1985-11-20

Ms. Sheila Copps (Hamilton East):: Walter Sedlbauer, the senior vice-president of Susan Shoe Industries in Hamilton, one of the major employers in the Hamilton area, is flying to Ottawa today in anticipation of the Government's announcement. I hope the Government will have good news for Mr. Sedlbauer with respect to the extension of footwear quotas as promised by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney). Most important, Mr. Speaker, I hope the Government will have good news for the workers in the footwear industry from Hamilton right across Canada.
I want to point out to the Government the commitment on this side of the House that, if the full package of quotas on men's and women's footwear is not extended, the Government will be facing the political fight of its life. The Prime Minister made promises and the Ministers have made promises on this issue.
I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, we will see thousands of workers on Parliament Hill protesting the Government's decision if it does not live up to its promise to extend quotas fully to allow the Canadian footwear industry to compete equally in international markets. Eight out of ten Canadians support an extension of footwear quotas to save Canadian jobs. We are here to fight, and we are going to fight for those workers in Susan Shoe Industries.


Mr. Gauthier:: Merry Christmas.
*
* *


CULTURE
Ms. Lynn McDonald (Broadview-Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, rather disquieting rumours are being heard respecting the proposed National Film Board $20-odd million cutbacks, one
third of its budget. If this does not signal the demise of the NFB, it will certainly spell the end of its most creative sector-documentaries.
Particularly thanks to the NFB, Canada has gained worldwide recognition for its documentary film production, which happens to be an essentially Canadian art form. Quebec producers rank among the best in the world. It is imperative that this Government fully acknowledge Canada's cultural reality.
Artists want to express themselves here, depict Canadian reality, focus on Canadian problems and to promote a Canadian viewpoint on international issues.

For Canadian artists, the priority is not more U.S. or other markets, desirable as that goal is. Canadian artists above all want to do what they do well in Canada, and that is a contribution they can make for all of us to the world.
For nobody waved goodbye, Les ordres, Pour la suite du monde, and If You Love This Planet, the NFB needs our support and it needs an adequate budget to do its work.
* *
*


THE ECONOMY
Mr. Richard Grise (Chambly):: Mr. Speaker, according to the latest economic indicators, the economy in Quebec continues to show sustained growth in 1985.
Thanks to our policies, 89,000 new jobs were created since September 1984. The unemployment rate, which was 12.8 per cent in September 1984, dropped to 11.8 per cent in October 1985, a net reduction of 1 per cent.
Between January and August 1985, amounts for which building permits were issued increased 23.3 per cent, as compared with the same period under the former Government.
The private sector is responding favourably to the First initiatives taken by our Government.
According to a recent survey conducted by the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, 37 per cent of small- and medium-sized businesses intend to increase capital spending by the end of this year. Furthermore, 26 per cent are planning to hire staff, and 41 per cent expect to increase their working capital.

November 20, 1985
The estimated value of deliveries by the manufacturing sector as a whole has increased by $611 million over one year, an increase of 12.7 per cent.
Retail sales increased by 8 per cent during the same period.
Mr. Speaker, these figures show once again that the economy's performance has considerably improved since the Progressive Conservative Government was elected last year. As far as the economy is concerned, and especially that of Quebec and the riding of Chambly which I represent, the Mulroney team has managed to restore the confidence of investors and of Canadian entrepreneurship.


HUNTING AND TRAPPING
Mr. Dave Nickerson (Western Arctic):: Mr. Speaker, the Edmonton Sun fashion page reported yesterday as follows:
When stylish Raisa Gorbachev arrived in Geneva she wore an eye-catching tailored grey coat with a fur collar and matching fur hat. Several hours later Nancy Reagan appeared in an elegant mink coat and matching hat.
At a time when Canada's fur industry is under attack by animal rights groups and organizations such as Greenpeace, and when the anti-trapping lobbyists are threatening the livelihood of thousands of Canadian trappers, these two leaders of world fashion are to be applauded not only for their excellent taste but also for their support of an industry which has time-honored traditions in both North America and the Soviet Union.
Let us hope, Sir, that the husbands of these two ladies will be as successful in Geneva in furthering the cause of world peace as they themselves have been in furthering an industry dedicated to the laudable objective of making people look and feel beautiful and which, incidentally, can only flourish in times of peace and prosperity.


REFUGEES
Mr. Sergio Marchi (York West):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to draw the attention of this House to the hundreds of political refugees who gathered today outside our Parliament buildings. I returned just a few moments ago from a meeting with these individuals which span 13 different organizations and eight different countries. It was a very emotional meeting. It was a meeting that I wish the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and the two Ministers responsible for immigration had an opportunity to attend. If they had, they would have seen the despair and the look of frustration in the eyes of hundreds of individuals representing 20,000 people who find themselves in the very same precarious position.
There was despair because they had substandard housing. There was despair because there was an inability to have their children schooled. There was despair because there was an inability to gain full-time employment at fair wages. There was despair because they had been separated from their families in their homeland. There was also frustration because of the Government's inability to deal in a fair and swift way to appease individuals looking for homes.
There are over 20,000 individuals who have spent four years or five years in this country. They are asking for fair judgment. They are asking for peace of mind. They are asking that this country allows them to become good citizens. They hope that they will not be uprooted and that they will not be asked to pack their bags once again-


Mr. Speaker:: I regret to interrupt the Hon. Member but his time has expired.


CONSUMER AFFAIRS
Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, I want to speak on behalf of the 16 million Canadians who hold credit cards, particularly those who are paying outrageous interest rates on their unpaid balances month after month.
Credit card interest rates are essentially unchanged since 1983 and, in many cases, unchanged since the high interest rate period of 1981. The range is from 28.8 per cent for department store cards, to 24 per cent for oil company cards, down to 21 per cent and to 17.4 per cent for bank credit cards such as Visa and MasterCard.
Many low-income consumers who shop with these cards are getting no benefit from the general fall in interest rates. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) has repeatedly told the House that he will not intercede on behalf of these consumers, many of whom do not qualify for lower interest loan credit. Instead, while he expresses his great faith in the market-place, the banks offer lower credit card rates to retailers but not to their consumers. Now the banks are offering gold cards, at a cost of up to $75 per year, with lower interest rates, to their upper-income customers who seldom need them because they pay their accounts promptly.
When the Conservative Government boasts of lower interest rates, we ask: lower interest rates for whom? There are lower interest rates for organized retailers and lower interest rates on credit cards for the well-off who do not need them. However, there are the same high rates for millions of average and low-income Canadians who cannot afford them.
I call upon the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Cote) to take up the problems and the difficulties of low-income people who are being ripped off.
November 20, 1985


PARLIAMENT BUILDINGS
Mr. Reg Stackhouse (Scarborough West):: Mr. Speaker, these buildings, more than any other building in Canada, attract Canadians day after day. They have become almost a shrine, visited by Canadians from every part of the country. However, they are not accessible to a very important segment of our population, namely, the physically handicapped. It is possible for the physically handicapped to gain admission to these buildings, but not without great difficulty and great disadvantage. There is not even a sign pointing to the few entrances where it is possible for wheelchairs to enter.
Recently it was announced that the Government would ensure that federal government buildings would be adjusted to accommodate the physically handicapped. 1 plead with all authorities of the House and of the Government to ensure that the needs of the physically handicapped in terms of access to the Parliament Buildings will be given priority.
It behooves us as a caring society to be sure that the centre of Parliament, the centre of Government, is available to those who find it difficult to make their way here and want, all the more, to gain access when they arrive.
It was a complaint from one of my constituents which brought this matter to my attention. I hope it will receive the attention of all who can do something about it.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


SMALL BUSINESS
Mr. William G. Lesick (Edmonton East):: Mr. Speaker, the Progressive Conservative Government has a solid record of achievement in the development of the small business sector in Canada, certainly in Alberta. People across Canada, small-business people, have a positive attitude toward the future of business prospects in Canada. Most of the 25,000 new jobs in the last year in Alberta were generated by small business. In its most recent survey the Canadian Federation of Independent Business indicated: "Plans for increases in capital investment and working capital are the most optimistic we have seen for some time".
This renewed investor confidence results from the initiatives taken by the Progressive Conservative Government over the last year, including measures which have been announced to increase the capital available for small firms. These measures include capital gains exemptions, increased access to pension and RRSP funds, and tax assistance for labour sponsored venture capital. In addition, taxpayers have been given more rights in their dealings with Revenue Canada, including the right to a fair hearing. Finally, the federal Government has signed memoranda of understanding with all ten provinces and
Oral Questions
the two territories to reduce the regulatory and paper burden upon small businesses and to facilitate access to Government programs and services.
Mr. Speaker, the Government has illustrated its commitment to small business, and it will continue to provide opportunities for future growth of small enterprises across Canada.


THE ECONOMY
Mr. Jean-Claude Malepart (Montreal-Sainte-Marie):: Mr. Speaker, today we met with nearly 500 workers from Montreal East. These people came here to ask the Government to find a way to deal with the loss of 5,000 jobs in Montreal East. They have no use for the statistics of the Hon. Member for Chambly (Mr. Grise) who seems to be living on another planet. What they want is programs that will give them jobs. First of all, they want to see Vickers get a contract for ship repairs; second, they want the Government to meet its commitment regarding the sale of the Gulf refinery by maintaining the contract for
30,000	barrels a day. As for Bombardier, Canadian Steel Wheel and La Forge, these people want the Government to give out contracts for the manufacture of locomotives, railway cars and wheels.
Mr. Speaker, in concluding, I would ask all Conservative Members, and especially those from Quebec, to stand up and defend the interests of workers in Montreal East and fight against the lifting of quotas in the footwear industry.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Jean Lapierre (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Prime Minister, my question is directed to the Minister of State for Small Businesses.
Mr. Speaker, there have been some strange goings-on during the last two days. First the Premier of Quebec says there is a Quebec-Ottawa agreement on Hyundai. Yesterday, the Minister of State for Small businesses informed the House that there was no agreement and that it was being negotiated. The Minister of Public Works told the House that the announcement had been made prematurely, against the advice of the

November 20, 1985
Oral Questions
parties concerned, Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister of State for Small Businesses what went on in the Prime Minister's head and in this Government, between the Florida poolside and the cold reality of Ottawa, to bring about this change of heart after assurances had been given about the Hyundai plant?


Hon. Erik Nielsen (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Blackburn (Brant):: It's the jack-in-the-box.


Mr. Chretien:: It's Monsieur Hatchet.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Let's at least start right today. Go ahead.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I really am astonished at the degree to which my hon. colleagues in the Liberal Party are opposed to the jobs that are being created in their own province.


Some Hon. Members:: Shame!


Erik Nielsen: The question that has been asked today was answered several times yesterday. I need only draw my hon. colleague's attention to page 8594 of Hansard of yesterday where the Prime Minister said:
We are concluding agreements pursuant to our joint agreements with the Government of Quebec, and in view of the absence of the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion, details will be announced when and as appropriate.
He went on to say:
I can tell you one thing: Quebecers and Canadians will be very pleased with Hyundai's coming to Canada.
I do not know why Hon. Members are so upset about the prospect of a couple of thousand jobs in that province.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


AGREEMENT WITH HYUNDAI-NATURE AND CONSEQUENCE
Jean-C. Lapierre: I have a supplementary, Mr. Speaker. The Deputy Prime Minister should realize this is not a laughing matter. We are talking about the integrity and the word of honour of his own Prime Minister.
The Premier of Quebec said without hesitation that the Prime Minister of Canada had assured him he could make the announcement and that the agreement was ready. Could the Deputy Prime Minister therefore inform the House whether the Prime Minister of Canada gave the go ahead for this announcement. Unlike what was claimed by the Minister of State for Small Businesses and the Minister of Public Works? If he did, what are the details of the agreement? Are there 1,200 or 1,800 jobs? Tell us the truth once and for all!


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman suggests that I am taking this matter haphazardly. Here is an industry which has intentions of locating in the Hon. Member's own riding and he is quoted in today's Montreal Gazette as saying:
"The whole thing is fishy," said Liberal MP Jean Lapierre, in whose Shefford riding the plant will be built. "It stinks."
Is the Hon. Member going to go to the people of Granby who are unemployed to tell them not to accept jobs in the new development that will be taking place?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


CANADIAN CONTENT INQUIRY
Right Hon. John N. Turner (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, the Government has obviously painted itself into a corner on the Hyundai issue. There is absolute confusion about the timing of the announcement and whether there is a firm deal or not, and complete stupidity on the part of the Government in the handling of the negotiations.
My question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister in the absence of the Prime Minister, whose handlers have obviously told him to absent himself conveniently today. Why, during six months of negotiations with the Hyundai company, did the Government not insist upon Canadian content for Hyundai cars assembled in this country, something which would have assured an additional 1,600 jobs in Quebec?


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition obviously believes in his own preamble. However, the people of the Province of Quebec, and particularly of this area, are not going to believe in that kind of nonsense. He says that we have painted ourselves into a corner. If this is the result of the investment strategy adopted by the Government, a strategy that will have similar results across the country, then 1 for one would like to suggest to the Right Hon. Member that that is the kind of desirable corner into which to be painted.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Erik Nielsen: It means, Sir, more jobs, more jobs, more jobs. I do not see why the Right Hon. Member should be so opposed to that, particularly for a province that has been denied a fair share of the Canadian automobile industry.


HYUNDAI PLANT-ASSURANCE OF JOBS FOR CANADIANS
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary for the Deputy Prime Minister. The Prime Minister himself has now lost the advantage to Hyundai. He was so anxious to make a public announcement that he lost his room to manoeuvre in negotiations with the
November 20, 1985

company. My question to the Deputy Prime Minister is as follows: Why was this Government so anxious to make an announcement that it neglected to ensure that parts would be manufactured in Canada and thus provide for about 1,600 additional jobs? What is he going to tell unemployed workers in Montreal East?


Erik Nielsen: Again, Mr. Speaker, uncharacteristically for the right hon. gentleman, because he does not usually distort matters, he is obviously believing in the fairy-tales of which he has assured himself by working them into the preamble to his question. In answer to several questions put to him yesterday, the Prime Minister said that the details of the transaction will be announced in the normal course of events. However, what they are really whining about over there, Sir, is the positive upturn in the economy that has taken place in our country in the last year.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Erik Nielsen: Quite apart from the employment statistics which show that employment is up by 5 per cent year over year, production in the automobile industry is up by 8 per cent. Production in the vehicle industry is up by 5 per cent, and up 16 per cent over-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Some Hon. Members:: More, more!


REQUEST FOR CLARIFICATION OF HYUNDAI NEGOTIATIONS
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, the Minister claims that the arrangement with Hyundai is still being negotiated, while the Premier of Quebec is saying that there is a concrete agreement. The Minister of Public Works is saying that the Government was opposed to the announcement being made by the Government of Quebec. Yes, he said that. But the Premier of Quebec is claiming that he got the go ahead from the Prime Minister of Canada, from Florida. My question to the Deputy Prime Minister is as follows: Who is telling the truth?


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, the truth will certainly not be found in the allegations contained in the preamble to the right hon. gentleman's question. The fact is that the question was answered yesterday fully and forthrightly by the Prime Minister in response to the right hon. gentleman. The answer is to be found-and I will not bore him by repeating it-at page 8602 of Hansard.
Oral Questions
With respect to the record of Hyundai, I do not think an article in The Globe and Mail of today should go unnoticed. It states:
"Hyundai has said, from the very beginning, that it would strive earnestly to reach auto pact status and that means automatically 60 per cent Canadian content," said Norman Gibbons, senior vice-president of Hyundai Auto Canada. "It's an extension of our parts purchasing program that we started in 1984 without any encouragement from anybody."
On that basis their record sounds pretty good to me.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


HYUNDAI PLANT-REQUEST FOR CLARIFICATION OF JOB CREATION GUARANTEES
Mr. Mike Cassidy (Ottawa Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Deputy Prime Minister.
Today I met with hundreds of workers demonstrating on Parliament Hill here in Ottawa to tell the Government their concern over the heavy job losses in Montreal East.
Since jobs would be created in Montreal East if the deal with Hyundai were to include a Canadian content guarantee, can the Deputy Prime Minister assure the House that the federal Government will not give a single dollar to Hyundai unless the company provides job creation guarantees similar to those given by American Motors at Brampton?


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman is putting the same question which he put yesterday. The answer is to be found at page 8595 of Hansard where the Prime Minister answered him by saying:
the conditions for job creation in the case of Hyundai will be at least as interesting as they have been for all other automobile companies in Canada.
In passing, as the Hon. Member will see if he rereads yesterday's Hansard, the Prime Minister wondered about the reluctance of the NDP to applaud job creation in the Province of Quebec. Why are they doing that?


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


HYUNDAI PLANT-AUTO PACT-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Michael Morris Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, can the Deputy Prime Minister explain how it is that other Canadian car makers fully endorse the automotive agreement provisions, but that this issue has not even been raised with Hyundai to force the company to abide by the automotive agreement?
Why a different scenario in the case of Hyundai? Or would it be that you do not want to upset the Americans who have little use for Canadian content restrictions?

November 20, 1985
Oral Questions


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I am again amazed at the extent to which the Hon. Member and, indeed, a good many of his colleagues, continue to believe in the truth of the preamble to their own ruddy questions. The preamble is simply not accurate. The Hon. Member's most pessimistic and gloomy predictions with respect to what will happen in the Province of Quebec are totally unfounded. The fact is that this is a direct result of the investment strategy of the Government. The creation of jobs should be applauded by him rather than viewed with his customary pessimism.


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


REQUEST FOR CLARIFICATION OF HYUNDAI AGREEMENT
Mr. Jacques Guilbault (Saint-Jacques):: Mr. Speaker, 1 would like to direct my question to the Minister of State for Small Businesses.
1 would like to ask a question whose answer is not already recorded in yesterday's Hansard.
Are we looking at two different agreements, one between the Quebec Government and Hyundai, and another between the Canadian Government and Hyundai-no, do not look in yesterday's Hansard, the answer is not there-or would it be a tripartite agreement to which both Governments and Hyundai are parties?


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, the fact is that if the Hon. Member had been paying attention yesterday, and if he had reread Hansard for yesterday, as I have, and studied it, he would have found the answer he says is not there, at page 8594 of Hansard. The Prime Minister said, and I quote:
We are concluding agreements pursuant to our joint agreements with the Government of Quebec, and in view of the absence of the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion, details will be announced when and as appropriate.
I don't know why the Hon. Member should join his colleague, who is from the very region where the plant is going to be established, in knocking and criticizing job creation in the Province of Quebec.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


HYUNDAI-REQUEST FOR CLARIFICATION OF GUARANTEES RELATING TO PARTS MANUFACTURING
Jacques Guilbault: Fair enough, Mr. Speaker. It is a joint agreement.
Well then, I wish someone would explain to me why the Quebec Government has already made its announcement. How can it possibly guarantee 1,600 indirect jobs in parts manufacturing when, according to the vice-president of Hyundai, the question of guarantees with respect to parts manufacturing was not even raised in the negotiations with the federal Government? Is that what a joint agreement is? My eye!


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, there were 333,000 jobs created since last year.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Erik Nielsen: And all we hear from them in response-


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: That's what Trudeau used to say.


Erik Nielsen: -to that good news is complaints.
The Hon. Member almost had apoplexy yesterday because the news was so good. For heaven's sake, when the news is good, rejoice!


Some Hon. Members:: More! More!


Mr. Nystrom:: That's a hard act to follow, Mr. Speaker.


JOB LOSSES-INQUIRY ON MEASURES GOVERNMENT INTENDS TO TAKE
Lorne Edmund Nystrom: In the absence of the Prime Minister, I should like to direct a question to the Deputy Prime Minister of Canada.
I have just met some 400 working men and women from Montreal East who are really angry. They asked me to put to the Prime Minister of Canada the following question: What is the Government going to do for the workers of Montreal East who are now unemployed and to protect the jobs of those who are still employed?


Hon. Roch La Salle (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, I have also had the opportunity to meet these 400 or 500 workers of Montreal East who are quite concerned about the situation which exists there.
I should like the House to know that I have been quite pleased to meet these workers and to assure them that we are actively looking for ways and means to help them, in view of the fact that the policies implemented up to a few months ago have been disastrous for workers of Montreal East. We will make a special effort to help them. And I do not think the Members opposite are in a position to tell us what to do.
November 20, 1985

OraI Questions


SITUATION IN MONTREAL EAST-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, these workers would like to get a definite answer from the Minister, because such corporations as Bombardier, Gulf Oil, Vickers and so on are laying off workers.
Mr. Speaker, how many workers will have to come to Ottawa to camp on the steps of Parliament before this Government takes concrete action? Just how many? Five hundred,
1,000,	2,000, 3,000? How many?


Roch La Salle: Mr. Speaker, I cannot understand that Members of the Opposition do not realize that 1,200, a minimum . ..


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I think there is a point of order being made to me with regard to the appropriateness of the Minister answering the question, because I presume it was put to the Minister of Employment and Immigration. I am not sure.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Roch La Salle: Mr. Speaker, you certainly realize that I know a thing or two about Quebec.
Therefore, in view of the fact-


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: No, I'm sorry.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Order, please. The Hon. Minister may want to speak, but I think he knows the House does not follow the practice of allowing political or regional Ministers to take questions. Therefore, I think we must go to the next question.


EMPLOYMENT
Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, my question refers to the crisis which exists now in Montreal East following the loss of 5,000 jobs. I can understand that the Prime Minister, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources and the Minister of Supply and Services were hiding.
Mr. Speaker, what these workers who are in the galleries would like to know from the Deputy Prime Minister-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Could we just have a little quiet, please? I think the Hon. Member knows-

The Hon. Member is well aware that he is not allowed . .. Order, please! He is well aware that he is not allowed to mention the galleries. I think he knows that. 1 should like him, please, to ask his question immediately!


Jean-Claude Malépart: Could the Deputy Prime Minister assure the Gulf refinery people that his Government intends to live up to the commitment made by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources to the effect that Gaz Metropolitan, the future buyer of the Gulf refinery, will benefit from the contract for
35,000	barrels a day?


Roch La Salle: Mr. Speaker, I think that the Hon. Member, while directing his question to the Prime Minister, would like a reply dealing especially with the Montreal situation. May 1 tell the House that, contrary to the previous Government-


Mr. Gray (Windsor West):: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. When a Minister is absent, his parliamentary secretary-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Would the Hon. Member for Windsor West please resume his seat? Order, please.


An Hon. Member:: Settle down.


Mr. Speaker:: I have to remind the Ministry, I think, that the question was put, I take it, to either the Prime Minister or-may I know in what capacity the Hon. Minister of Public Works is replying, please?


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: It's Question Period. Get your act together.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. 1 need to know from the Minister of Public Works in what capacity he believes he is replying, if I may. I take it the Deputy Prime Minister is now going to answer the question.


Erik Nielsen: Let me respond, since there appears to be some misunderstanding about the right of the Minister of Public Works to respond on behalf of the Ministry, which 1 suggest he is entitled to do. The Hon. Member accuses us of hiding certain members of the Ministry. I would like to be able to say the same thing about himself but, unfortunately, 1 can't do that.

November 20, 1985
Oral Questions


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Erik Nielsen: If the Hon. Member has specific questions which he wishes to ask with respect-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Do I need to remind Hon. Members that this is the House of Commons and some language surely should not be used here.


Erik Nielsen: With respect to the demonstration in front of the House, the Hon. Minister for Public Works will respond to those questions fully, forthrightly, and completely.


Some Hon. Members:: No, no.


Mr. Speaker:: All that yelling is not helpful. I think, with respect to the House, that following Citation 361 in Beau-chesne's fifth edition, which Hon. Members may want to read, I cannot allow questions to Ministers answering in a regional capacity, following the traditions of the House. I cannot do that.
[ Translation]


REQUEST FOR EXPLANATION OF PRODUCTION OUTPUT AT MONTREAL GULF REFINERY
Jean-Claude Malépart: have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. The Deputy Prime Minister did not get the point. It is clear that the Government is all mixed up in its answers. How do you think it will be able to save jobs in Montreal East?
I repeat my question to the Deputy Prime Minister: Could he assure these people that his Government will transfer to Gaz Metropolitan, the future purchaser of the Gulf refinery in Montreal East, the contract for 35,000 barrels a day? Yes or no?


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I will tell the hon. gentleman what we will continue to guarantee as a Government Sir, as has been demonstrated by their smarting over the investment opportunity in their own province and the job creation which has occurred there as a result of Hyundai's investment. We can guarantee that those same strategies will be followed which will further improve the unemployment rate, now down 1.5 per cent from last September. Youth unemployment is down 2.2 per cent. The bank rate is down 3.6 per cent. The chartered bank rate is at a seven-year low, down three per cent. Mortgage rates are at a six-year low.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Erik Nielsen: He and his colleagues do not like those kinds of encouraging statistics but that is the kind of thing we will continue to promise him as a Government, and will continue to deliver.


REGIONAL INDUSTRIAL EXPANSION
Hon. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Prime Minister I have a question for the Deputy Prime Minister. He could have added that 52 per cent of Canadians think the Government is doing a lousy job.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Hnatyshyn:: And 82 per cent voted against the NDP.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: Wait for it, Ray.
In Nova Scotia on the weekend I learned that the federal Government had awarded a contract to Clearwater Lobsters Limited for $3.4 million. This same company is now eligible for some $2 million in federal loans. Is the Deputy Prime Minister aware that the Minister of Supply and Services holds shares in that company?


Erik Nielsen: I am certain that the Hon. Member would not like-I hope I am wrong-to leave the inference that the Minister of Supply and Services somehow has a conflict. Such is not the case.


An Hon. Member:: What about the guidelines?


Erik Nielsen: Someone in the NDP mentions the guidelines. If they know the guidelines at all they know that Ministers have 120 days from the time of their appointment to comply with those guidelines, which the Minister of Supply and Services is doing.
However, the question is defective for more than that reason. The contract of which he speaks nothing to do with Supply and Services and everything to do with the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion. So I suggest that before he leaves that kind of innuendo lying around in any further questioning, he better check his facts.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


EFFECT ON VALUE OF COMPANY SHARES
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I want to assure the Deputy Prime Minister that, as is usually the case, I check my facts in advance.


Mr. Clark (Yellowhead):: What about uranium?


John Edward Broadbent: I was aware of those facts. Since this decision by the Government will have a positive effect, no doubt, on the shares of the company, and since the Minister stands to gain directly from that, does the Deputy Prime Minister think it is appropriate and consistent with the spirit of the guidelines that a Minister of the Crown should retain shares for three months in such a company without his col-
November 20, 1985

leagues being informed that he holds shares in such a company?


Erik Nielsen: I can assure the hon. gentleman, and I spoke with the Minister of Supply and Services this morning, that he has taken and is taking every step required to comply meticulously with the guidelines. Thus far, in my judgment, he is not in breach in any way of those guidelines. I continue to assure the Hon. Member, though, that DSS has nothing to do with the contract in question, indeed has never had any business transactions, I am informed with the Clearwater Lobsters concern.


CONFLICT OF INTEREST GUIDELINES
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, the Deputy Prime Minister knows very well that the conflict of interest guidelines he has alluded to do not exclusively pertain to the Minister's own Department, but they have everything to do with the appearance of justice, fairness, and the absence of private access. That is what they are all about.
Will the Deputy Prime Minister ensure that an investigation is made into the timing of the application for this grant, when it was made, and inform the House of that date?


Erik Nielsen: I can assure the hon. gentleman to this extent, the extent to which my inquiries have gone thus far, that prior to the announcement of the grant the Minister of Supply and Services had no knowledge of it whatsoever. I continue to reassure him that the guidelines in existence, tabled by the Prime Minister recently, will continue to be applied meticulously, and the Minister of Supply and Services is complying in all respects with those guidelines.


EMPLOYMENT
Mr. Alfonso Gagliano (Saint-Leonard-Anjou):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of State for Transport.
The workers of Montreal East travelled to Ottawa to protest on Parliament Hill and tell the Government that Montreal East is not Schefferville and that they want to keep their jobs at all costs.
Will the Minister announce her commitment to the workers of Bombardier, Canadian Foundries and Canadian Steel Wheel Foundries and state that the jobs of the workers in Montreal East will be protected?


Hon. Suzanne Blais-Grenier (Minister of State (Transport)):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague for his question and tell the House that we did not waste six
Oral Questions
years worrying about the situation in Montreal East, which had been getting worse under the previous Government. Not only are we concerned about the workers, but we are also consulting the companies to try to rectify the situation and we hope to be able to announce additional corrective action within a few weeks.


INQUIRY RESPECTING GOVERNMENT'S PLANS TO STOP CLOSURE OF S.K.D. TECHNOLOGIE
Alfonso Gagliano: Mr. Speaker, the workers in Montreal East are fed up with promises; they want jobs now.
My supplementary is for the Minister responsible for Investment Canada. I would like to know what is happening about the change of ownership of S.K.D. Technologies since the previous Liberal Government had guaranteed that Canadian jobs would be protected in such a case.
Are jobs in Canada going to be protected with this change of ownership and what does the Government plan to do to prevent the closure of the S.K.D. Technologies plant in Ville d'Anjou?


Hon. Andre Bissonnette (Minister of State (Small Businesses)):: Mr. Speaker, as we all know, the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion is detained in his constituency for a short while yet. I shall take the question as notice and come back with an answer as soon as possible. I am not familiar with this matter.


CONSUMER AFFAIRS
Reginald Francis Stackhouse: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. One of the many achievements of the Government has been a persistently low bank rate, but the news has not gotten through to the companies which levy excessive interest charges on their customers, including Crown corporations. Insofar as Air Canada charges its customers 19 per cent, which is 10 per cent over the bank rate, and Petro-Canada charges 24 per cent, which is a whopping 15 per cent over the bank rate, what assurance will the Minister give that when he discusses joint action with the provinces, to which he has referred in answers he has given previously, the agenda will include those corporations which boast they are ours?


Hon. Michel Cote (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and Canada Post):: Mr. Speaker, my view is that, as mentioned by the Hon. Member, we are proceeding with discussions with the Provinces on that matter, which of course concerns many consumers.

November 20, 1985
Oral Questions
The Hon. Member will also remember that those carrying charges include not just interest charges, but also operating charges.
We are concerned about the matter, and we want to make sure that consumers are well informed of the choices available to them to get the credit they need. We are discussing with the Provinces about how to inform those consumers of the best available choices.


AUDITOR GENERAL
Mr. Ian Deans (Hamilton Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Justice. Is it the intention of the Government to comply with Justice Jerome's decision and give to the Auditor General all of the cabinet documents relating to the Petrofina takeover?


Hon. John C. Crosbie (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, the position is that there is as yet no judgment in that particular case. We do not know when the judgment will be entered.
At the last meeting that took place before Mr. Justice Jerome, he added some observations to the record. Counsel are still supposed to see if they can agree in drafting the terms of a judgment. Until a judgment is entered we cannot consider the matter any further or make any decision. We can hardly make a decision until we know exactly what the judgment is.


GOVERNMENT POSITION
Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, what was the Minister of Justice talking about when he said on November 4, as reported at page 8318 of Hansard:
-I can assure the hon. gentleman that a decision will be made this week.
On November 8, as reported at page 8481 of Hansard, the Prime Minister said that the decision:
-I hope will be very shortly-in fact 1 know it will be shortly-
What were you talking about?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, as usual, the hon. gentleman is puzzled.


Ian Deans: As usual, I am puzzled by you.


John Carnell Crosbie: I can assure the hon. gentleman that there is nothing to be puzzled about. I was ready to make a decision when the judgment was entered. However, the judgment is not yet entered so I cannot make a premature decision. I will not be made a victim of premature decision making.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Jim Caldwell (Essex-Kent):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Agriculture. I am sure that beef and pork producers across the country are very pleased to hear the announcement of a stabilization payment. Will this be the last payment made under this particular plan? Will the next one be made under the tripartite red meat plan? If so, does that mean that all provinces have signed the new agreement?


Hon. John Wise (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, 1 appreciate the Hon. Member's interest in the subject. He will know that the campaign for tripartite stabilization has eluded previous Governments for ten years. We provided the necessary change in the legislation and we have a tripartite stabilization plan ready to proceed. It carries one signature, the signature of the federal Minister of Agriculture. Again I invite all provincial Ministers to come to Ottawa and join that plan.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


REGIONAL INDUSTRIAL EXPANSION
Mr. Dave Dingwall (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. While it may just be coincidence that this money has been made available to Clearwater Lobster Limited, let me review the facts briefly. The Minister is a former secretary treasurer of that company, a former legal adviser, and presently a shareholder. His son is the assistant retail general manager for that particular company.
Would the Deputy Prime Minister explain to the House how this type of behaviour and conduct by the Minister of the Crown lives up both to the substance and spirit of the conflict of interest guidelines tabled by the Prime Minister?


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I would have expected better-


Mr. Rodriguez:: We do.


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: You took the words right out of our mouths.


Erik Nielsen: -than the despicable accusation that is made in that question. The fact of the matter is that the Minister of Supply and Services resigned as a director in March, 1985. The fact of the matter is that he has no voting shares in that company. The fact of the matter is that he is in strict compliance with the guidelines. The Hon. Member might have a case if, after that time has expired, there was no compliance with the guidelines. However, at the moment he has no case and should not be pushing that kind of canard in the House of Commons.
November 20, 1985


CONFLICT OF INTEREST GUIDELINES
David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, I remind the Deputy Prime Minister of Section 5(2) of the conflict of interest guidelines which says in part: " ... holders of the responsibility are to take such additional action as may be necessary to prevent real, potential or apparent conflicts of interest".
Is it not high time that the Minister of Supply and Services either resign from his position or that we have this whole matter submitted to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections to be reviewed by the parliamentary committee?


Erik Nielsen: No, Mr. Speaker, it is not high time that any such action be taken.


David Charles Dingwall: Another cover-up.


Erik Nielsen: Now he charges, from the safety of his seat, that there is a cover-up. Nothing could be further from the truth, and he knows it.


David Charles Dingwall: Let's go to committee.


Erik Nielsen: The Minister is complying with the guidelines. He should know that there is a strict procedure in place for assuring that compliance. That strict procedure is being followed by the Minister, but it sure as heck is not being followed by that Hon. Member.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Steven W. Langdon (Essex-Windsor):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of the Environment. The interim report on the St. Clair crisis shows a deeply serious situation that has been allowed to exist for far too long. The Minister now indicates that clean-up will take a further 75 days. Will the Minister ensure that more resources are devoted to this clean-up so that the job can be completed before the winter freeze-up, and downstream communities can keep a sense of confidence that this problem is being handled with urgency?


Hon. Tom McMillan (Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday I said outside the House that the job of vacuuming the offensive toxins was taking about ten times as long as was originally expected because of various circumstances that had not been anticipated. Because of our concern about the pending winter conditions that might compound the problem, it is my understanding from my team of high-powered scientists that a meeting is being held on Friday for the purpose of assessing the most up to date projection for completion of the clean-up. I would be glad to advise the Hon.
Oral Questions
Member and, through him, the House, on any further remedial action we might wish to take as a result of that meeting.


IMPORTATION OF HAZARDOUS WASTES FROM UNITED STATES
Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Minister for that assurance. Given the large increase which this report shows in hazardous waste imports to the area from the United States, will the Minister agree that we have enough problems in Canada disposing of our own chemical wastes, and ban this trade in dangerous garbage?


Thomas Michael McMillan: Mr. Speaker, I assume from the question that the Hon. Member is referring to the importation of hazardous goods from the United States into Canada, and into Ontario in particular. If that is the case, I can assure him that the necessary regime to deal with this concern has already been put in place by the Government. It is a question of vigorous enforcement and I can assure him and every Member of the House that we will be tough on companies which offend our environment, including companies on the other side of the border.


PUBLIC WORKS
Mr. Edouard Desrosiers (Hochelaga-Maisonneuve):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Public Works.
Some time ago, the Auditor General of Canada referred in his report to the very large number of unused buildings entailing tremendous costs to the Government.
My question is this, Mr. Speaker: Did the Minister make changes? And what kind of changes?


Roch La Salle: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this question. It is a fact that the Auditor General referred to surplus buildings or property owned by the Government, which cost millions of dollars because they are not being used. It is with great satisfaction that I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, that, striving as we do for good management, we have sold property-coming from my Department this should interest the lady-for $36 million that go to the Treasury Board, with a saving of almost $2 million in grants in lieu of taxes, and hopefully this will in fact generate private projects to the tune of $2 billion.

November 20, 1985
Privilege-Mr. Berger


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of the Environment. In light of the report released yesterday, can he indicate to this House and to the people of the country whether it is safe to drink water from the St. Clair River?


Thomas Michael McMillan: The
answer is yes, Mr. Speaker.


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: Would you?


Thomas Michael McMillan: The quality of the drinking water has not been compromised. Indeed, over all there is no concern about the quality of the St. Clair River in general from which thousands of Canadians are deriving their drinking water.
What we are concerned about is not the immediate threat from the so-called tarry blob but about what that tells us about the over-all conditions attendant to the St. Clair River.


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, November 19, 1985, meet the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.
One petition presented by the Hon. Member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez) does not meet the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.

The petition presented by the Hon. Member for Calgary West (Mr. Hawkes) and filed with the Clerk of the House also meets the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.
Is the Hon. Member for Laurier (Mr. Berger) rising on a question of privilege?


Mr. Berger:: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


PRIVILEGE
David Berger: Because of the confusion which existed among Government Members a while ago, Mr. Speaker, several Hon. Members, including myself, have been deprived of their right to ask questions during question period.
I was wondering if you could not exercise your duty by extending the oral question period by four or five minutes
to make up for the confusion that existed among Government Members.


Mr. Speaker:: No!



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Hon. James Kelieher (Minister for International Trade):: Mr. Speaker, a year ago the Government announced an agenda for the economic renewal of Canada. In it, we recognize that Canada's economic well-being will be determined, in large part, by how successfully Canadians respond to the challenges of technological change and rising competition that are facts of life in today's world.
In the Agenda for Economic Renewal, we set ourselves four basic goals: to put our fiscal house in order; to make Government less intrusive, reducing the compulsive regulation that has hamstrung business and sapped it of creative energy; to adopt policies that foster higher investment, greater innovation and increased international competitiveness, and to do all this in a climate of fairness and openness that is characteristic of Canadian society.
One of the basic tenets of the agenda was that we must improve our export performance. Trade is our lifeblood. Nearly one-third of our national income and more than three million jobs are directly dependent on our exports. During the past year, promoting and improving our capacity to export has been one of our Government's main preoccupations. Securing our access to the bigest market, the United States, has of course been a major theme. But we have also launched an important trade initiative in the Pacific Rim. We have worked with the provincial Governments to draw up a dynamic national trade strategy, and we have taken a leading role in promoting and preparing for a new round of multilateral trade negotiations that would lower more of the barriers to commerce throughout the world.
Trade is a two-way street. To export, we must also import. The balance in our trade can only be determined by our capacity to compete. Artificial barriers, such as quotas and high tariff walls, may provide temporary protection to specific industries, but experience has taught us that they are counterproductive in the long run. They can have the effect of isolating the industries they were intended to protect, of making them less able, rather than more able, to stand on their own.
During the past year, Mr. Speaker, the Government has been engaged in a comprehensive policy review related to one of Canada's protected industries, footwear. Our producers of
November 20, 1985

footwear have enjoyed the protection of import quotas for the past eight years.
In June of last year, the previous Government assigned the Canadian Import Tribunal to review the industry's position, with particular stress on determining two factors: the extent of injury the footwear sector would sustain if quotas were lifted, and the extent to which the industry had used the period of protection to become more competitive.
To carry out its mandate, the Canadian Import Tribunal spent one year conducting the most comprehensive review ever undertaken of our footwear industry. In addition to its own studies, the tribunal heard 72 witnesses and received 39 written submissions representing virtually all interests, manufacturers, importers, exporters, retailers, labour unions and consumers. It made its report this past June, and we see no reason to disagree with its findings.
Indeed, the tribunal found great cause for optimism. It found that, by and large, the Canadian footwear industry has in recent years matched and, at times, outperformed the economy as a whole and the manufacturing sector in particular.
We now have an industry which has undergone a process of adaption, adjustment and change. It has made significant changes in product mix. It has strengthened its position in its most favourable market segments. It has thought up new methods of competing. It has improved the efficiency of its management and financial information systems. It has continued to employ state-of-the-art technology and has moved upward in the quality scale in the market.
As a result, we now have an industry that, with one temporary and limited exception-that of the makers of women's and girls' footwear-is ready to stand up to the international challenge.
The tribunal pointed out another relevant detail about the transformation of the footwear industry. The quota system had little effect on it. The changes were brought about primarily by the pressures of the market-place rather than eight years of quota protection. A particular source of the industry strength, for example, has been its ability to fill orders for short runs of new products on very short notice.
The Government has therefore concluded that further granting of import relief to the whole industry would not be in the country's economic interest. Accordingly, effective December 1, 1985, import controls will be continued only on women's and girls' dress and casual footwear. This sector accounts for nearly half of the Canadian industry sales, and it is the only sector which the Canadian Import Tribunal found would be injured by an immediate removal of quotas. Moreover, in this sector of the industry the tribunal recommended-and the Government is committed to it-a phasing out of quotas over the next three years. They will be increased by 6 per cent in the first year, 8 per cent in the second and 10 per cent in the third year. By then the quotas will have been in force for almost 11 years.
Statements by Ministers
In coming to this decision, the Government was influenced by the actual effects which the footwear quotas have had. They have driven shoe prices up. Canadian consumers have paid somewhere between $450 million and $500 million more for footwear than they would have, had there been no quotas. This increase has been felt by most lower-income Canadians, both because their budgets are lower and because low-cost imports have been restricted. Because prices were higher, demand for footwear decreased. Judging by the figures produced by the import tribunal, Canadian consumers now buy roughly 12 per cent fewer shoes than they would have if quotas had not been in force since 1978.
At the same time, the benefits accorded to the industry were minimal. In 1983, for example, consumers paid an extra $85 million for their footwear, while the industry produced only $29 million more than it would have without the protection of quotas.
Who gained from the quota system? The principal beneficiaries were not Canadian footwear producers. The ones who gained the most were the holders of footwear quotas, mostly importers and large retail chains. Smaller outlets were adversely affected because they had allocations too small to take advantage of price reductions for bulk buying.
There is a broader consideration as well in the Government decision to reduce and phase out footwear quotas. The fact is that continuation of the quotas would have seriously affected Canadian interests in other sectors of the economy.
The imposition of quotas invariably raises demands for compensation by countries whose exports are affected. These demands are neither unfair nor unrealistic. They are provided for by the rules of the international trading system which Canada supports. However, they are very expensive.
Compensation can take many forms-lower duties on other imports, for example, cash compensation or higher duties for some of our own exports. Injured countries are even entitled to retaliate by imposing their own quotas on products we sell to them.
Some Members of the House will recall that at the time the present footwear quotas were extended to November, 1985, the European Economic Community threatened to exercise its right to retaliate. It threatened to raise tariffs to prohibitive levels on Canadian petrochemicals, steel products, craft paper, furs and other products. This could have cost us $150 million in sales to Europe in industries that had nothing to do with footwear. We managed to stave off this threat only by agreeing to forgo duties on a range of European imports at a cost of $12 million to the Canadian Treasury. Had we not done so, a great many jobs would have been lost. This, somehow, does not seem fair.
The Government does not subscribe to the gloom and doom predictions that the lifting of quotas would result in the eventual demise of the Canadian footwear industry. The evidence suggests just the opposite, that the footwear industry has regained its vitality and health. It should not be forgotten,
Statements by Ministers
moreover, that Canadian manufacturers will still be protected by a 23 per cent tariff on imported footwear. Twenty-three per cent is a lot of protection. In the U.S., the average footwear tariff is 8 per cent; in western Europe, it is 10 per cent; and Canada's average tariff on all manufactured goods is 9 per cent.
The process of industry adjustment has been significant. It has, moreover, been speeded by a number of Government assistance programs. We estimate that by the time disbursements are finalized under the Canadian Industrial Renewal Board program, footwear companies accounting for more than 60 per cent of industry sales will have received benefits, benefits totalling $22.5 million. This assistance has been directed to management, finance, marketing and production, with the bulk of planned investments directed to upgrading equipment.
Additionally, I am pleased to announce that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) will give consideration to any industry requests for temporary tariff or duty remission schemes to help the Canadian footwear industry improve its competitive position. These measures, coupled with Canada's existing antidumping legislation and the industry's increased competitiveness, not to mention the 23 per cent tariff, should allow Canadian manufacturers to compete successfully against foreign imports.
The Government anticipates that the lifting of quotas will give rise to a moderate surge in imports. Some of this will be due to pent-up demand for lower priced shoes. Some of it will be due to the fact that there will be a number of new importers, and some will be caused by what we expect will be an inclination by retailers to experiment by importing new items.
Our view is that the surge will be short-lived, that it will stabilize within 12 months to 18 months. Nevertheless, to mitigate any effects the surge may have, we will be conducting consultations with the countries which are Canada's principal footwear suppliers. We will put them on notice that their long-term interests in the Canadian market would best be served by a prudent and gradual approach to sales.
As for Canadian importers, some of whom have been known to bring in footwear for the sole purpose of establishing a high base for the allocation of future quotas, I will make it abundantly clear to them that such practices will not be rewarded in the future.
Canadians across the country will benefit as consumers from this decision. However, the Government also recognizes that a period of adjustment for workers in the industry may well result from the removal of quota controls. We are, therefore, adopting a pro-active approach to anticipated challenges. Rather than react with band-aid measures after the fact, we are proposing a strategy which recognizes the particular dynamics of the industry. Altogether, the footwear industry comprises approximately 175 companies and employs 15,000 workers. Most companies are fairly small, with an average of 86 employees.
To assist those affected, the Government has planned a three-pronged attack. We will provide aid to companies, to communities and to individual workers in the footwear industry.
Companies anticipating human resource problems can go to the Government's industrial adjustment service which can make available up to $100,000 on a cost-shared basis for a variety of purposes, including joint research into alternate business proposals and the adjustment needs of employees who might become vulnerable to market forces.
Employees are also eligible for the Government's skill investment and skill shortages programs for professional retraining and will bring into play the Labour Adjustment Benefits Program to assist older workers unable to take advantage of new job opportunities.
A further level of assistance will be applied when disruption in footwear employment might affect a whole community. Affected communities can take advantage of the industrial adjustment service on much the same terms as affected companies. In addition, the Community Futures Program will be well placed to provide direct assistance to communities which have been dependent on the footwear industry. This assistance will come in the form of program options designed to encourage new enterpreneurial activity and new employment or, if necessary, helping workers to relocate.
These are programs with a high degree of flexibility. We are confident that they will enable us to promote the Canadian footwear industry's growing ability to compete, both at home and in international markets, and to do so without causing great upheaval in the lives of Canadians employed in the footwear industry.	.
If we have learned anything from the past decade, Mr. Speaker, it is that the real source of our wealth is the ingenuity, the intelligence and the hard work of the Canadian people. However, we have also learned that if we are to preserve our wealth and increase it, we must be competitive at home and abroad and that if we are to be competitive we cannot impede change but must embrace it. One year ago the agenda for economic renewal summed up the challenge in one sentence. It said: "The art of progress is to preserve order amid change and to preserve change amid order". That, Mr. Speaker, is the intention of the action I am announcing today.


Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Winnipeg-Fort Garry):: Mr. Speaker, I want to quote what the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) said in Sherbrooke in August 1984. As reported in the newspaper La Tribune, the Prime Minister stated: "The policy on quotas will be maintained". He also said he was not in favour of free trade in that sector. He went on to say "he would not give in even under pressure which might come from European Common Market countries, the United States, and other nations".

November 20, 1985

November 20, 1985

What a cruel lie, Mr. Speaker, what a cruel lie! Today the Prime Minister has betrayed the Sherbrooke footwear workers as well as all other footwear workers in Canada.
Footwear workers can now call the Prime Minister the Pinocchio of Sherbrooke. Does he not feel any shame?

We have seen today one more in a long, long list of broken promises by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney). During the election campaign he said, with brave words of assurance to the people of the Eastern Townships, the people of Quebec and Ontario, that he was not going to succumb to the pressures of those other countries, that he would protect their industries and keep the quotas on. Today we hear his Minister for International Trade (Mr. Kelleher) trying to put a gloss on those words and trying to bury them in the deep ground of shame which has covered the Government since it took office. Members of the Government have no intention of living up to their commitments and promises. They make a mockery of the profession of public service by completely and totally contradicting any sense of trust or confidence that people placed in them. It was not us who said that, Mr. Speaker. It was the present Prime Minister who made those declarations. Presumably he made them with some intention of carrying them out. Presumably, as a man of honour, which he likes to claim he is, he did not use those words lightly. He used them with great seriousness and great gravity because he knows how important that industry is to the people of those regions. Surely, Mr. Speaker, there is not a nose cover large enough in Canada to provide any camouflage for the kind of treason that the Government commits day after day as it breaks promise after promise.
Something that is perhaps even more serious than that broken promise, as serious as that may be, is what it tells us about the future. Since September 24 we have been trying to debate in this House the commitments that the Government is making to all kinds of other workers about what it will do when it negotiates trade. The Government says that it is going to protect the cultural industries and workers in agriculture, in the auto pact and in the lumber industry. The Government says that we should trust and believe it because it never changes its mind but is firm and determined. Mr. Speaker, I would ask members of the Government to today talk to workers in the shoe industry in Canada to find out how much they believe the Government and how much confidence we can entrust in these negotiations.
The very time when someone else calls the tune, our song and dance man is up on his toes whistling Dixie. That is the problem with our Prime Minister. We cannot believe what he has to say. As we enter into perhaps the most serious negotiations on trade in the history of the country we are faced with this example of betrayal and broken promises. That is the foundation upon which we are supposed to build the new regime of international commerce. That is what the Government is asking Canadians to place their trust in. Surely, Mr. Speaker, it is a serious and grave indictment and creates an
Statements by Ministers
incredible sense of uncertainty on the part of all Canadians as we make this leap of faith which we are being asked to do.
The fact of the matter, Mr. Speaker, is that the Government does not have a comprehensive, clear approach to the issue of trade. It does not understand that a trade policy is an extension of domestic economic reality. The Government treats it as a form of abstract economic theology which, since it was implanted in the agenda for economic renewal, takes on the appearance of being cast in stone. It has now become sacrosanct, another sacred trust. The Government does not understand that a trade policy should be the means to an end. It should be the way of securing employment. In order to develop a proper and effective trade policy one has to integrate and bring together problems of labour markets, capitalization, modernization and export-import policies. Sector by sector there must be a series of Government actions of consultation, planning and development to make sure that that sector is prepared to face whatever international competition exists.
The Minister said that we must live by international trade. We do not disagree. We agree that as a country we must broaden our markets and secure better markets. However, in order to achieve that we must have strong Canadian industries. We must have productivity, growth and competition at home in order to allow our industries to compete abroad. Surely that is the example set by Japen, which is presently probably the world's greatest exporting nation. It does not open its doors wide and say: "Come on in". Japan protects its fledgling industries. It gives old industries protection until they can regroup, remodernize and refresh themselves and then they compete abroad. That is the plan of attack of the Japanese rather than this theological abstraction which we get from the Government on the other side. The Government does not understand that, Mr. Speaker. It says that the eight years which the shoe industry has had is long enough.
Notice the inherent contradiction in the Minister's own statement. He says that protection is no good. Then, two paragraphs later, he goes on to admit that during that period of protection the industry has made a successful effort to start its modernization, to start retooling, the start bringing in new equipment and to start developing new markets. In other words, it has used that period to begin rebuilding itself for a new day. However, the industry has said very clearly that as yet, it has not had enough time; it has not achieved the point where it can meet that competition. During the period when there was a quota protection the industry did start turning itself around and rebuilding for the future. Now the Government has cut it off at the knees. It has short-circuited and short changed that industry.
You do not have to take my word for it, Mr. Speaker. I will quote the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion (Mr. Stevens), the colleague of the Minister of International Trade. In giving the declaration of his new philosophy of economic regional development to the Financial Times he said: "A country like Canada may have to say we want to be free as far as our trading relationships are concerned. But it's got to be in the context of saying there is a portion of the market that we

November 20, 1985
Statements by Ministers
should reserve for Canadian companies". That was the statement of the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion.
Where is that statement contained in the report of the Minister of International Trade? I did not see any reference to the statement of the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion that he was going to protect a portion of every industry for Canadian production. The poor Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion, he takes a few weeks off because of a severe illness and his colleagues totally and completely abandon his policies. He is betrayed, as are the workers in the shoe industry, because his so-called new approach to economic development has just been torn to shreds. Even worse, we on this side of the House find it absolutely incredible to accept that at the very time when we must strengthen and modernize the industry, the Government has discarded the one program that was enabling the shoe and textile industries to rebuild themselves. Two years ago, we formed the Canadian Industrial Renewal Board, a Government agency the decisions of which were made by senior executives from the private sector. The Chairman of the Board was Mr. Desmarais from Power Corporation and he was helped by union and business people from across Canada.
The import tribunal itself in its own report gives substantial credit to CIRB for having been the catalyst that was enabling the shoe industry to begin to bring in new machinery and develop new techniques. What did the Government do? It got rid of the program. It is cancelling it and has stopped its funding. It abandons it. While there was one real way in which the Government of Canada could help the industry to develop and modernize, the Government, in all its wisdom, gets rid of the program. That is really smart. That shows a great comprehension of industrial strategy. That shows that the Government knows what it is doing.
I recall that when we attended the meeting of the Canada-U.S. Parliamentary Association, a Member from Quebec applauded the wonderful job CIRB was doing while the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) was getting rid of it.


Mr. Charest:: You don't know what you're talking about.


Lloyd Axworthy: He denies it. However, I was at the meeting.
The fact of the matter is that CIRB was the kind of program that was working with the shoe industry and was giving it a chance to redevelop and to od the very things the Government says it wants it to do. Now the rug has been pulled out from under it and CIRB no longer exists.
Wait a minute. The Minister has said, "Never fear, we are coming to the rescue. We are going to bring in an industrial adjustment service program for $100,000 a year so civil servants from Employment and Immigration can rush to all the towns and communities in which people are going to have their livelihoods destroyed to help those people plan how to move out of town". That's what industrial adjustment is. I was the Minister of that Department and I know what the program is about. It is a program to help people get out of town when
industry fails. Industrial adjustment means that $100,000 is made available to help people plan how to pack their bags. That is what the Government is offering the workers in the shoe industry. That is the kind of compassionate, beneficial assistance that the Government is providing for these workers.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Schefferville solution.


Lloyd Axworthy: My colleague says that it is the Schefferville solution. In fact, the Schefferville solution was far more generous because we formed the Government then. We put a lot more money into Schefferville as a federal Government than the Conservative Government is now giving. Now that the Conservatives are in Government, they have forgotten all about Schefferville. In fact, 60 per cent of the aid for Schefferville came from the Department of Employment and Immigration. This Government is not even offering to the people of Montreal, London and Guelph-


Sheila Maureen Copps: And Hamilton.


Lloyd Axworthy: and to work out guarantees for workers and a modernization and marketing plan? Where are the great promises and commitments to be in partnership with private enterprise? The shoe manufacturing industry has not been asked what it is prepared to do.
There is obviously much more that I can say. As my time comes to a close, I would simply say that we deplore this decision. We deplore it because of its absence of efforts or initiatives to come to grips with the industrial issues related to the shoe industry and the textile industry and to provide a proper industrial strategy to cope with the problems.
We call upon the Government to begin plans for a major worker-adjustment program in order to make sure that workers are properly cared for. We call upon the Government to meet with the communities affected, the provincial Governments and the local MPs to start working out a plan of capital modernization for those industries so that they can at least try to meet the terrible judgment that has been laid upon them at this point in time. We call upon the Government to establish a proper marketing plan for the industry and to start a buy-Canadian program so that the Canadian manufacturers will have opportunities to make their cases in those markets and to establish a proper marketing plan to get into the export initiative markets.
The Minister says that we must be prepared to change and to progress. Change should not mean chaos. Progress should not mean making the victims of that change and progress the workers of those industries. That is not the kind of commitment that we made as a Government or as a Party. Until the Government begins to show some compassion and caring for workers, its trade strategy will be subject to the most severe attacks ever seen because this Government does not know what it is doing.


Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, the Minister for International Trade (Mr. Kelleher) has made a statement today. It is a statement which has to be characterized, I believe, as sad, uncreative and unjust. It is a statement that in fact abandons 20,000 workers, breaks a major promise and will lead to a gross waste of the restructuring help which we have already committed to this industry.
What is worse, Mr. Speaker, is that this statement comes at entirely the wrong time. It comes at a time when the United States is toughening up its demands and its bargaining position prior to crucial negotiations that will take place between our two countries. While we are giving away gifts, giving up ground and abandoning positions by backing off from our quotas on the shoe industry and refusing to put Canadian-content rules into effect for a company like Hyundai, the United States is playing hardball. It is being tough. It is putting its position up front as strongly as possible so that when we sit down at the bargaining table, the United States will feel good and it will feel as if it had built a strong offensive position. We will have given up so much ground that we will be weaker than we need to be. We will face those negotiations with weakness instead of strength.
Statements by Ministers
Mr. Speaker, we need a strong trade strategy, but this Government makes gifts to the Americans before the negotiations. We have had the case of Hyundai in the automobile industry and we now see what is happening to the shoe industry. The Americans are not taking the same approach; they are making even more demands. However, the strategy of this Conservative Government is to make more gifts instead of increasing its demands.
Last year, Mr. Speaker, Canadian men and women chose a new Government because they wanted a new policy. What the voters wanted most of all was a human Government, but the Minister said in his speech: "We see no reason to reject the conclusions contained in the report of the Tribunal." As for us, Mr. Speaker, we can see 20,000 such reasons, namely the workers of the shoe industry who could lose their jobs because of this decision. If the Minister and the Government have read this document carefully, they will know that it contains very important points showing the need for a specific decision which is not the one made by the Minister. For instance, Mr. Speaker, we can read the following on page 67:
The upheavals caused by this readjustment mechanism will certainly be significant for the businesses and workers directly involved.
We also find the following on page 66:
The manufacturers viewed as particularly vulnerable are the small manufacturers located mostly in Montreal, the small manufacturers in Quebec outside Montreal, and perhaps even those in Toronto, who may also be threatened.
This is a fact, Mr. Speaker, and it is a fact that the Prime Minister knew before the elections. At the time, the Prime Minister said that we needed these quotas for the shoe industry. But, Mr. Speaker, now that he is Prime Minister, he says: "It is not necessary, we do not want to do that." For all the voters in Quebec and Canada, that is the problem with our Government. Many Canadians voted for this Government because the Prime Minister had said before the election that we needed those quotas. However, after the election, in spite of his promises, he had decided to scrap that policy.

There is no question that there are serious challenges which face the country in dealing with industries such as the shoe industry, the textile industry, the electrical products industry and many of the other industries which face competition from low wage countries throughout the world. It is a touch challenge, but the answer to it is not to abandon these industries to their own fate. It is not to bow in hollow supplication to past economic theories. The challenge is not to surrender the shoe industry because we want to prove to the Americans that we are really committed to free trade. The challenge is to lead an industry to adjust, adopt restructure, modernize and change in order to face the competition of the future.
That is the challenge which the country has faced dismally. It is a challenge which was faced more by the previous

November 20, 1985
Statements by Ministers
Government than by the present Government. The failure to respond effectively to that challenge lies particularly with the previous Government. The Minister of International Trade is quite right to say that quotas which have been in place for eight years should have done their job by now. The fact of the matter is that because of the failure of the past Government's strategy this industry did not adjust, did not adapt and did not begin to modernize until far too late. If the Minister had taken the time to examine the case, I think he probably would have seen this.
I must say that I was particularly struck to hear my colleague from the Liberal Party speak about how he viewed adjustment policy as helping companies pack their bags in communities and give up their future. That is not how we view restructuring policy. We see the strategy which we have to take toward these sectors as a creative one in order to help them prepare for the future so that they can compete successfully. However, the present tribunal report fully documents the failure of our past policy.
I would like to read again to Members of the House some quotations from that document. I quote from page 53 of the footwear report. It reads:
In its 1981 report-
This is four years after quotas were first put in place.
-the Tribunal noted that there was no indication that major restructuring had taken place since quotas were imposed.
So as of now, we face a situation where, as the tribunal itself admitted, and I quote from page 19 of the report:
The footwear industry has not yet completed this process of improvement in management efficiency ...
Let me quote perhaps the most damning statements which come from the report of the tribunal. This is the most damning judgment on past footwear policy in this country. I quote from page 100 of the report as follows:
As of October 31, 1984, roughly $14.1 million of the $17 million earmarked for footwear under CIRB's Sector Firms Program had been committed ... As of December, 1984, however, it appeared that actual payments to the footwear industry under this part of the program were in the region of only about $2.2 million.
So less than one seventh of the money allocated to help this industry modernize had actually been spent at the start of this year. That is why the decision to terminate these quotas at this stage is economic nonsense.
There are those persons within this country who take the approach of neoclassical economists to the sector. They say, "Look, we should not provide support for a sector like this which is weak and vulnerable". That is an inhuman decision. It is an inhuman approach to industrial policy. But the approach which the Government is taking is not just inhuman, it is incompetent, because it runs the very real risk of wasting the whole of $15 million which has been been allocated to help this industry and has not, as of the start of this year, yet been spent.
In my misbegotten past, I worked-I must tell the House- as an economist on these questions of restructuring. I can tell Hon. Members, on the basis of all of the work I have had a chance to do in my own research, that we cannot restructure an industry quickly. It takes time and commitment and a sense of understanding of the human problem. That is what the Government is abandoning with this approach.
This policy is not wrong because it wants to see an end to quotas. No one in this country wants to keep quotas in place forever in the footwear industry. But it is wrong because we have finally started the process of restructuring-too late, 1 agree, but we started it. Now is the chance to put this industry back on its feet, to give it a future, and to give the communities across this country who depend on this industry, the thousands of workers, the future they deserve. We need to do that not just for the sake of those workers but for the sake of our country as we enter these crucial trade negotiations so that we look like tough bargainers who are committed to jobs in this country, not to the loss of jobs to the United States.


PETITIONS
Mr. John Nunziata (York South-Weston):: Mr. Speaker, 1 would like to take this opportunity to table in the House a petition which was circulated by Mrs. Hilda Goldberg of 376 Montrose Avenue in Toronto. It calls upon the Government to reinstate full indexation of universal family allowance and to rescind the unfair tax increases which were indicated in the Conservative Budget. The petition is signed by some 30 individuals who live in the Metropolitan Toronto area.


Lynn McDonald: Mr. Speaker, I have a very large number of petitions from my own riding and from other ridings in Toronto and, indeed, from other parts of Canada. This first set of petitions I am presenting point out that the family allowance deindexation will not be offset by changes to the child tax credit and that even the poorest families will be worse off by 1990 and will fall further and further behind. These petitioners call upon Parliament to reinsinstate full indexation of universal family allowance and to rescind the unfair tax increases.
1 Second, I have a very substantial number of petitions also on the issue of the family allowance. These petitioners point out that in their opinion, the deindexation of the universal family allowance and the massive cut-backs in public commitment to child benefits are an unfair attack on women and families with children, especially single parent mothers. Again, these petitioners call upon the House of Commons to reinstate full indexation of the universal family allowance and to rescind unfair tax increases.
November 20, 1985


Lynn McDonald: Mr. Speaker, I have also a number of petitions signed by residents of Ontario on a different question. The petitioners show that the procedures for and results of radiation monitoring tests of waters part of and adjacent to the Canadian Forces maritime experimental and test range at Nanoose Bay, British Columbia, should be made public; that Section 1 of the agreement between Canada and the United States authorizing the said test range is ambiguous; that the naval policy of the United States of America of neither denying nor confirming the presence of nuclear weapons on board U.S. vessels using the said test range is unacceptable; and that the economic impact of the said test range on the local community is not properly understood. Therefore, these petitioners call upon Parliament to hold a public inquiry before the present agreement is renegotiated with powers to investigate the above concerns about the said test range and make recommendations therefor.


Mr. Vic Althouse (Humboldt-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I have two sets of petitions on two separate items. The first petition is from the residents of my riding in Govan, Quinton and Pangman Indian Reserve near Punnichy. The petitioners point out that the family allowance deindexation will not be offset by changes to the child tax credit and that even the poorest families will be worse off by 1990 by an amount of some $600 million annually. The petitioners state that this will be on top of sales tax changes and increases, excise tax increases and income tax increases. They urge the House to reinstate full indexation of universal family allowance and to rescind the unfair tax increases.


Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to present a petition on behalf of a number of British Columbians concerning the agreement between Canada and the United States authorizing a test range at Nanoose Bay, British Columbia. The petitioners are calling for a public inquiry before this agreement is renegotiated with powers to investigate a number of concerns about this test range. The concerns which they call upon the Government to investigate are the following, that the procedures for and results of radiation monitoring tests of waters part of and adjacent to the Canadian Forces maritime experimental and test range at Nanoose Bay, British Columbia, should be made public; that the agreement in question is ambiguous; and that the naval policy of the United States of America of neither denying nor confirming the presence of nuclear weapons on board U.S. vessels using the said test range is unacceptable. Finally, the economic impact of the said testing on the local community is not properly understood. For these reasons the petitioners call upon the Government to authorize a public inquiry which can deal with these very important questions.
Petitions


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Mr. Speaker, I have one more petition from residents of Moose Jaw, Saskatchewan, who point out that the procedures for and results of radiation monitoring and testing of waters in the Canadian Forces maritime experimental and test range at Nanoose Bay, British Columbia, should be made public. The U.S. policy of neither denying nor confirming the presence of nuclear weapons on board its vessels using that test range is unacceptable. They call upon Parliament to hold a public inquiry before the present agreement is renegtiated.


Mr. Ray Skelly (Comox-Powell River):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to present a petition from citizens resident on Denman Island, Qualicum Beach, Duncan, Port Alberni, Sechelt, Egmont, Lund, Powell River, Halfmoon Bay, Madeira Park, Union Bay, Courtenay, Black Creek and Merville. They ask that the Government of Canada conduct a public inquiry before the present agreement with the U.S. concerning the weapons testing range at Nanoose is renewed. The inquiry would have the power to investigate concerns about radiation monitoring in the area, whether the U.S. vessels in the area carry nuclear weapons, and make an assessment of the economic impact of the test range upon the local community.


Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops-Shuswap):: Mr. Speaker, I have four petitions from all parts of British Columbia. The petitioners are concerned about the Government's intention to deindex family allowances. In their opinion this is an unfair attack on women and families with children, especially single parent mothers. They ask the Government to reinstate full indexation and rescind unfair tax increases in the last Budget.


Mr. Fernand Robichaud (Westmorland-Kent):: Mr. Speaker, it is my duty to present two petitions on the same question, that is the deindexation of family allowances.

The first petition comes from residents in my riding, more particularly from Sackville, Port Elgin, Bayfield and Point de Bute.
The second petition comes from residents of St. George and Bonny River in the riding of Carleton-Charlotte. They humbly request that the Government not proceed with partial deindexation of family allowances.


Raymond John Skelly: Mr. Speaker, I have the privilege to present a second petition concerning the Government's cut-backs in family allowances. The petitioners are resident in Halifax, Nova Scotia, and point that deindexation will have a very serious negative effect on Canadians. This, on top of sales tax and excise tax increases, as well as income tax increases, places an unfair burden on middle and lower-income households.

November 20, 1985
Motions for Papers


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. G. M. Gurbin (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, Question No. 462 will be answered today.


Mr. Corbett: 1.	What second language training is available to national park employees to permit them to compete for all job classifications in their respective parks?
2.	In what national parks is language training available?
3.	How many positions at Fundy National Park are designated bilingual and, in each case, what are they?


Thomas Michael McMillan: Parks Canada employees have access to the Public Service Commission (PSC) language training offered in the main urbain centres. The PSC Offers night courses in the following cities near the parks indicated:
Revelstoke (Mount Revelstoke)
Shawinigan (La Mauricie)
Charlottetown (Prince Edward Island)
Moncton (Kouchibouguac and Fundy)
Sydney (Cape Breton Highlands)
Employees in the prairie region have access to a self-directed course called "Dialogue Canada programme" developed by Parks Canada. Parks Canada also possesses specialized French training, "Services au public visiteur", developed especially for its officers. Western region has retained the services of a language teacher to provide night courses.
2.	Waterton Lakes.
3.	Twenty-two. (a) six indeterminate (full-time): superintendent, visitor services officer, assistant chief, visitor services, clerk receptionist, assistant chief park interpreter, park warden, (b) 15 term: visitor services: 12 interpretation services: 2, park warden: 1. (c) 1 seasonal indeterminate: park warden.


Gary Michael Gurbin: Mr. Speaker, I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Gary Michael Gurbin: Mr. Speaker, I ask that all notices of motions for the production of papers be allowed to stand.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Are all Notices of Motions allowed to stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Tuesday, November 19, 1985, consideration of the motion of Mr. Crosbie that Bill C-49, an Act to amend the Criminal Code (prostitution), be read the third time and passed.
Mrs. Lucie Pepin (Outremont):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to resume debate on Bill C-49 and again express my disappointment with this Bill.
I may add that women's groups in particular were very disappointed.
The National Association of Women and the Law is alarmed at the content and impact of provisional measures aimed at reducing the inconvenience to the public caused by street soliciting.
The prohibiting of any communication, as proposed by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Crosbie), constitutes a serious and unjustified infringement of our civil liberties, considering the respect Canadians have for freedom of speech and association and for individual freedom and security, as enshrined in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
According to the National Action Committee on the Status of Women, Bill C-49 is trying to deal with the problem of street prostitution piecemeal, without considering the economic and social climate that fosters this phenomenon. Furthermore, the Bill fails to suggest any legitimate venue where prostitution may take place, thereby increasing the risk of violence for prostitutes.
When the Minister of Justice presented his Bill in committee and we mentioned the risk of violence for prostitutes, and also that the Bill went far beyond street soliciting as such, his answer was that once the prostitutes were banned from the streets, they might have more trouble finding customers but that really was no concern of his.
It is therefore not surprising to find this kind of legislation before the House, since we have the impression that the Minister himself is not terribly concerned about what enforcement of this legislation will do.
Hj

November 20, 1985

The National Advisory Council on the Status of Women feels that Bill C-49 is unimaginative, narrow and punitive. According to the president, who was appointed by the Progressive Conservative Government, the Bill deals with only half of the problem. The CACSW believes that, although it might allay the grave concern of residents, the new legislation might force prostitutes to operate secretely, compel them to resort more often to pimps, and make them liable to more fines and jail sentences, with police records. This would restrict even further any possibility of abandoning their trade.
During committee proceedings we tried to introduce amendments about pimps-let it be said, Mr. Speaker, that there is not a single reference to pimps in this Bill-but we were told not to worry, that pimps can be arrested, that they are covered under some other legislative provisions. Yet when we ask the police why they never manage to arrest a pimp they tell us that the legislation is so badly drafted and so complicated that their hands are tied.
I entertain serious reservations about this Bill, since it covers juvenile prostitution and it will make it quite impossible to arrest pimps who will be selling the services of 12-year-old children and adult prostitutes alike. We did propose amendments but they were all turned down.
As to the client, I must admit he is mentioned in the Bill. But they have taken a very paternalistic approach in the written text given to us by the Minister of Justice. We have to wonder how the police will be able to apply the provisions of such a Bill.
I, for one, believe that we should not concern ourselves with what might go on between adults. However, since the Bill stipulates that adult prostitutes will be arrested, then clients have to be arrested as well.
If we take a closer look at what the Minister of Justice (Mr. Crosbie) wrote about the clients, and 1 quote: "Most clients however have undoubtedly never been in trouble with the law . . .", those clients will indeed run the risk of ending up with a police record, besides being sentenced for having committed an infraction and publicly unveiling before the courts an aspect of their private life which is generally unknown. So I wonder if the police will be able to punish clients as they do prostitutes because even today the police tell us: We arrest the clients, but they always manage to go scot-free through the back door. In my judgement, this Bill has no teeth when it comes to the clients.
Another thing is that, throughout the debate on Bill C-49,1 expressed my concern about juvenile prostitution. I believe that making prostitutes under 18 subject to the same laws as prostitutes over 18 is fundamentally wrong. In the legislative committee, I proposed a series of amendments concerning juvenile prostitution, which my Conservative colleagues rushed to vote down.
Criminal Code
Mr. Speaker, three possibilities are generally considered when we are talking about prostitution: criminalization, legislation and decriminalization. Bill C-49, the intent of which is to wipe out street soliciting for the purpose of engaging in prostitution, tackles the first approach: criminalization. The purpose of the Bill is to give the law teeth so that it will be easier to arrest a person who is soliciting. When the Police chiefs of Montreal, Toronto and Vancouver came to testify before the Committee, they said that they liked the Bill this way, and when we discussed again how difficult it was to arrest a pimp who was selling the services of an adolescent, the Mayor of Niagara answered: "Listen, is the Hon. Member anxious to legislate morality?" So I do not know whether it is concern for morality to want to arrest someone who is selling the services of a 10 or 12 year old child, because if Bill C-49 is enacted, it will then be possible to be arrested if a police officer sees you communicating in any way with another person, if the officer believes that such communication is for the purpose of engaging in prostitution.
Mr. Speaker, like the Law Reform Commission, 1 believe that the Criminal Code should not be used unless other means of control in our society are inadequate or inappropriate, and when rights and freedoms are threatened. 1 would say that prostitution does not threaten rights and freedoms. It may shock some people, one may find it immoral, indecent or unworthy-that is a matter of personal opinion-but prostitution does not in any way threaten the rights and freedoms of Canadians.
And if we look at prostitution as the only opportunity for individuals whose training and labour market experience are practically nil, I believe that the answers we are looking for are not judicial but social.
The Special Committee on Pornography and Prostitution, also known as the Fraser Committee, pointed out, and rightly so, that prostitution is related to lack of social and educational programs that would help young people approach confidently and responsibly the problems of sexism, sexuality and sexual identity. It is most significant that the first recommendation of the Fraser Committee on Prostitution calls upon the Government to intensify its moral and financial commitment to eliminate economic and social disparities between the sexes as well as discrimination based on sexual orientation. It is my view that any legislation on prostitution should contain social provision aimed at eradicating the causes of prostitution that relate to social and economic injustice. The Fraser and Badgley Reports are replete with all kinds of proposals to that effect. They deal among other things with social programs aimed at women and young children in need, with sexual education programs to be implemented in schools, with assistance to community groups contributing to the welfare of present and former prostitutes, so that they may have access to social, health, employment and educational services.

November 20, 1985
Criminal Code
The studies, the research, have been made, the special committees have been set up, and we now have a set of realistic recommendations available. All that is now lacking for action across the board is the political will.
And when I heard the Minister of Justice suggest yesterday that this legislation was not a response to the Badgley and Fraser Reports, that we would have another legislation in early 1986, I was somewhat concerned because looking at the current approach and the current Bill on prostitution, we have cause to wonder whether the Government would ever have a better approach to juvenile prostitution. 1 am therefore sorry that such a legislation should be allowed to pass, and it is my hope that a more specific remedy will be forthcoming concerning juvenile prostitution.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise on third reading of Bill C-49 to reiterate the strong opposition of the federal New Democratic Party to this legislation. Having heard from a number of witnesses that appeared before the legislative committee considering Bill C-49, certainly our position has, if anything, been strengthened and reinforced.
The Bill is a sweeping attack on civil liberties. The approach which is taken in this legislation is fundamentally misguided. The Bill is dangerous and will merely drive prostitution underground in the short run. It will make prostitutes more subject to violence, more dependent on pimps, or it will mean that prostitutes who return to the streets after having been charged will run more often. This was indicated by a woman who appeared before the committee. She is presently working the streets of Vancouver as a prostitute.
We were told that the effect of the Bill will be to create a revolving door. Prostitutes will be arrested and charged. They will pay the fine and return to the street to work in order to pay off their fine. Indeed, the representative of the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police who appeared before the committee agreed that it was likely that the Bill would not significantly affect the number of prostitutes working on the streets. The association recognized that the prostitutes would likely be back on the streets. It said that that is why it would pursue the customers of prostitutes.
I asked the representatives of the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, when they appeared before the committee, how the police intend to go after the customers of the prostitutes. They said that they will use undercover female officers to arrest the customers. I then asked how many female officers are working in the morality squads of the Vancouver police department, the Toronto police department, the Montreal police department or the Niagara Falls police department. Across Canada there are perhaps eight or ten women who are working in those positions within the police departments. The reality is that women will not be in a position to be used as undercover police personnel to arrest male customers. 1 asked the chiefs of police if they had an alternative plan for pursuing the customers. They said that they could use boom microphones to intercept communications between prostitutes and customers. I suggest that those who enforce our laws should also read them because using boom microphones to interrupt communications between Canadians is illegal under the provisions of the Criminal Code. I would hope that the police of this land would not be using illegal techniques in order to attempt to make arrests under the provisions of Bill C-49. When I pressed the police, Mr. Speaker, and asked, if boom microphones were not allowed and that if there were not enough female undercover personnel, what techniques they would use to go after customers, they said: "Well, that is classified information. We are not prepared to tell you".
The reason the police are not prepared to tell us is that this Bill will be applied overwhelmingly against the poorest of prostitutes, against prostitutes who work on the streets. It will not affect the call-girls, those who service the economic elite in our society, the doctors, the lawyers and the wealthy. No, Mr. Speaker, it will touch the poorest of the poor, the women who are huddled under street lamps in order to prostitute themselves. Surely that is the real question.
Why is it that women, and in some cases men, are selling their bodies as commodities on the street, Mr. Speaker? As the Fraser Commission has documented very clearly, this is fundamentally an economic and social problem. To deal with an economic and social problem using harsh and repressive criminal measures is profoundly mistaken.
I would argue that certainly those who live in residential communities, whether they be in Vancouver in the Mount Pleasant area or in the west end of Vancouver or Toronto, Montreal, Halifax and elsewhere, have a right to live in peace and quiet. Their children have a right to go to school without being harassed. People have a right to sleep at night without hearing the screeching of tires and obscenities being hurled underneath their windows.
We must ask, before adopting the Draconian provisions of Bill C-49, have the police exhausted all other possibilities? I suggest that the answer to that question is no, they have not. In fact, the police should not be coming before Parliament seeking these sweeping new remedies without being able to demonstrate clearly that they have attempted to use other provisions, other sections of the Criminal Code, including Section 171 dealing with disorderly conduct, Section 169, concerning indecent acts and sections concerning assault.
Carefully drafted municipal by-laws concerning traffic, noise and nuisance can be enacted or enforced locally to aid in the control of nuisance factors that are associated with street prostitution. Indeed, a by-law has been upheld in Montreal that effectively regulates the nuisance aspects of street prostitution.
My colleagues, particularly the Hon. Member for Vancouver East (Ms. Mitchell) and my colleague, the Hon. Member for Vancouver Kingsway (Mr. Waddell), recognize and are deeply concerned about the serious problem of street prostitution in residential communities.
November 20, 1985

We have before us a piece of legislation which does not just deal with street soliciting, but it goes far beyond that, representing a sweeping attack on freedom of expression in Canada. I say that because while the Government says it wants this Bill to deal with street soliciting, the Bill does not just deal with street soliciting. It deals in its very terms with any form of communication or attempted communication in any public place anywhere in Canada. That, Mr. Speaker, is not just streets. It is nightclubs, bars, inside automobiles, anywhere to which the public has access as of right or by invitation.
When the Canadian Civil Liberties Association appeared before our committee, it pointed out that these provisions were Draconian. They go far beyond what the chiefs of police sought to deal with street prostitution. The association pointed out some of the behaviour which would be illegal under the provisions of this Bill.
Under this Bill it would be unlawful for a passenger in a taxi to ask a driver how to contact a prostitute. It would be unlawful for a hotel guest in an elevator to ask such questions of a bellhop or for a customer to ask it of his pharmacist in a drugstore, no matter how inconspicuous or discreet such communications might be. In fact, there are no limitations whatever in this Bill in the scope of it in terms of communication. A wink, a nod, a smile could trigger a criminal prosecution. I suggest that such provisions may very well be struck down under the provisions of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
What we are told is to trust the police, that they will not abuse the sweeping new powers we are giving them. Sure, we may be giving them a little more than they asked for, but we should trust them; they will not abuse the powers. I suggest that we do not give powerful new weapons to the police and then suggest that perhaps if we have given them too much power, having a sunset clause in the Bill would allow us three years later to remove those powers. That is an abrogation of our responsibility as Members of Parliament to draft legislation with thought and care by giving power that go well beyond those which should be accorded to the police.
What about the manner in which this Bill deals with kids on the street, young people, juveniles? One area of consensus on the Justice Committee in 1983 was that in dealing with the problem of juvenile prostitution, one should not make criminals out of young people. Surely one must go after the customer of the young person and nail the customer.
My colleague, the Hon. Member for Broadview-Greenwood (Ms. McDonald) who sat on the committee at that time was in full agreement, and indeed the entire NDP caucus urged the Government to act on that recommendation with respect to juvenile prostitution. What is there in Bill C-49 to deal with the question of juvenile prostitution, Mr. Speaker?
What this Bill does is to label young people who engage in prostitution as criminals. It would give them a record and drive them further underground and make much more difficult attempts to try to use social and economic programs to get them off the street.
Criminal Code
When I asked the chiefs of police what they intended to do with the kids they arrest as criminals, they said: "We recognize that there are not adequate programs available". The Province of British Columbia, the province from which I come, has totally inadequate programs to assist young people in getting off the street. The Chief of Police for Vancouver said: "We know there are not programs now but when this Bill is passed, we trust there will be additional pressure put on the Government to bring in programs to deal with young people". That is nonsense. Certainly the provincial Government of British Columbia has been cutting back on social programs. What we will see is young people who are engaged in prostitution again back on the streets or going underground, even more dependent on pimps.
The Bill fails to deal with the reality of juvenile prostitution and to recognize that in some cases, particularly in the case of young men, they are on the street because there continues to be discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation in Canada, and that violence and repression in their own communities, particularly in small towns, drives them to the street which is the only place where they get any kind of acceptance. That is one of the reasons the subcommittee on equality rights was unanimous in its strong recommendation calling for a legislative amendment to prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation in Canada.
The Bill would sweep the streets of prostitution according to the police, but what it fails to recognize is that prostitution itself is not illegal in Canada today, and that in sweeping prostitution from the streets and doing nothing to deal with bawdy house laws the Government, in effect, is providing no alternative.
The Fraser Commission was clear in its denunciation of that kind of proposal. It indicated the following:
We see no virtue in replacing the present system with a more repressive regime. There is no evidence in the history of this country or those countries like the United States which retain a Draconian system, that the results of such an approach would justify it. Indeed, we are inclined to think that a move in that direction would subvert any attempt to treat prostitution sensitively as a major social problem.
A major social problem and a major economic problem it is. I should like to refer to a letter which I received from a gentleman in Vancouver, a representative of the Evangelical Tabernacle in that city. He has been involved in helping prostitutes by Christian street witnessing. After a year of this work, he became a volunteer worker at a drop-in centre for prostitutes. He said that Bill C-49 would legislate prostitutes underground, resulting in more pimps and more violence to the prostitutes. Also he said that working bars would force prostitutes to pay off both bartenders and doormen, and that there would be more involvement of organized crime. Also he noted that women who are prostitutes today, for the most part, do not want to live that way.
We heard evidence from a prostitute who appeared before the committee which indicated that some prostitutes chose prostitution as a job. Certainly many of us find it difficult to
8646

November 20, 1985
Criminal Code
understand prostitution as a career choice, but I think it should be noted in this debate that there are those who choose it as a job. The vast majority of those who work as prostitutes were either violently abused or sexually abused as children. Also many of them are involved in prostitution because they are poor and are on welfare. Prostitution is a way of feeding their children.
In the Province of Quebec, young people under the age of 30 years and on welfare are supposed to survive on $161 per month. Is it any wonder that some of those young kids are on the streets when that is the amount of income they receive? In the Province of British Columbia, an individual with one child is supposed to survive on $640 per month. As the individual to whom I referred earlier stated, the best way to clear the streets of prostitution is to raise the welfare rates.
In conclusion, in that I know my 20 minutes are up, again I emphasize a very strong opposition to the approach taken in this legislation. Also I want to emphasize that the Government is attempting to deal with what is fundamentally a social and economic problem by using a legal sledge-hammer. That approach is profoundly wrong.
I hope the Government comes forward early in the new year with recommendations to deal with some of the suggestions of the Fraser Commission. We are by no means adopting those recommendations holus-bolus. After very careful study, the commission made a number of recommendations in respect of changes to bawdy house laws and in respect of decriminalization, which I think the House would be wise to adopt.
Finally, as a Parliament, we are engaged today, in many ways, in what is an act of collective hypocrisy. We can go to sleep tonight, suggesting that we have dealt in a serious way with the problem of prostitution; we have swept our streets clean of the poorest prostitutes. Until we come to grips with the social and economic reasons for prostitution, the second-class status of women in society, economically and socially, until we put more resources into dealing with violence against women, we will be continuing to adopt a piecemeal, destructive approach which represents an attack not just on the civil rights of prostitutes but ultimately on the civil rights of Canadian men and women.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I wish to inform the House that because of the ministerial statement, consideration of Government Orders will be extended by 52 minutes. Are there questions or comments on the speech of the Hon. Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson)? If not, we will resume debate with the Hon. Member for Broadview-Greenwood (Ms. McDonald).


Lynn McDonald: Mr. Speaker, I rise this afternoon to speak on Bill C-49, an Act to amend the Criminal Code with regard to prostitution. An extremely heavy-handed amendment is being proposed. It lacks common sense. It will not deal with the problem of street soliciting or the nuisance problem with which Canadians want us to deal. Instead, it will result in the criminalization largely of women, young women and children.
The reason the Bill is before us is that the police have not been able to cope with the problem of street soliciting with the present means at their disposal. They have asked and lobbied very vigorously, supported by many mayors and citizens, for stronger powers. I am sympathetic with the objective of their concern because citizens are entitled to quiet neighbourhoods and a trouble-free existence in their homes, as well as going to and from them. However, the Bill will not help achieve that peace and quiet. It will raise a whole set of new problems.
The old interpretation that soliciting had to constitute pressing and persistent importuning was one which limited prosecutions on soliciting. However, there are other measures which could be used to deal with street soliciting. I sat on the Justice Committee when we examined this question and came up with a couple of much more appropriate, very concrete proposals to deal with the street problem. One was to enforce existing nuisance, noise, disorderly conduct and traffic provisions of the Criminal Code. I have discussed with police officers why these provisions are not better enforced. In fact, I recall discussing the matter with the then chief of the Toronto police who pointed out a great problem posed by street soliciting, that traffic was held up and that cars lined up as motorists were looking for prostitutes standing on the corners. He said that it was a very serious problem, and I asked him what they did about it. He said: "We arrest them". I said: "Do you mean that you arrest the motorists?" He said: "Oh, no, we don't arrest the motorists; we arrest the girls". I think this conversation points to the hypocrisy of the implementation of our current laws. The Bill before us now will not do anything to change that hypocrisy.
I should like to refer to some of the statistics on enforcement of street soliciting under our existing laws. We have no reason to believe that there will be any improvement in going after customers. Heretofore the laws have been enforced against women, and this is what we have to expect to happen. In Toronto, 78.2 per cent of the soliciting charges laid in 1979 were laid against women in 1980, 69.9 per cent; in 1981, 82.6 per cent; and in 1982, 80.8 per cent. This is a law which is enforced against women. The idea that it will be enforced against customers, male customers in most cases, is absolutely ludicrous. We know that it will not happen. We know what are the enforcement procedures. The police have enforced it against customers to a very limited extent. Referring to the loitering charges in Toronto, 84.5 per cent were laid against women; charges laid under counselling to commit an indecent act, 67.2 per cent were against women.
In the case of Vancouver, 65 per cent of the charges were laid against female prostitutes. The vast majority of charges are in fact being laid against women, not against customers. In Halifax, 77.8 per cent were laid against women. In the case of British Columbia there is an anomoly that customers cannot be charged under the Criminal Code. They could be charged under by-laws, but not under the Criminal Code as a result of a most unfortunate interpretation by a court which was never appealed. Of course the answer to that is to change the law to close that loophole. That would have been, by far, the more
November 20, 1985

appropriate thing to do, to make it possible to charge more customers and in fact go ahead and do that when there is a genuine problem of street soliciting.
I have referred to the 1983 Justice Committee report which made a very important recommendation which 1 supported very strongly. It recommended that it be an offence for an adult to ask for or agree to pay for an act of prostitution with a minor. We know that there are large numbers of young people on the streets and it should certainly be up to adults who are seeking prostitutes to ensure that they do not seek an act of prostitution from a minor. It seems to me that adult behaviour requires a certain amount of responsibility and it would be far better to put the onus on improving adult behaviour to save young people this experience. Yet, the Bill before us today does not do that. There was strong support from the Justice Committee for that very concrete and direct proposal, and yet it was ignored by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Crosbie) in the drafting of this new legislation.
The Bill before us today attempts to deal with the nuisance problem of street prostitution in isolation from the social and economic climate which promoted the problem in the first place. We have an unemployment rate of one in five among young people who are, in growing numbers, becoming prostitutes. We must understand that that is the problem to be dealt with and this sledge-hammer approach, this punitive approach, is not going to deal with the causes of young people going into prostitution. It provides no legal venue in which prostitution may take place. It is a damned-if-you-do, damned-if-you-don't situation. If the idea was to get it off the streets, the Bill criminalizes soliciting in other places as well.
In the testimony of the Mayor of Vancouver he said that it was not the concern of the Vancouver city council or the citizens of Vancouver to try to ban prostitution entirely. He said that that was unrealistic, it was not something that could be done, and they were not attempting to do that. They were attempting to get it off the streets and out of places in which it was a nuisance to the public who could not enjoy their homes and were hassled going to and from work and going in and out for the evening. Yet, this Bill does not meet those very reasonable expectations of the Mayor of Vancouver and city councillors. It goes far beyond that to criminalize behaviour in a much more general fashion. They suggested that we needed to get it off the streets and put it where it will not be a source of nuisance to other people.
This legislation will simply result in a large number of people being criminalized and we will get into the revolving door syndrome. There will be more dependence in pimps. Women will have to call their pimps to get bail. They will have to go back on the streets to pay their fines and lawyers' fees. This is the kind of legal control that we do not want. We have had it before. The idea is that we need tougher laws to deal with this problem. However, we used to have tougher laws. The jails of Vancouver used to be filled with prostitutes. It was a revolving door. If they could not pay their fine and no one
Criminal Code
would raise bail for them they simply stayed in. Then, when they got out, they had to get back to work to pay the rent and do all the things which people have to do. It simply got them further and further into a criminal milieu and it was harder and harder for them to get into ordinary work and out of that kind of life.
We have tried the revolving door. It was repugnant to people and they argued against it. As a result of all those arguments we had the laws improved and now the Government wants us to go backward. My Party is very strongly opposing this legislation. We are opposing the revolving door and the increased criminalization of women and young people.
If passed, this Bill would result in prostitutes being at risk of violence to a greater extent. It would increase the male exploitation of female prostitutes because they would be more dependent on people to intervene for them with the law. They will be more vulnerable as a result of this legislation. It also endangers the freedom of expression of other Canadians. The wording of Bill C-49 is very broad indeed. It says:
Every person who in a public place or in any place open to public view (c) stops or attempts to stop any person or in any manner communicates or
attempts to communicate with any person
for the purpose of engaging in prostitution or of abtaining the services of a
prostitute is guilty of an offence-
The words "stop or . . . in any manner communicates" is very general. This very, very general wording which will result in large numbers of people being criminalized is totally inappropriate and is possibly contrary to the Charter of Rights. Certainly one obvious result, if this legislation is passed, is that there will be court cases challenging the legality of the legislation instead of proceeding in a practical and focused way to deal with the immediate problem. It is aimed at the most vulnerable prostitutes, those who are young, those who are unskilled. It is an extremely repugnant measure, Mr. Speaker.
I suggest that we should take quite a different approach to this problem. We should be closing the loopholes and making it an offence to solicit an act of prostitution from a minor. We should be enforcing the laws of nuisance, disorderliness and noise, which measures are available. If I were a police chief in a city which had a prostitution problem I can assure you that there would not be a street soliciting problem. The matter could be dealt with. Police forces have sheltered and protected the male customers out of a mistaken sense of male bonding. They have gone after the prostitute, the evil woman in the case, and sheltered the male customer. They have done this out of a very mistaken sense of honour saying that they are only innocent occasional offenders whose reputations should not be harmed by having it known.
In no jurisdiction in Canada has there been public reporting of the names of offenders who have been customers in cases of soliciting. The furthest that has been gone in this direction was in Vancouver and I will tell you how paltry the measures were. Male customers were reported using their surnames and initials only with no addresses. For example: "R. Smith was convicted of an act of street soliciting". Obviously that is no risk to the reputation of anyone. It is the customer who can be

November 20, 1985
Criminal Code
controlled by the threat of loss of reputation. Clearly, for the prostitute the publication of a name is neither here nor there. Indeed, it might be advertising. However, the customer has something to lose. Yes, this very obvious method of dealing with the problem has not been used. Police forces would rather use the sledge-hammer than use the very practical tactic of publishing the names of offenders who are customers. If 1 were a police chief I would use this cheap, easy and convenient means of clearing up the problem. I would not wish to resort to this far more heavy-handed, extremely expensive measure. It is expensive in terms of prison costs and in terms of the human costs for people who are going to suffer very much as a result.
A large number of people spoke very strongly at committee stage in opposition to this Bill. A large number of women's organizations made representations. The National Action Committee on the Status of Women spoke very strongly. It gave a brief detailing the reprehensible nature of the proposed measures and proposing a very different approach. They recommend a much more global approach which understands the social and economic context in which street soliciting occurs. The Elizabeth Fry Society, an organization which I belong to and support, has been very strong in support of the rehabilitation of women offenders and in support of civil liberties in a general fashion. The members of this organization work directly with women offenders, including women prostitutes, and they are very familiar with the problem. Their advice ought to have been heeded rather than this more Draconian approach which the Conservative Government approves.
I will quote from the position taken by representatives of the Elizabeth Fry Society before the Justice Committee. They
said:
Our goal is to ensure that prostitutes have alternatives to selling their bodies in order to make a living. Criminal records decrease this likelihood and further demoralize people who are already condemned by many sectors of our society. Criminalizing prostitution and/or soliciting expresses public condemnation of women who, if anything, are closer to victims than to criminals ... Criminalizing soliciting in fact increases the prostitute's dependency on her pimp. She needs him for protection, and she has no means of protecting herself from the pimp. She will have to work the streets even harder and be more persistent in her soliciting to repay her pimp for the trouble she has caused him.
Again, does this measure deal with the problems caused by pimps? Not at all. We have heard plenty of testimony from women's organizations indicating that we should throw the book at pimps. That is a difficult thing to do. I am sympathetic to police forces which point out the difficulties of dealing with pimps. However, how hard have they tried? Pimps are the people who really cause problems. Indeed, one of the revelations of the Badgley Commission was that young people who were prostitutes and solicited in a pressing and persistent manner did so as a result of orders from their pimps who said that they were not making enough money. It was the pimps who were creating the problem, not the prostitutes themselves. Yet this measure will not do anything about the problems posed by pimps.
Let me continue to quote from testimony of representatives of the Elizabeth Fry Society:
-prostitutes generally are not dangerous criminals; they are not people who we would wish, on an objective test, to put into our prisons, particularly at a time when the provincial prisons across this country are, I believe without exception, overcrowded, particularly the remand and short sentence centres. 1 am wondering whether we really want to increase the double and triple bunking in our prisons, particularly with young people-many of the prostitutes are young people; an increasing number are juveniles as well. These, I believe, really are not appropriately dealt with through toughening of the Criminal Code.
Another proposal was made by the National Action Committee on the Status of Women as follows:
It would seem a far better use of government funds to support women in retraining programs, and provide street workers and alternate living quarters away from the street, than to spend funds on policing, court costs, and imprisonment of prostitutes.
I have raised a few points on the question of policing. Let me continue with some further analyses that the police themselves have revealed. My colleague, the Hon. Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson) has pointed officers who could act as undercover officers to entrap male customers. There is a much larger number of male police officers ready and apparently quite willing to work in this capacity to attract women prostitutes. This was the historic way of getting conviction quotas up when the old laws were in force and many more women were going to prison than is the case now.
I recall asking the Chief of Police of Toronto about this matter. I asked him why he did not go after the customers and one of the answers he gave me was that he did not have many women police officers and they did not like doing it. Women police officers do not like enforcing a law using entrapment. I asked the Chief of Police about the situation with men police officers and he told me that they do not mind so much. That is a double standard. We should not be happy about it. Yet that is the nature of the beast. We must understand this and we should have laws which will take us away from the double standard. We must be very sensitive to the fact that this is a law that will really be used against women and children and that it is entirely inappropriate.
To conclude, let me say that this is not a law that will do any good. It will not stop the problem of street soliciting. It will not deal with the problem of children on the streets. It will criminalize a large number of people and will increase dependence on pimps. It will worsen the situation of children on the streets. This is a heavy-handed, Draconian measure and it lacks common sense. It is an irresponsible measure and I urge the House to defeat Bill C-49.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Are there any questions or comments? If not, we will resume debate.


John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate this opportunity to speak to Bill C-49. Put very simply, Bill C-49 is not the answer to the problem.
It was hoped that after committee deliberations over this Bill, the Government would recognize that the Bill was offensive and deserving of substantial amendment. Be that as it may, the Government, in its wisdom, decided not to amend the
November 20, 1985

Bill. It decided to bring the Bill before the House for third reading with no amendments other than the inclusion of one word in the first clause.
In my respectful submission, the Bill is not supportable simply from a civil libertarian point of view. There is no question that the Bill poses a threat to individual rights and freedoms and we as Parliamentarians must be the custodians of civil liberties and of individual rights and freedoms. We must ensure that in our deliberations, we afford as much protection as possible to Canadians so that we may protect those rights.
In my submission, I would like to indicate why this Bill is not deserving of support from a civil libertarian point of view. However, I would like to begin by indicating why we are here today debating Bill C-49. In my view, the Bill is a knee-jerk political reaction to a problem that does exist. We recognize that the problem of street prostitution does exist. It is a nuisance in many of the major cities of Canada including Vancouver, Calgary, Toronto, Halifax and others. However, Bill C-49 is not the answer.
We argued at committee and at second reading stage that what was needed was a comprehensive piece of legislation to deal with all the aspects of and problems associated with prostitution in Canada. The Minister indicated on a number of occasions that it is the intention of the Government to bring forward a comprehensive piece of legislation as early as the new year. Why then? Why pass this Bill which is so basically and fundamentally flawed now?
In my view, this Bill will be struck down by the courts. You can bet your bottom dollars, Mr. Speaker, that it will be challenged at the earliest opportunity. I am confident that a superior court will strike this Bill down as being too vague and not specific enough.
The Government decided that it had to act because of political pressure. As you are well aware, Mr. Speaker, when Governments act under political pressure, they make bad laws at times. This one is a bad law.
We know that the Criminal Code has not been effective in dealing with the problem of street prostitution. We had Section 195.1 of the Criminal Code of Canada which reads:
Every person who solicits any person in a public place for the purpose of prostitution is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.
The courts of the land have interpreted that particular Section as stated in a Supreme Court of Canada decision as meaning that the activity had to be pressing and persistent. A mere wink, a wave or a mere communication was not sufficient to prosecute and convict under the particular section. The police forces across the land felt fettered as a result of that particular Supreme Court of Canada decision. The previous administration decided that the whole question of prostitution had to be looked into. In that respect we had the Fraser Commission and the Badgley Commission which looked into the matter and related areas. Both Commissions have tabled reports in the House of Commons and both have made recommendations with respect to the problems. While all Members
Criminal Code
of the House may not support these recommendations I think it is important that the Government respond in a comprehensive way to the Fraser Report and bring in legislation which will deal with the problems associated with prostitution and with pimps. Bill C-49 does not deal with pimps, nor does it deal with common bawdy houses because of political pressure which the Government has brought to bear with respect to this legislation.
Bill C-49 is a short piece of legislation. It has but two clauses. I think it is important to point out that the Government is unsure of itself with respect to the Bill. This can be concluded by reading the two clauses contained in the Bill. One of the clauses is a sunset clause. It requires the Government of Canada to conduct a comprehensive review of the provisions of this Bill after three years. That suggests to me that the Government is not sure whether this Bill will survive and whether it is the answer. I think the Government realizes deep down inside that the Bill might not survive. I think the Government is paying a disservice to those who are concerned about the problems of street prostitution. It is doing a disservice because, as I indicated earlier with all the certainty I could command, this Bill will be challenged.
What will be the result if the Bill is challenged? It will go to a trial court and a trial judge will make a decision either in favour or against it. Regardless of the decision made someone, either the Crown or the accused, will appeal the decision to a superior court. A superior court will strike down the Bill because it is vague. Then what will happen? The police will no longer be able to act. Their hands will be tied again because the courts will deem the Bill to be unenforceable, vague and perhaps in contravention of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
The legislation will be held up for months and months, if not years, before a final decision is rendered by the Supreme Court of Canada. In effect, what the Government may be doing by passing this Bill is perpetuating the problem for years to come. It may be effective on a short term basis, perhaps for a number of weeks or months. It might get the prostitutes off the streets for that period of time; but they will come back after the Supreme Court of any province decides that the Bill is unenforceable. We, as legislators, will then have to sit on our hands and wait until the Supreme Court of Canada renders a decision with respect to it. I hope the Government has thought about this aspect of the Bill and about the potential of a lengthy delay as a result of a court decision.
I would like to review the Bill and the offensive clauses in it and indicate why, in my view and in the view of many people, the Bill is not supported because it poses a threat to individual rights and freedoms. The Bill makes it an offence for any person, which would include a customer or a prostitute, who, in a public place or in any place open to public view, does one of a number of things. If that person stops or attempts to stop any motor vehicle for the purposes of engaging in prostitution or of obtaining the services of a prostitute, then that person

November 20, 1985
Criminal Code
could be prosecuted and convicted of a criminal offense. How will the courts define "stops" or "attempts to stop any motor vehicle"?
With respect to stopping a motor vehicle, it is pretty simple. If someone stands in front of a car and forces it to stop then I think it is obvious that the person is stopping a motor vehicle. However, that is not where the matter ends. The prosecution will then have to show that the person has not only stopped a motor vehicle but it will have to go on in order to secure a conviction. The prosecution must prove that the purpose of the stopping was to engage in prostitution or for obtaining the sexual services of a prostitute. How will the police be able to prove that?
I submit that there is an evidentiary problem. My friend, the Hon. Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson), indicated some of the problems with respect to adducing such evidence in order to secure a conviction. How can that evidence be obtained? Someone will actually have to listen or understand why the vehicle is being stopped. Of course, we could use undercover police officers to this end, but there would be problems with that. Either the customer or the prostitute would have to admit or confess to the police what in effect had taken place.
Proposed Subsection 195.1(a) deals with stopping or attempting to stop any motor vehicle. What does "attempts to stop any motor vehicle" mean? It is a simple wave to the driver an attempt to stop a motor vehicle? How does one attempt to stop a motor vehicle? If one gets in the way of a motor vehicle and the driver drives around that person is that an attempt to stop a motor vehicle? One can see the problems associated with that subsection.
Let us go on to proposed Subsection 195.1(f)) which deals with the person who in a public place or in any place open to public view impedes the free flow of pedestrian or vehicular traffic or ingress to or egress from premises adjacent to that place. What does that mean? These are questions which the courts will ask. They will ask what Parliament intends when it says that it is a criminal offence to impede the free flow of pedestrian or vehicular traffic. If a prostitute or a customer simply stands on a sidewalk and someone has to side-step that person in order to get around, then is that person impeding the free flow of pedestrian traffic? That is but a judgment call. The court demand some certainty from Parliament with respect to its laws in order for those laws to be fair and in order for them to be equally applied. There is a problem with this subsection in that one does not know what it means to impede the free flow of pedestrian traffic.
1 would like to indicate at this point how it can be seen that police officers are given tremendous discretion under this particular piece of legislation, Bill C-49. It is up to the police officer to decide whether or not to charge a particular person, for whatever reason. He or she has that discretion under this legislation. While we have the utmost respect for police officers and police force in Canada we have to ensure that a discretion of this magnitude is not given to them because it just might be, and it is likely to be, misused. If a particular officer does not like a particular person for whatever reason
then he or she can decide that that person is impeding the free flow of pedestrian traffic or that that person is attempting to stop a motor vehicle. One can see the problems associated with the vagueness of this particular piece of legislation and the reason it will be turfed out of court. Let me come to the most offensive section of this particular piece of legislation, proposed Subsection 1(c) which states, and I quote:
Every person who in a public place or in any place open to public view (c) stops or attempts to stop any person or in any manner comunicates or
attempts to communicate with any person
for the purpose of engaging in prostitution-
What does that mean, Mr. Speaker? If that is not vague, I do not know what is. What does it mean to attempt to communicate? I am sure Hon. Members in the House, and many Canadians, could think of examples of what it means to attempt to communicate. Is winking an attempt to communicate for the purpose of prostitution? How about if you wave? If any one of us is walking down the street one day and a person unbeknown to us waves at us and we wave back, and that person happens to be a prostitute, I would submit to you, Mr. Speaker, that a police officer could charge that person who is the prostitute and anyone of us in the House, if the officer wanted to. That could be the result of this particular piece of legislation.
I say to Hon. Members opposite to beware of liberal police officers because they could charge you. What would the consequences be to Hon. Members opposite of a charge under Section 195.1 of the Criminal Code of Canada? I need not tell them that their political careers would be destroyed as well as their family life. In any case, they would have a lot of explaining to do to their constituents and to their families. This Bill is offensive on a civil libertarian basis because of the vagueness of this particular piece of legislation. It does not define what it means to attempt to communicate with any person.
Bill C-49 in proposed Subsection 195.1(2) defines what a "public place" means. A "public place" according to this Bill includes any place to which the public has access as of right or by invitation-that would include, of course, shopping malls, bars, lobbies of office buildings, any place where the public has the right of access-expressed or implied, and any motor vehicle located in a public place or in any place open to public view. If one has his car parked in his driveway, someone from the street could look to see what is happening in his car, or if the curtains of a home were open, a pedestrian walking by could look into that home to see if there was an attempt to communicate or direct communication for the purpose of prostitution. In that case, a police officer could lay a charge.
Hon. Members opposite may laugh and say: "Police officers would not do that. They are responsible people". However, you and I know, Mr. Speaker, as well as Hon. Members opposite, that we have to ensure that the discretion given to police officers and others who have to enforce the law have to be limited and that our laws, in order to be good laws, must be
November 20, 1985

certain and definite so a Canadian will know when he or she is committing a criminal offence.
1 will conclude by saying I have considerable regret and chagrin that the Conservatives have brought forward this Bill and have decided not to amend it in order to address the civil libertarian concerns which have been expressed by a great number of Canadians. It is regrettable. We hope that the Government will see the wisdom of its folly and bring in that comprehensive piece of legislation but it is obvious that this Government will not. I simply ask the Government to read my submissions in a year or two years' time and perhaps it will see that what I have said here today holds true.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Could the Hon. Member tell us what he means by "the wisdom of its folly"?


John V. Nunziata: What I meant to say, Mr. Speaker, is that the Conservative Government is totally lacking in wisdom by bringing forward this particular piece of legislation. It is displaying an abysmal folly by bringing it forward. That is what 1 meant.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the House ready for the question?


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The question is the following one. Mr. Crosbie, seconded by Mr. Hnatyshyn, moves that Bill C-49, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (prostitution) be now read a third time and do pass. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


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


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Call in the Members.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I declare the motion carried. Bill read the third time and passed.


THE GOVERNOR GENERAL'S ACT
John Carnell Crosbie: that Bill C-78, an Act to amend the Governor General's Act, the Governor General's Retiring Annuity Act, the Salaries Act and the Judges Act, as reported (without amendment) from a legislative committee, be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
John Carnell Crosbie: that the Bill be read the third time and passed.


Mr. Chris Speyer (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, I intend to say a very few words with

November 20, 1985
The Governor General's Act
respect to third reading of this Act. This Act essentially amends different Acts to increase the salaries of judges, Lieutenant Governors of the Provinces and the Governor General.
The Constitution of Canada imposes upon Parliament the duty to fix and provide the salaries, allowances and pensions of the federally appointed judiciary. It is a difficult duty, although no doubt it seemed fairly straightforward to the Fathers of Confederation when they determined upon the text of Section 100 of what was then the British North America Act. Acting pursuant to this provision, Parliament is expected to balance the needs and expectations of the judiciary with its own responsibility to use the money of the taxpayers wisely and to the best effect. It is a duty only Parliament can perform. By virtue of the wording of Section 100, this duty cannot be delegated to any other body. It is a duty that is often embarrassing and distasteful to both Members of Parliament and members of the judiciary since it requires a public debate upon the remuneration of men and women who, as a result, may be subjected to generalized abuse but who, by their offices, are denied the privilege of public reply. It carries with it the danger of politicizing judicial compensation issues and, unless the levels of compensation are reviewed at regular intervals, the danger also of inequity and unfairness to the judiciary if salaries and other benefits are permitted to fall behind on the basis of leading economic indicators.
Judicial salaries have in fact suffered erosion since 1981 when an indexing formula was first provided to cushion the effects of inflation between parliamentary reviews. Indexing has had the effect of permitting Governments and Parliament to defer consideration of the salary issue in the comforting knowledge that the judiciary were receiving some increase each year without the necessity for full public debate and legislative action. This tendency has been further reinforced by the provision for triennial commissions to review the adequacy of judicial salaries and benefits.
Two years have passed since the report of the first commission on judges' salaries and benefits was tabled in Parliament. At its 1985 annual meeting, the Canadian Bar Association passed a resolution deploring the delay in dealing with the Lang Report and calling for its implementation forthwith. While we are aware of the serious delay which has ensued, the Government also accepts that its mandate for Fiscal restraint and the protection of the nation's economic interests will not permit full acceptance of the Lang Commission's recommendations. Accordingly, we have sought to arrive at adequate compensation for the judiciary while recognizing the fact that we continue in a period of economic recovery and fiscal restraint.
Very briefly, what is intended is that the salary of a judge of a provincial superior court which, as of April 1, 1985, was $93,800 will be increased by this Bill to $105,000. With respect to District Court judges, their salaries will be pegged at $5,000 under the salary level from year to year of a superior court judge.
With respect to the Governor General, the annual salary will be raised from $48,666, its current level, to a level of
$70,000. With respect to the Lieutenant Governors of the provinces, the increase will be to $69,000.
We have heard speeches on this matter and the Minister appeared before the committee to testify with respect to his views on these matters. There were no amendments at report stage. I hope for the sake of the judiciary and other people involved that this matter can have the most prompt attention of the House so that we can implement it and make it law.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise and make a few brief remarks on this legislation. The position of members of the New Democratic Party in relation to this legislation was stated clearly at the time of the second reading debate and subsequently when the distinguished Minister of Justice (Mr. Crosbie) appeared before the legislative committee which was considering this Bill. I do not now intend to repeat the arguments we made at that time. However, 1 do want to put on the record our opposition to this legislation.
While no one in this House would in any way deny the integral and vital role played by the judiciary in our legal system, certainly it is not our view that we should be increasing the discrepancies between the wealthy and the poor in Canadian society. At a time of restraint when basic social programs which provide essential social services to the poor are being cut back, and when we are attacking the deficit, an increase in the salaries of a group who are in relative terms privileged economically cannot be justified.
We as Parliamentarians have the obligation to allocate scarce resources among competing ends. If there are additional dollars to be spent, I suggest that they should be spent in assisting those at the bottom end of the economic scale and not those who are already very well paid by any standard of comparison. Instead of increasing the gap between the rich and poor we should be reducing it.
The suggestion has been made that it is essential to increase the salaries of judges in order to recruit more qualified and capable personnel. First, I would suggest that the Canadian Bar Association report on the independence of the judiciary made very clear that that suggestion is without foundation. I would like to quote from that report as follows:
-it is neither necessary nor desirable to establish judicial salaries at such a level as to match the judge's earnings before appointment to the bench. The most obvious reason for this is that such a policy would tend to attract people to the bench for purely financial reasons. The sort of person who would accept a position on the bench because it paid well is not the sort of person who would make the best judge.
Rather the sort of person we would wish to see on the bench are those who appreciate the honour of being a judge and who see as part of their reward the satisfaction of serving society on the bench.
I would remind Hon. Members that in calculating the over-all level of judicial compensation, we must remember as well that there is a very, very rich pension scheme for federal judicial appointees. It has been suggested by some, including some members of the judiciary, that the contributions made by members of the federal judiciary to their own pension plan in some way undermines the independence of the judiciary. I
November 20, 1985

suggest that any statement to that effect is without foundation, and should the Supreme Court of Canada rule in the Beauregard case that in fact the legislation which requires the members of the judiciary to contribute to their pension plans is in fact within the powers of Parliament, Parliament should not take any steps to remove the contributions of members of the federal judiciary.
I would note that there are some flaws in the present judicial pension scheme. These flaws have been identified by a number of commissions. Perhaps one of the most glaring flaws is that those who have served more than 10 years but less than 15 years are not entitled to any pension whatsoever. I suggest that we look at some sort of prorated pension for members of the bench who have served Canada with distinction during that particular period of time.
We also have to look at the method of the appointment of judges. The Canadian Bar Association has recommended substantial changes to the manner in which judicial appointments are made. In August of this year it issued a report which constitutes a scathing criticism of the current method of judicial appointment. It finds that the quality of the Canadian judiciary is high. However, it also finds that in some provinces politics play too great a role in the selection of candidates for the bench. It recommends one form of judicial appointment process which I think we should certainly look at.
What we must recognize is that the present system, which allows for political patronage to far too great an extent, is one
The Governor General's Act
which has no place in a democratic society, particularly at a time when the role of the judiciary is being enhanced by the adoption of an entrenched Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
At third reading stage 1 wanted to put on the record these brief points with respect to some of our concerns about this legislation. I wish to note that, federally, the New Democratic Party opposes this Bill and will continue to call for legislation and policy which will reduce the gap between rich and poor in Canada instead of increasing the gap, as this Bill would do.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the House ready for the question?


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: On division.
Motion agreed to and Bill read the third time and passed.


Mr. Chuck Cook (North Vancouver-Burnaby):: Mr. Speaker, I think you will find that there is a predisposition in the House to call it 6.52 p.m.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it agreed?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being after six o'clock this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 3(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 6.24 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Thursday, November 21, 1985