parent or to the other, we should recognize that while it is not possible for the spouses to continue living together, their love for and responsibilities to their children continue and, wherever possible, custody should be joint. That is the norm in a number of other jurisdictions, including a number of American jurisdictions. For example, California's Civil Code has been amended to declare that while custody should be awarded according to the best interests of the child, the first priority is to award custody to both parents jointly. The California Civil Code further states that the custody orders should encourage frequent and continuing contact with the noncustodial parent, and shall not prefer a parent as custodian because of that parent's sex.
There is still a perception in Canada today that mothers should be granted custody on a preferential basis. There are too many fathers who are denied custody in the courts who would be willing, able and, indeed, anxious to share in the custody of their children through a joint custody provision. That could only be in the best interests of the children. I would note, as well, that the former legislation did make provision for the appointment of a child advocate, a lawyer to act on behalf of the child where the interests of the child could be represented independently in the court room. That was a good provision and it is one which should be included in this legislation.
In addition, the Bill is not clear about the possibility of awarding custody or access to persons other than parents. The previous legislation made it clear that in those rare circumstances in which a parent was not the appropriate person to whom custody should be awarded, that another individual could be granted custody, for example, a grandparent, an aunt or an uncle who had looked after the children. I would suggest that the Bill should be made more explicit to make it clear that that is a possibility under this legislation.
With respect to procedure, in Canada today, 95 per cent of divorces are uncontested, but it is still necessary for the individuals in question to go through the ritual of court proceedings. In many cases, it is an expensive revolving door. It is a mere formality. We welcome the provisions in the Bill
May 22, 1985

which would permit the provinces to allow divorces which are uncontested without an expensive court hearing. That would save both time and money. At the same time, I would urge the Government to do whatever it can to promote the concept of unified family courts. There are unified family courts in a number of jurisdictions. I hope the Government will recognize that the concept of one court, in which legal proceedings can take place with respect to divorce as well as providing facilities for conciliation and mediation, is important. Financial assistance to establish unified family courts should be provided.
Reform in the area of divorce law involves two basic elements. It involves the whole question of the grounds upon which divorce is granted, and it involves the question of maintenance. The Law Reform Commission of Canada, in 1976, made that point very clearly. It stated:
Reform involves two courses of action. First there must be an effort by government in Canada to improve individual laws and practices that deal directly with maintenance enforcement. Second, the whole body of marriage breakdown law must be thoroughly re-shaped. It is as much the traditional fault-and-adversary foundation of this law as it is the particular deficiencies in enforcement techniques that accounts for the appalling record of non-payment of maintenance obligations in Canada.
The final areas I wish to address today are the question of maintenance, the enforcement of maintenance orders and an assurance that where maintenance is ordered, the spouse in question makes those payments. This Bill is a significant improvement over the previous legislation in several respects. First, the criteria upon which maintenance is granted are improved. They are more appropriate and recognize that it is not always possible for a woman who is 50 or 55 years of age, who has been working in the home for many years, to be able to quickly establish economic independence. Indeed, that may not be possible, given the high levels of unemployment today. The second improvement was in the area of fixed maintenance awards. The previous Government's legislation made provision for awards which, at the end of the term, could not be varied under any circumstances. Clearly that was wrong. I am pleased the Government has recognized that and is making provision for the possibility of reopening fixed term awards where the circumstances might not have worked out as the court had anticipated in making the original award. The previous provisions were particularly unfair to older women who might have undergone a process of retraining but simply were not able to find jobs after that.
With respect to the enforcement of maintenance orders, I would urge the Government to adopt as a policy the establishment of a national enforcement agency which would begin the enforcement process when a spouse defaults on payments, and which would also have the authority to garnishee wages and other income sources. The enlightened Government of Manitoba has, once again, led the way in that area. Manitoba in fact has the only automatic state initiated enforcement system in Canada. Whereas in 1975, some 75 per cent of Manitoba orders were in default, in 1983, after four years of automatic state enforcement, 85 per cent of maintenance orders were in fact being collected. The program was so successful in 1983 that it actually made a profit. It collected some $8 million and
Divorce Acts
the total cost of collecting that amount was about $300,000. Of the amount collected, some $600,000 was turned over to the provincial treasury. Therefore, I would urge the Government not to just nod its head and say, "Yes, this is a good system", but to go further.
In the United States, the federal Government in fact funds to the tune of 75 per cent state enforcement mechanisms similar to those of Manitoba. I would urge the federal Government in Canada to similarly assist in the cost of provincial enforcement mechanisms such as the excellent enforcement mechanism used in the Province of Manitoba.
I welcome the access which is being made available by the federal Government to a number of federal government data banks. I would hope that all provinces would open up access to at least one major data bank in order that people who live in any province might avail themselves of these provisions. Fifty per cent to 85 per cent of divorce awards in Canada today remain in default. This is partly as a result of bitterness over the court process, and only some 15 per cent remain in default as a result of inability to track down the defaulting spouse. The main problem is enforcement. Certainly, a national enforcement system, coupled with strong and effective provincial enforcement mechanisms, would go a long way to ensuring that women who are awarded maintenance in fact receive that maintenance.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, on the question of variation of maintenance orders, I would note that once again this Bill is an improvement over the predecessor legislation. Under the previous Bill, an order could be sought varying maintenance in one province, even though the spouse was in another. This worked a particular hardship, particularly on women who could not afford to travel to the ex-husband's province. It was again as a result of representations made by the Province of Manitoba that the Government changed this provision.
The final area I would like to touch on just briefly is the whole question of pension splitting. I would have hoped that the Government would have moved forward and recognized that in this country today, at both provincial and federal levels, women should be entitled to an equal share of pension credits. The federal Government in fact should have included in this Bill an amendment to all federal pension laws which would provide that all pension credits, subject to its jurisdiction, would henceforth be shared equally between the spouses on the breakdown of the marriage. In many cases, Mr. Speaker, the woman has been working in the home for many years and has not been in the work force. She has not been in a position to build up credits for a pension. I hope that the Government will move forward quickly in the area of the splitting of pension credits.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, may I say that we welcome the introduction of this important legislation. We support the underlying principles of it. We will be proposing a number of amendments to strengthen the Bill in committee, but we are anxious that it be referred to committee quickly so we can hear

May 22, 1985
Divorce Acts
from national organizations representing women and others who have concerns in this area. Because of our desire that the Bill be passed quickly, a number of my colleagues, who otherwise would have wished to speak in the debate, are not speaking, although my colleague, the Hon. Member for Broad-view-Greenwood will be making some remarks. As I said, I welcome the legislation. It is an important step forward and will indeed help to make the painful process of divorce in Canada just a little easier for the many Canadians who must still go through that today.
[ Translation]


Mrs. Lucie Pepin (Outremont):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to comment on the Bill respecting divorce and corollary relief and on the Family Orders Enforcement Assistance Bill.
First of all, I want to point out that as far as the Divorce Act is concerned, it is a great pleasure to see that a Bill similar to the one introduced last year by the Liberal Party is before the House today.
In fact, I agree that certain provisions of the Bill to amend the Divorce Act are of interest and reflect the changing attitudes of Canadian men and women.
This kind of legislation must always meet with the broadest possible consensus in society, while at the same time ensuring that the principles of justice and generosity are observed.
In Canada, 44 per cent of marriages end in divorce and 48 per cent of the couples that do divorce have children, and despite newspaper articles that describe a new generation of father as responsible and concerned about their children and actually obtaining their custody, 85 per cent of the time, women still obtain custody of their children.
The member of single-parent families increased 50 per cent between 1971 and 1981. Most single-parent families are headed by women, and more than half of the youngest women in this category have incomes below the poverty line.
Mr. Speaker, I am stating all these figures in order to emphasize the importance of our divorce legislation for that half of the population that has suffered for too long under an economic and social system that is weighted against it. Further statistics demonstrate that many women are far worse off than men after a divorce. A study carried out in 1984 shows that one year after the divorce, the husband's income had gone up 42 per cent, while the wife's had dropped by 73 per cent. Reforming the system for collecting alimony is certainly not a luxury.
Mr. Speaker, I must say that the principles on which the Minister of Justice (Mr. Crosbie) is basing the new Divorce and Corollary Relief Act and the Family Orders Enforcement Assistance Act, are entirely admirable. I am sure that the vast majority of Canadian men and women will agree with these principles.
Unfortunately, as is the case for many Bills passed by the Progressive Conservative Government, the principles are excellent but the provisions to enforce them are deficient, in most cases. For instance, the House will recall the measures relating to equality issues in employment tabled in the House last March. The principles on which the proposals for equality in employment for women, native peoples, the handicapped and visible minorities were based were admirable, but the tools for enforcing those principles are defective and leave some doubts as to whether the political will of the Progressive Conservative Party is genuine.
As stated by the Minister of Justice, we must make divorce proceedings more humane, while at the same time trying to protect the family bond. We must provide for equality among spouses and protect the dependent spouse who is not in a position to achieve his or her Financial independence after the divorce, by seeing to it that neither party is made to suffer serious economic hardship. Access of children to both parents is also one of the Minister's objectives.
Mr. Speaker, the Progressive Conservative Government provides that marriage breakdown is the only grounds for divorce. Unfortunately, the concept of "no-fault divorce" was not included. The legislation provides that breakdown of a marriage is established if the spouses have lived separate and apart for one year or if the spouse against whom the divorce proceeding is brought has committed adultery or treated the other spouse with cruelty, in which case the divorce may be granted immediately.
Although it may not be this Government's intention to do so, by maintaining adultery or cruelty as grounds for divorce, it has thereby eliminated the possibility of speeding up divorce proceedings, which are painful enough as it is.
According to the Minister of Justice, we should advocate more humane and more equitable divorce proceedings. Who does not have a brother, a cousin, an aunt who must meet the legal requirements to obtain a divorce, and regretfully charge his or her former spouse with mental cruelty to speed up the divorce proceedings? If at least the legislation provided that two consenting adults may divorce immediately without charging each other, but not even that! And yet people can get married if both agree. Why not apply the same logic to divorce?
With the concept of no-fault divorce spouses would not have to ruin each other's reputation. We know how painful that can be for people who are going through a period of their life which is not particularly joyful. The concept of no-fault divorce would make it possible to lay more emphasis on what is primarily at stake in a divorce, namely the children's future and the restructuration of family finances, rather than stressing the unproductive and painful aspects of divorce, such as charges and counter-charges. A great many Canadian men and women nowadays are disappointed that the concept of nofault divorce has not been accepted.
May 22, 1985

As to the Family Orders Enforcement Assistance Act, many groups of women have pointed out that the proposed legislation does nothing more than make it easier to gain access to information concerning husbands who do not respect orders, without allowing enforcement of support orders. In my judgment, it is imperative to set up a national organization for enforcing family orders when one of the spouses defaults. If such an organization is not established, then a very strict agreement should be signed by the provincial and federal Governments. Mr. Speaker, perhaps the Minister of Justice would like us to believe that such a protocol will be established, but a careful reading of the Family Orders Enforcement Assistance Act points to the opposite.
Clause 3 provides that the Minister may, on behalf of the Government of Canada, enter into agreements with each of the Provinces concerning the searching for and the release of information. You understood correctly, Mr. Speaker, the Minister "may", which does not mean he "shall".
Moreover, the legislation grants certain rights to a person trying to locate his or her former spouse, either because the latter does not pay the allowances ordered, or because he or she has kidnapped a child. Under this legislation, that person could petition a court to search for information on his or her former spouse. The Canadian Government is putting a series of information banks at the disposal of investigating authorities, but what seems to be creating a problem, Mr. Speaker, is that federal information banks will be available only after the provincial bank will have been. Not only must each Province determine what information banks will be available for searches-and this opens the door to high-handedness and variations between provinces-but if a Province delays in designating those information banks or bluntly refuses to do so, the whole process will become impossible to engage.
Therefore, in point of fact the working paper introduced by the Minister of Justice says on page 5 that use of federal provisions is not possible unless a province allows at least one information bank to be searched. This means the Federal Government is willing to help women trying to locate their defaulting former husbands, provided those women live in a Province whose authorities have agreed to co-operate. We know what would be the outcome of that, Mr. Speaker. Women in Quebec and Manitoba would be provided with good services, that I know for sure. But as to women in other Provinces, this is open to question.
Yet the Tory Government recognizes the problem. In the working paper I have quoted, it is stated that federal-provincial agreements are essential to the implementation of the Act. The Minister of Justice may be nearsighted, or perhaps he is simply inconsistent and irresponsible. Passing legislation and having other people carry the responsibility for enforcing its spirit and letter is a sign of poor judgment. I must say that our parliamentary rules prevent me from using the terms that truly reflect what I think of that.
Divorce Acts
Also, the political will to set up and enforce an efficient system for collecting support monies is not there. Rather than squarely taking sides with the individuals at odds with their former spouses who do not fulfill their obligations, this Government wants to go the easy way, and above all else not to hurt the Provinces. The working paper on the Family Orders Enforcement Assistance Act stresses the fact that the federal Government will make every possible effort to be flexible as to the choice of the information bank or banks to be searched, provided the bank chosen holds information that is adequate. The least we can say is that this Tory Government will avoid quarrels with the Provinces, even when they are recalcitrant and will not co-operate.
Clearly said, Mr. Speaker, this means that the system provided for by the Bill will crumble like a house of cards if the Tory Government does not get federal-provincial agreement. This is a flaw that could make this legislation completely powerless in some Provinces.
Briefly, I believe the principles that underlie the Act respecting divorce and corollary relief are commendable. They reflect the change in mentalities in Canada. However, I doubt this Government has the political will indeed to make the legislation more equitable when I see the weaknesses and inconsistencies inherent in these bills.
Mr. Speaker, it is to be hoped that some amendments will be incorporated into the bills now before the House.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Questions and comments. Debate. The Chair recognizes the Hon. Member for Broadview-Greenwood (Ms. Lynn McDonald).


Ms. Lynn McDonald (Broadview-Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, Bills C-46, C-47 and C-48 which are before us today deal with the very difficult question of divorce. There are some who would oppose the legislation, believing that divorce should be as difficult as possible to obtain, and in so far as it is difficult, that marriages will not break down. They believe that the stricter the laws are, the more marriages will be saved. However, I believe that the measures before us today are responsible. We can debate some of the finer points, but I do not think these measures will make divorce so easy to obtain that people will not make every reasonable effort possible, short of divorce, to solve their marital problems.
Most importantly, making marriage breakdown the grounds for divorce will make the process less of an adversarial one. I think that separation for a year or more will, practically speaking, become the main grounds for divorce in Canada. This will stop the terrible occurrence which we have seen in the past of children being forced to testify for one parent against the other. This is the first legislation we have seen which makes a serious attempt to deal with the issue of maintenance. Canadian women and children have suffered for

May 22, 1985
Divorce Acts
a very long time because of the non payment of maintenance orders.

The three bills now before the House fully meet the objections which the New Democratic Party had raised when the previous government had introduced its Divorce Bill. On second reading, we had opposed the principle of the bill, for this so-called reform was not likely to improve in any way the lot of the great many women and children who depend for their support on maintenance payments. It is a well known fact that court-ordered maintenance payments are only partly made, if made at all. The result of this is that, following a divorce, the spouse on the labour market, generally the husband, benefits from an increase in his disposable income, while the spouse who has custody of the children, the wife most of the time, finds herself in a distressing predicament.
This bill will go a long way toward providing adequate income to these women and children who depend for their support on delinquent husbands and fathers. First of all, the criteria for determining maintenance payments are more just that those in the preceding legislation. As a matter of fact, that Liberal legislation could have made these women's situation even worse by insisting on maintenance payments with fixed terms and the economic independence of the divorced wife.
This bill is more realistic. It reflects the fact that economic independence for some divorced women is impossible. In some divorce cases, there are some women who have never been on the labour market, or have not been for 30, 40 or even 50 years.
In such cases, it would be unfair to compel the divorced woman to accept any job to become financially independent. Economic conditions are difficult. A 60-year old woman without experience on the labour market can earn her living but is it fair that such a woman should suffer a substantial reduction in her standard of living? Fortunately, the criteria proposed in the bill are more reasonable; they are as follows:
Firstly, the maintenance order should recognize any economic advantages or disadvantages to the spouses arising from the marriage or its breakdown; secondly, it should apportion between the spouses any financial consequences arising from the care of dependant children; thirdly, it should relieve any economic hardship of the spouses arising from the breakdown of the marriage; and fourthly, it should in so far as practicable, promote the economic self-sufficiency of each spouse within a reasonable period of time.
Let me note that there are real difficulties in establishing economic independence and real equality after the break-up of a marriage. Even if there is a fifty-fifty split of assets- provinces are moving toward this procedure, although it is not perfect yet-and even if some support money is granted to the spouse who has been in the home looking after the children, there will still be difficulties. What seems to be equality may
not in fact be equality in practice because the partner who has stayed in the home has missed the opportunity to develop skills that are marketable. The partner who has been in the labour market during those peak years of job training and experiencegathering has human capital and the opportunity to invest. That person will have far more opportunity to gain a good livelihood after the marriage break-up. I suspect that even with better laws, women will be seriously disadvantaged. While we hope that they will be above the poverty line, they will still not be on an equal footing with their husbands because they have lost all those years of skills training which can be sold in the market-place in career development.
A serious gap in this legislation concerns the fact that pensions, even those under federal jurisdiction, are not mentioned in the legislation. edl988;-l While most private and employment related pensions come under provincial jurisdiction, there are some pensions under federal jurisdiction. Therefore, this unfairness with regard to pensions and the dependent spouse should be remedied. There should be automatic pension splitting for the Canada Pension Plan, with no need for application. We know that most female spouses do not make that application, nor should there be a deadline for it. There should be automatic splitting for all pensions under federal jurisdiction, especially since homemakers do not qualify for the Canada Pension Plan in their own name. Women are badly treated with respect to pensions.
The wife must negotiate pension splitting as part of the marriage settlement, which means that she may have to give up something else during that negotiation. The splitting should be automatic, unless the court finds a good reason not to do so. The federal Government could set a standard by automatically splitting all pensions under its jurisdiction. I hope that recommendations for such amendments will be made in the committee.
There has been some improvement in the legislation with respect to grounds of divorce, compared with the current laws. The New Democratic Party supports the principle of marriage breakdown being the sole ground for divorce because we believe that this is the way to have the fairest settlement, to decrease the adversarial nature of the proceedings and to prevent conduct from beginning a matter for maintenance decisions. However, the new Bill before us today would have both marriage breakdown in effect by separation of fault grounds of divorce either by adultery or cruelty. I have some concerns about the wording of the cruelty section. It states, "if one spouse has treated the other spouse with physical or mental cruelty of such a kind as to render intolerable the continued cohabitation of the spouses". This raises a question of how much cruelty must there be? How many beatings must there be before the situation is rendered intolerable?


Blaine Allen Thacker: The same as the last law.


Lynn McDonald: The last law is very unsatisfactory in that respect. We certainly heard of cases where the spouse has gone
May 22, 1985

to court claiming physical cruelty and was told that she wasn't beaten hard enough or there weren't enough bruises. The single beating or the beating she had was not enough.
It does not require a simple assault but one of a nature to render continued cohabitation intolerable. Judges have differed as to what they considered "intolerable". Therefore, people have been turned down on the grounds of physical cruelty because it was considered that a wife should be able to put up with some. It is a question of what is intolerable, and I question whether that wording is adequate for this day and age. There is also the issue of the one year separation and whether it is an adequate period to establish marriage breakdown.
I certainly have had representations in my riding, particularly from clergy, who believe that perhaps a longer period of separation might provide an opportunity for a marriage to be saved. That is a reasonable and important point to be made and it is difficult to choose a particular cut-off period. While I am not opposed to a one-year proposal, I would be glad to hear representations concerning a different period of time.
One can note that lawyers in such cases, as the courts themselves, have an obligation to work toward reconciliation and advise clients as to the possibility of marriage counselling. The court has an obligation to stop the proceedings if it believes there is a possibility for reconciliation. I believe that the legislation treats the obligation of seeking reconciliation and avoiding marriage breakdowns seriously.
With respect to the issue of enforcement machinery, there are enormous improvements in this legislation. However, one can question whether the legislation goes far enough. I might point out that the New Democratic Party opposed the previous legislation in principle simply on the grounds that it did not have adequate enforcement machinery. We worked very hard with women's organizations in the country to ensure that adequate machinery would be introduced. We fought for that very vigorously, and it is a great pleasure to see that these objections have been taken seriously.
However, organizations are saying that it is not good enough yet. Let me quote the Canadian Advisory Council on the Status of Women:
The proposed legislation only offers increased access to information on spouses who default on support and custody orders. It should provide enforcement of these orders.
The CACSW again calls for a national enforcement agency which would begin the enforcement process when a spouse defaults on payment and which would also have the authority to garnishee wages and other income sources. Without such an agency, people in need-and that is mostly women-will still have to initiate lengthy legal proceedings to get the payments they have already been awarded by the provincial courts.
This is a thorny legal question of jurisdiction between the federal and provincial Governments. I would like to see the provinces do more. Certainly, Manitoba is proving that automatic computer monitoring is successful is getting maintenance orders actually paid, and it would be beneficial for other provinces to follow suit.
The United States Government has been far more aggressive in encouraging the collection of maintenance payments. In
Divorce Acts
my Party, one seldom has the opportunity to congratulate President Reagan on anything. However, in this case, if not for the right reasons, we do see some action. The purpose for his action is to save welfare payments on the part of the state. Nevertheless, bless Ronald Reagan for ensuring that women get their maintenance payments. The federal Government in the United States accomplished this by paying 75 per cent of the enforcement costs. The Government could at least consider such a mechanism. Certainly, the provincial and federal Governments should consider the establishment of much greater enforcement machinery.
Let me refer to a study by Finnbogason and Townson which raises serious doubts about the proposal before us today. What it says is that such an agency, if it is only going to have information in it and not be linked into actual enforcement, may not be cost effective. Why set one up if it is only going to have those purposes? It points out that the experience of Manitoba and other jurisdictions, such as the United States, indicates that effective enforcement of maintenance orders is a matter of regular monitoring of accounts, prompt notification of default, and vigorous pursuit of defaulters. Such requirements are only met through an automatic computerized state initiated enforcement system. The establishment of such a system should therefore be a priority in each province where it does not already exist.
If all Canadian jurisdictions were to adopt such a system, then a central registry could become an effective part of a nationally linked system for monitoring and enforcement of maintenance and custody orders. However, to confine a central registry to the passive role of a mere repository for the purposes of providing information on maintenance and custody orders is to develop a very expensive computerized filing system which would do little to improve the day to day enforcement of maintenance and custody orders and to relieve the desperate financial situation of so many Canadian single parent families. These are strong words and I think they are very appropriate. I think this is an area where we still need to see more work done.
The legislation does provide adequate safeguards for the abuse of privacy. This has been a traditional objection, and I think these objections are quite properly answered in the legislation. It would remove the barriers to the garnishment of federal moneys, including income tax refunds, unemployment insurance, Canada Savings Bond interest, Canada pension plan payments, old age security, guaranteed income supplements, and this list could even be extended. The important point is that there is recognition of responsibility to pay for the support of children and the people looking after them, normally the mother. A person does not have the right to say this money is mine for my use alone, but a recognition that marriage is a partnership, that family involves responsibilities of both the parents. This is a most important reform, that the right of a person to income, and the responsibility to support other people in the family unit be recognized. It is a point I

May 22, 1985
Divorce Acts
have argued in the House on a number of occasions, and I am very glad to see it being recognized in the legislation today.
I have a couple of points on a few other matters in the legislation. With respect to variation orders, here we see some better recognition of the reality of Canadian mobility patterns. It is a reasonable compromise. This will allow for greater flexibility in varying orders for maintenance and also for custody. Also, there are some better safeguards than in the Liberal legislation of last year to prevent one's spouse from moving to another province just to get a variation order that the dependent spouse could not fight. The reform, which is a very sensible one, requires that the new order be confirmed in the court of the province where the concerned spouse actually lives so there cannot be this evasive action which we know occurs. This was a recommendation of the National Action Committee on the Status of Women of Canada. It shows Common sense has prevailed and that a good recommendation has been incorporated into the legislation.
There is a similar provision for custody where a child is in one province with one parent and the other parent applies for custody. The parent who has the child can apply to have the case heard in their province so that the information on the child's welfare can be brought to the court and the decision will not have to be made in a distant place where the other parent is. In other words, the needs of the child concerned will be treated seriously by the court. It will be possible to get the information on those needs to the court.
Finally, there will be greater flexibility in allowing the provinces to determine the nature of the court procedures for divorce. This will permit provinces, although it will not require them, to avoid trials on uncontested matters. This is a proper procedure, allowing these decisions to be made by the provinces. Some will probably choose to insist on having court appearances, and some will dispense with that procedure.
To conclude, Mr. Speaker, I have a great deal of satisfaction in seeing the many improvements in the legislation before us. I think it goes to show that democracy is indeed alive, that common sense can prevail, that Ministers of Justice can listen
to constituents, organizations, and what Opposition Parties are saying. The Bills before us today still need some work. The NDP will support passage of them. We want these Bills to go to committee for some modest amendments. They are a considerable improvement over previous legislation. It goes to show that an Opposition Party, by raising vigorous objections and making them in a very constructive way, can have a position impact in seeing real reform brought into legislation when a matter comes to Parliament.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Are there any questions or comments?
Is the House ready for the question?


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Mr. Crosbie, seconded by Mr. La Salle, moves that Bill C-46, an Act to amend the Divorce Act; that Bill C-47, an Act respecting divorce and corollary relief; and that Bill C-48, an Act to provide for the release of information that may assist in locating defaulting spouses and other persons and to permit, for the enforcement of support orders and support provisions, the garnishment and the attachment of certain moneys payable by Her Majesty in right of Canada, be now read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motions agreed to, Bill C-46, Bill C-47 and Bill C-48 read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I believe there is disposition to call it six o'clock?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: It being six o'clock, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at eleven o'clock a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 2(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 5.58 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Thursday, May 23, 1985