1985-09-09

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Wednesday, June 26, consideration of the motion of Mr. Crosbie that Bill C-49, an Act to amend the Criminal Code (prostitution) be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.
Hon. Ray Hnatyshyn (President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, 1 rise on a point of order. First, let me welcome you and other Members back to the House of Commons for the fall sitting. It is nice to be back and see everyone, after they have had an opportunity to spend the summer in consultation with their constituents.
The first item of business deals with Bill C-49. Consultations have taken place with respect to this legislation. As you know, today is the first day we are proceeding with the change in our rules and these rules, among other things, contemplate the existence of legislative committees.
You will also be aware of the fact that as Bill C-49 now stands on the Order Paper, the motion will refer the legislation on second reading to a standing committee, in this case the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.
In order to proceed in the spirit and indeed in line with the new rules, I have discussed this matter with Opposition House Leaders and we have agreed that legislation now at second reading stage will be moved after second reading to legislative committees.
Accordingly, I believe you will find there is disposition to accept the following motion and give it unanimous consent:
That all the words after the word "That" be deleted and the following being substituted therefor. Bill C-49, an Act to amend the Criminal Code (Prostitution) be now read a second time and referred to a legislative committee.


Mr. Deans:: Mr. Speaker, we did in fact have the kind of consultation which the Government House Leader indicates. This will be a matter that will arise from time to time over the course of the next few weeks as we deal with legislation that is presently on the Order Paper.
It may well be that with unanimous consent we can agree today to make the appropriate changes to all the legislation that now stands on the Notice Paper, to refer each piece to a legislative committee rather than go through the process on each occasion that arises.


Mr. Gray (Windsor West):: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Official Opposition we would not only be willing to accept the motion just proposed but also to agree that this motion apply to the other legislation on the Order Paper that has not yet received second reading. However, I believe it should be clear that we are not changing the existing references to standing committees so that their work will not be disrupted.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, 1 think the points brought up by the Opposition House Leaders are germane and valid. 1 thought we would discuss the matter at a subsequent date. There may be instances when we may want to talk about grouping certain similar Bills to one legislative committee rather than two.
Accordingly, I took my usual cautionary position of only dealing only with the legislation before us at the present time.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is there unanimous consent for the introduction of the amendment?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall the amendment carry?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Mr. Speaker:: Resuming debate.


Hon. John C. Crosbie (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to continue the debate on second reading of Bill C-49, entitled an Act to amend the Criminal Code (prostitution). The purpose of this Bill is to help the citizens of this country who live in certain of our major urban areas and the police forces of the country to regain the streets because they have lost control of the streets and neighbourhoods in certain urban areas of this country.
The Bill was introduced first on May 2. I spoke briefly to it on the evening of June 26. I might also say that I have been under tremendous pressure from the Member for Vancouver Centre, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Miss Carney), in this matter. She has been very much concerned with the problem that this Bill deals with and has been a constant source of pressure for some action to be taken so that

recommends. 1 think this is an extretnely healthy provision. 1 am sure concerns will be raised as to what effect this section might have and what dangers there might be in how it is interpreted by the courts or how the police act in connection with enforcing it. Within three years, if the Bill is accepted, we will have a committee of the House review the experience during that three-year period to see how the section has worked and to see whether or not any amendments are needed.
The problems with the present Section 195.1 really commenced in 1978 as a result of interpretations of that section by our courts, the Supreme Court of Canada and the appellate courts across the country. As I mentioned earlier, that section was passed in 1972 to replace the old vagrancy offence of being a street-walker unable to give a good account of herself. That was a status offence, and it was recommended by the Royal Commission on the Status of Women that that section be removed. However, court decisions since Section 195.1 was enacted limited the effectiveness of the section and of course the instances of street soliciting in Canada have increased dramatically since 1978. In that year the Supreme Court of Canada held that behaviour must be "pressing or persistent" to constitute soliciting.
As you know, Mr. Speaker, with your encyclopaedic knowledge of legislation passed by the House, the present section reads as follows:
Every person who solicits any person in a public place for the purpose of prostitution is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.
Thus, the courts had to determine what the word "solicit" meant. The courts decided that to be guilty of an offence under that section, the behaviour of the prostitute had to be pressing or persistent. In other words, the prostitute involved had to accost someone or a series of persons in a pressing or persistent way to constitute soliciting. Then, in later judgment, the court held that there had to be not just pressing or persistent conduct but repeated solicitations with respect to one individual, that it was not an offence if one person was accosted by a prostitute once with an invitation to engage in a sexual act for payment. There had to be repeated solicitations of this one individual by the prostitute concerned. Therefore, if there was a sequence of non-pressing approaches by a single prostitute to a series of individuals, it did not constitute the act or offence of soliciting. The result of these decisions was that it became impossible to enforce this particular section of the Criminal Code. We have really had that problem since 1978.
In addition, the Supreme Court indicated in what is known by the lawyers as obiter dicta that the interior of a motor vehicle was not a public place but was a private place for the purposes of the section. That caused confusion as to whether or not soliciting which takes place in a car parked in a public place or in a place open to public view fell within the soliciting provision.
There was a third problem with the present legislation, Mr. Speaker. There were conflicting decisions at the level of the provincial appellate courts. Some of those decisions held that a
Criminal Code
customer who accosts a person while looking for the services of a prostitute in a public place could be prosecuted while in other provinces, decisions held that the customer was not liable to prosecution. That, of course, is an imbalance in the application of the law, an imbalance that we do not wish to allow to continue. Therefore, in the proposed legislation, it will be an offence for either a prostitute or a customer to seek one another out in a public place.
The problems that arise with soliciting do not arise only from the presence of prostitutes and customers in public locations but from the conduct in which they engage while they are there. Our proposals are intended to remove the opportunity for them to carry out their business in public and to prevent such conduct from occurring in public. Therefore, in addition to making it clear that customers as well as prostitutes are liable to criminal sanctions for negotiating sex in a public place, the amendment specifies that if the activity takes place inside a motor vehicle in any public place or place open to public view, it is still an offence. The penalties that we are attaching to this new offence are identical to those that can be imposed at the present time under Section 195.1 of the Code. The court can impose a fine of not more than $500 or imprisonment for six months or both. When Bill C-18 which was enacted by this House earlier in the year becomes law, the maximum fine for a summary conviction offence will be increased to $2,000.
What are some of the problems the public feels that we must resolve for them in connection with street soliciting? These problems range from the slowing down or blockage of motor vehicle traffic as can be observed in Halifax, Vancouver, Calgary, Niagara Falls and Toronto as well as the slowing down or blockage of pedestrian movement on the sidewalks to active behaviour in connection with the selling of drugs, with pimping and with being accosted while walking down the street by persons who ask if a pedestrian wants sex or is prepared to sell sex. The residents of neighbourhoods into which street soliciting has moved complain that their property values are lowered, they are harassed by prostitutes or customers, there is noise and confusion and their children are exposed to the practice of the buying and selling of sex as part of their daily routine. These are the incidents of nuisance from which we must protect the public and this is why we are asking the House to deal with this Bill. As I indicated earlier, the Fraser Report verified the proportions of the problem which this behaviour has caused in some communities and it recommended that action be taken to correct this.
In interpreting the present provision, when the courts in effect emasculated the provision as an effective piece of enforcement machinery to deal with this problem-of course, we do not ascribe any blame to the courts in doing that as they are there to interpret the laws that this House enacts- municipalities attempted to get around what appeared to be a lacuna in the law, and they attempted to deal with street soliciting by initiating approaches of their own. They passed by-laws prohibiting street soliciting for the purposes of prostitution. However, in 1983, the Calgary by-law was struck down

September 9, 1985
Criminal Code
by the Supreme Court of Canada on the basis that the real character of that by-law was an attempt to control prostitution and that this was a function of criminal law that falls exclusively under federal jurisdiction. Montreal has passed a similar by-law which was also quashed by the Supreme Court of Canada. Montreal then imposed a further by-law which was directed at the sale of any service on public streets and that by-law withstood challenges in the lower courts. The City of Vancouver took a different approach and it eventually got an interim injunction to prevent street soliciting in certain areas. However, in Halifax, the same solution was attempted, but the court there rejected the attempt of the Province of Nova Scotia to obtain an injunction such as that which was obtained in Vancouver. Thus, it is a consensus of officials who are responsible for law enforcement, the mayors of the major cities and many community groups in the country that changes to the Criminal Code are required. Of course, the Fraser Committee has agreed in that respect as well.
This is an area in which there appears to be consensus in the minds of the public. The Fraser Committee had a national population survey conducted in 1984 to do with prostitution. This public opinion survey showed that 84 per cent of those surveyed found street prostitution unacceptable and that 71 per cent believed the police should be given more power to control adult street prostitution. I think it is clear that the Canadian public wants action taken in connection with street soliciting.
We know, and I acknowledge, that prostitution will not disappear as a result of these amendments. The amendments are not designed to attempt to make prostitution disappear. Prostitution is something that has been with us in society for as long as we have had organized societies. I suppose that is thousands of years. The prostitute has been with us just about as long as the judge has been with us. These are probably the world's two oldest professions. I am not suggesting we are dealing with other problems of prostitution. Later this fall, hopefully, we propose to introduce other legislation which will deal with different aspects of the prostitution problem, pornography and the like.
We have received two very complicated reports which deal with sensitive areas of human life. They are the Badgley Report and the Fraser Report. Both deal with areas not just of federal jurisdiction but areas of provincial jurisdiction. We have to consult with the provinces and many other interested groups across the country, which is why it is taking some time to formulate a response to those two reports and all the very sensitive and complicated matters with which they deal.
The Bill before us is here to remedy a specific problem which the public in our major cities wants dealt with. They want it dealt with now. They have been waiting far too long to have it dealt with. In fact, they have been waiting since 1978 and they do not propose to wait any longer. Since we have Hon. Members who are intensely interested in seeing this matter resolved, such as the Hon. Member for Vancouver
Centre the Hon. Member for Niagara Falls (Mr. Nicholson), and other Members from our large city constituencies, we are dealing with it. I hope that the House will deal with it quickly at this stage.
We believe that the public should be able to use the streets free from harassment, not only by prostitutes, but by their customers. We think residential neighbourhoods should be protected from the problems associated with street prostitution, which certainly diminishes the quality of life in these areas.
One of the principal purposes of the Bill is to preserve and protect the urban environment from this blight. However, I suggest it will also have the benefit of reducing the opportu-nites available to young people to become involved in prostitution. We all know that the street life attracts new participants. The number of prostitutes engaged in the trade, and their customers, when you see them on the streets of Toronto, Vancouver, Halifax, or wherever, is visible evidence of the fact that there is money to be made in pursuing these activities with relatively little effort. One who may be a runaway, or whatever can easily see where this activity can be engaged in and how he or she can engage in it so long as street soliciting is allowed to continue unimpeded, as it is at the present time. The number of prostitures in the street will continue to incease as long as there is a sufficient supply of customers. More customers are attracted to the street scene because of the availability of prostitutes. The cycle can be broken, I suggest, if the law provides an effective deterrent to both the customer and the prostitute. The customer who is faced with the prospect of arrest and prosecution is certainly going to be less likely to drive downtown to seek out a prostitute. A diminshed supply of customers is going to make the business less attractive to those who now make their living from it.
Some people argue, Mr. Speaker, that if the prostitute is forced to conduct his or her business elsewhere than on the street, they are going to be unprotected from the exploitation and violence of customers and pimps. I cannot see the connection, Mr. Speaker. The prostitute today is relatively unprotected from violence and exploitation by customers and pimps whether or not he or she solicits on the street. That is the terrible risk that anyone takes who engages in the business of being a prostitute. One never knows when there will be a customer who will turn out to be a monster and the fact that one solicits a customer on the street or privately somewhere else is not going to do away with that danger. The pimp is not there because there is soliciting being carried out on the streets. The pimp is there because of the nature of prostitution, because of the loneliness and the desperate state of many of the women who engage in prostitution and who feel they need protection, companionship or whatever. It is not because they are soliciting on the street that they feel they need a pimp, nor is the pimp there because the prostitute is on the street. He is there because he is a vicious and depraved type who is going to prey on whoever he can whether it happens to be a prostitute
September 9, 1985

on the street or in some other place. They will find a victim to prey on as long as there is prostitution.
As we all know, Mr. Speaker, we have always had prostitution. Therefore, I do not think the argument is sound that if we pass this Bill the dangers which arise from pimps and customers will increase. That danger is always there.
1 mentioned previously, Mr. Speaker, that we do not propose to pass this legislation and then to forget it. We must all be concerned about the rights of free speech and association, the right to be on the street and all of the other rights about which we are concerned. It is a delicate area and no one can be sure just how the legislation will be interpreted. That is why we have a provision for a review after three years.
Some people have suggested, and I believe wrongly, that this Bill will infringe upon the rights of free speech and association which are guaranteed in the Charter. We all know that the rights of free speech and association are not absolute. They are constrained by limits which are imposed in order to ensure that the freedom of one person does not violate that of another.
I do not think we can argue that just because one person has the right to be on the street it gives them the right to violate the rights of others. No one has an inalienable right to offer to sell or purchase sex on the streets. There is certainly no such inalienable right in the Charter of Rights and it is not marked anywhere that I have ever seen. There is no inalienable right to sell sex on the streets of this country and if this Bill is passed, Mr. Speaker, it will be positive proof that there is no such right. When the consequences of that kind of conduct becomes intolerable to the community, then parliament has a responsibility to act. We have a responsibility to the people who are affected in Vancouver, Calgary, Toronto, Halifax and Niagara Falls. They have a right to have us act on their behalf, and that is why this legislation is before the House.
I touched on the question of juvenile prostitution. I believe this Bill may be of some assistance in doing away with the high visibility of juvenile prostitution which attracts troubled youths to that practice. I believe that rather than increase the dangers from pimps and the like, it will have the other effect with respect to juvenile prostitution and should be of some help in making prostitution less attractive to those youths who may be heading in that direction. The new law, we hope, will help to salvage young prostitutes by removing them from the streets. Second, if they are removed from the strets, they no longer will be role models for other troubled young people who might view that kind of lifestyle as an acceptable and easy way to make a living.
1 mentioned earlier, Mr. Speaker, that the customers who solicit in public will be committing an offence under this Bill. The customer who solicits the services of a juvenile prostitute will, of course, be subject to prosecution. I think the knowledge that they can be charged themselves with attempting to pick up a young prostitute on the street will discourage those who have such propensities. It will certainly make it a less attractive proposition.
In 1983, the Standing Committee of the House of Commons on Justice and Legal Affairs in its report on street soliciting
Criminal Code
for the purpose of prostitution did recommend the creation of a new offence of offering or accepting an offer to engage in prostitution with a person under 18 years of age. However, we did not think that this approach would be a workable one. The Fraser Commission also adopted this type of approach. However the Badgley Commission went even further. It suggested that it be an offence for a young person to be a prostitute whether or not he or she solicits for the purpose of prostitution in a public place. That proposal would raise problems, Mr. Speaker, because it might offend the equality provisions of Section 15 of the Charter that guarantees every individual equality before and under the law and equal protection and benefit of the law without discrimination based on age. However, that can be discussed at a later time. The Badgley Commission recommendation on juvenile prostitution was not adopted by the Fraser Commission.
I have not yet heard any argument against this proposed legislation that is convincing in any way. This is a serious problem which has not been dealt with for too long. I will not mention who might have to accept any blame in that connection. Our Party has been in office now for a year. We introduced this legislation on May 2 last following receipt of the Fraser Commission on Badgley Commission Reports. We did attempt to come forward with this legislation last June but-and I do not believe I am over-emphasizing when 1 say this-the official critic of the New Democratic Party was not keen on this legislation. It may be that he will even be in opposition to it today. But I hope will have a reasonable debate which I feel could be completed in a day or two at the most. The Bill would then go to a committee which would hold hearings, representations would be received and, hopefully, we could have this piece of legislation passed in the next several weeks.
When this legislation goes to committee, I would not like the committee to, as we say in Newfoundland, "get into the fat". In Newfoundland when they go to a seal hunt, they "get into the fat" and they stay in the fat for many weeks or months. I hope that if this suggested legislation goes to committee, the legislative committee will deal very promptly with it and report back, because that is what is wanted by the citizens of Vancouver, the Niagara Peninsula and Toronto and all those who want to see their streets given back to the law-abiding citizens.
Those who want to see their neighbourhood cease to be despoiled, those who no longer want the traffic jams, the leering, the sneering and the soliciting, expect this Bill to be dealt with in all stages and passed over the next few weeks. The police have that hope and expectation as well because their hands have been tied in dealing with this problem certainly for the last five or six years, and really since 1978. I hope there will not be any attempt by the Opposition to straddle the issue by supporting second reading of the Bill and then coming up with a thousand equivocations and disputes in the committee stage, trying to hold up the Bill by way of the threat of a filibuster or the like.

September 9, 1985
Criminal Code
I visited Vancouver a month or so ago and I was delighted to be able to explain to the people of Vancouver what and who had held up the Bill last June. I delighted in explaining to them the ferocity of the reaction of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources who was extremely angry because I could not get the Bill before the House and passed last June. She is a formidable woman, I can assure you, and I believe she is going to speak today.
I hope we will have a constructive debate. It is a specific problem, one of nuisance. We all know that we are doing today will not resolve the problem of prostitution as a whole, but it will protect ordinary law-abiding citizens. It will enable those who represent our citizens, particularly in our metropolitan areas, to regain control of the streets. It is not a Bill which affects us in Newfoundland. Of course, we do not have this kind of activity in Newfoundland. But I am glad to be here on behalf of the people of Newfoundland to help the mainlanders resolve this pressing problem.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hon. Bob Kaplan (York Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I believe it is appropriate for us to begin with this Bill as we return from the summer break. It is an important subject and it is certainly time for Parliament to deal with it. The municipalities have tried to cope with the problem but they do not have the constitutional authority to do so. This is the place for that and I am glad that now is the time for Parliament to address the subject.
On behalf of my Party I can say that we are looking forward to a short debate. We certainly do not intend to prolong it. We are looking forward to the committee hearings and to action being taken; however, as I will indicate in a moment, we have some extremely grave reservations about the way the Government proposes to deal with the problem of street soliciting. I was astonished, I confess, to hear the Minister say that he has not heard any valid reservations over this legislation. I would remind him that this past weekend at the meeting in Yellowknife of the Canadian Federation of Municipalities practically the whole of the time was spent discussing the Minister's Bill. The municipalities are in the front line, they are more aware of the problem than anyone else, and they expressed their reservations about the solution the Government has put forward.
I would like now to say a word about the background of this Bill and the deteriorating situation in the streets of our cities which has led to the necessity for legislative action. The Minister outlined very well the legal developments since the Hutt decision in the Supreme Court of Canada which found that pressing and persistent behaviour was required in order to obtain a conviction under Section 195.1 of the Criminal Code. Since 1978 there has been a problem in our streets, one which has been steadily deteriorating. When the former Government established the Fraser Commission, it did so after a lot of national debate about how serious the problem was. When the Commission was established, the problem had become very serious and something had to be done about it. This was
confirmed by the public opinion polls to which the Minister referred.
What were some aspects of the problem? The issue on which the Minister focused almost exclusively was that of the nuisance in the streets. That is not the whole of the problem but it is certainly a very serious part. The Minister is right, our communities are entitled to legislation which removes street prostitution from being the visible nuisance, humiliation, harassment and embarrassment which it represents. The Official Opposition agrees with that. We also agree that the spectacle of street prostitution has increased the volume of prostitution in our society. There is no doubt about it; people, young people in particular, when they see this activity, can find role models and apparent solutions to the problem of earning a living and establishing a lifestyle. I believe that if we can find a method of reducing or removing street prostitution, we will also reduce the absolute amount of prostitution and save many young people who would otherwise, by the dynamics which have been described, be attracted to and sustained by prostitution. Furthermore, the street prostitute is exploited, and this is a serious factor. The domination and exploitation of women and young people has been increased by the fall-out from the Hutt decision in the years since 1978. As well, drugs have been infiltrated into this picture and organized crime has exploited the situation. All in all, there is, to the minds of those in the Official Opposition, a serious problem which needs to be addressed by Parliament now, and we are pleased that the Government is taking the opportunity to do so.
The Minister summarized the state of public opinion very well by reading from page 540 of the Fraser Commission Report. I will not read it again, but the fact that he read from it shows that he is aware of the report, and I hope that when the Bill goes to committee we can attract members of that commission to come forward and give us the benefit of their experience in analysing the problem. But to those who appreciate the Minister's recognition of the Fraser Report, it is worth pointing out that he overrides and rejects totally all of the important insights that the members of that Commission developed about the problem. In reading the report carefully, I have the feeling that they will be the first to attack and condemn the so-called solution which the Minister has put forward, and I hope he will take their concerns as seriously as he took their observation that the public deserves to be protected from street prostitution.
Given the Government's recognition of the problem, I would say that the solution proposed is a bankrupt and hypocritical one. It can be characterized almost literally as a band-aid solution. It is like putting a band-aid over a very serious social problem. People who look at it from their houses, their front porches, will see that the problem disappears from sight, but it will not disappear in fact. Anyone who considers this legislation carefully can predict that the problem of prostitution will become much worse. I recognize that the total amount will be reduced, and that will be a good thing, but the prostitution which will continue will be pushed into a much worse situation. It is not satisfactory for the Minister to tell us that we
September 9, 1985

will consider this matter in the fall because the band-aid solution which the Minister is proposing will lead to more serious crimes. It will condemn those who practise prostitution, much as we would like to encourage them to find other ways of making a living. It will make their lives for worse. I think it will lead to more corruption in police departments, to more power held by pimps, and to greater opportunity for organized crime.
The direct interface between the prostitute and the customer in the public place is being removed, but since, as the Minister admits, prostitution will continue, prostitutes will be far more at the mercy of the underworld and of the corrupt participant in the drug scene who will find them their clients. While we are not taking the brief for prostitutes, it is very difficult to ask us to support legislation which will create more crimes and put prostitutes in a more difficult, precarious, dangerous, and vulnerable situation.
Therefore, we cannot agree with the solutions proposed by the Government for that very reason. We must look behind the band-aid. The Fraser Commission proposed solutions in some areas to deal with those serious vices which will become worse if the Minister's Bill is accepted in its present form.
The Official Opposition has another very serious objection to this legislation. Most of the media that have commented on this Bill have expressed this objection most of the editorials condemning this Bill have emphasized it, that is, the civil liberties dimension. When one reads the language of Bill C-49 one sees that it vastly increases the power of the police in this country to arrest citizens.
I am concerned about the definition of "communication". It includes very minor gestures by an individual which can hardly be considered a street nuisance. Such gestures would not interfere with other members of the public on the street. I do not feel that such unobtrusive activities as that should attract police attention. As well, there is much more room for mistakes. The police are in a position to interpret activities which they see on the street in a way that can impede non soliciting activities in the street.
There must be better answers than those proposed by the Minister. Fraser has proposed some better answers. Although we want to see the problem addressed by legislation quickly, this legislation must bear the study of a parliamentary committee. It must bear the review of all the various groups in society that have been appalled to hear that a political Party which paraded itself as being civil libertarian before the election would bring forward as Draconian a measure as this. It not only removes street nuisance, which is a very desirable goal, but it inhibits a tremendous number of innocent activities which in no sense of the word constitute anything that could be called a nuisance by rate payers, as sympathetic as we are with their concerns, and as willing as we are to have the Criminal Code address those concerns and remove the problem of street prostitution.
Criminal Code
I indicated, Mr. Speaker, that it would not be the position of Her Majesty's Official Opposition to prolong this debate. A number of my colleagues have been very concerned about the problem of street prostitution for years. They have been outspoken proponents of various solutions for dealing with the problem. We encourage them all to speak. After dealing with the issue of support in principle we look forward to serious legislation dealing with the nuisance of street prostitution. We hope that the Government, which claims to have other plans for later in the fall, will bring those plans forward and allow us to hear the whole package dealing with this problem. In addition to making the problem disappear from the view of the front porch, we must deal in a humane and realistic way with the problem of prostitution which the Minister himself admits, and which we all know, will continue even after legislation is passed dealing with the problems created by the Hutt decision.


Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby):: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to be able to rise to speak on behalf of my colleagues in the New Democratic Party on this very important Bill. I would like to indicate clearly at the outset that we believe that the approach taken in this Bill is fundamentally wrong. It is wrong from the perspective of the victims of this crime, from the perspective of the communities in which soliciting takes place, and indeed from the perspective of a society which values the freedom of speech and civil liberties. It is an approach which reeks of hypocrisy. It is a sledge hammer approach which will, in the long run, do nothing other than aggravate the problem with which it purports to deal.
Before dealing with the substance of the legislation I would like to respond briefly to the suggestion made by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Crosbie) in the House today and recently in British Columbia that members of this Party-and 1 believe he went so far as to suggest that I in particular-sought to obstruct, delay, and refuse him the right to bring this Bill before the House of Commons. He suggested that he and his 210 Conservative colleagues were being single handedly thwarted by the Hon. Member for Burnaby. Mr. Speaker, I think the record makes clear that that is patent nonsense. The record and the reality is that it was not until the evening of Wednesday, June 26, two days before the House rose, that the Minister even attempted to bring this Bill before the House for second reading.
Not until June 26, at ten o'clock in the evening, did the Minister stand up to introduce the Bill for second reading. Any delay in the introduction of this Bill must rest squarely on the head of the Minister of Justice himself who did not even bother to bring the Bill forward until a couple of days before the House rose.
Having brought the Bill forward on Wednesday evening, did the Minister come back to the House on Thursday morning to move forward with this important legislation? We were prepared to debate this Bill recognizing the serious concerns of residents of Mount Pleasant and other residential communities who are victimized by this problem. No, Mr. Speaker, he made one feeble, gasping effort at ten o'clock on Wednesday evening and then dropped it. He did not come back to the House on

September 9, 1985
Criminal Code
Thursday to try again. He did not return to the House on Friday. He then went rushing off to British Columbia and bitterly attacked the Member for Burnaby because he did not co-operate with the Government. What horse feathers, what absolute nonsense on the part of the Minister of Justice. He and he alone must accept responsibility for the fact that this Bill was not brought forward until two days before the House rose this summer.
I said that the approach taken in this Bill is wrong. 1 would like to indicate why we in the New Democratic Party believe that this approach is wrong, but before I do so I want to indicate very clearly that all of my colleagues are gravely concerned about the reality in residential communities across the country. No one has worked harder and spoken out more eloquently on behalf of the concerns of residents of the Mount Pleasant area than my colleague, the Member of Parliament for that area, the Member for Vancouver East (Ms. Mitchell). My colleague will be speaking later in the course of this debate. We are aware of the fact that these residential communities are in an intolerable situation at the present time.
I received a letter from a woman who lives in an apartment on 23rd Avenue in Vancouver. She talked about the fact that she recently discovered a prostitute conducting business in the laundry room of her apartment building and her son being woken up at 3 a.m. on several occasions by arguments and fighting taking place outside his window at 8th and Fraser as well as cars screeching throughout the neighbourhood and fights taking place in the street between customers and clients.
No Member of the House is prepared to accept that kind of activity in residential communities, whether it be Mount Pleasant, the west end of Vancouver or anywhere else in the country. However, the question that arises is, what is the appropriate response? While there must be a response, of course, what is the appropriate response to this serious problem? More important, what about the Bill that is before the House at this time? Does it in fact constitute a measure that is an appropriate response to what is a serious problem in residential communities?
As has been stated, the Fraser Commission conducted an extensive study into the question of pornography and prostitution and examined a series of proposals, both short-term and long-term. It was a comprehensive package for dealing with what all of us recognize is the degrading practice of prostitution. It is a practice which depersonalizes sexual relations. However, when one examines the approach taken by the Fraser Commission, it becomes immediately clear that the Bill before the House today fundamentally rejects the entire thrust of the recommendations of the Fraser Commission. I say that for several reasons. First, let us deal with the short-term, specific elements of the Fraser Commission's response to the concerns of residential communities that they want to be able to live in peace and quiet. The Minister quoted extensively from page 540 of the Fraser Commission's Report. I believe he went so far as to say that the Fraser Commission has approved
the course of action that the Government is taking now. That is nonsense. In fact, the Fraser Commission has explicitly rejected the approach which the Government is taking in this legislation.
The Minister read about two-thirds of the way through page 540 but he did not read the following sentence:
We also believe that it should not be sufficient basis for attaching criminal responsibility that a prostitute or a customer offer to engage in prostitution. Apart from the fact that it is difficult to characterize this as an intolerable interference, the methods which would be employed by the police to secure convictions are unacceptable. While undercover and decoy work may be necessary in certain cases to provide a basis for prosecution in the case of serious crime, we see no justification for its use in dealing with this relatively minor form of criminality.
In other words, in dealing with a nuisance.
Interestingly enough, the Minister of Justice did not bother to read that provision of the Fraser Commission Report. Had he done so, it would have been immediately obvious that the Fraser Commission rejects the approach taken by the Government, even on the short-term provisions with respect to nuisance.
What does the Government's Bill actually do? First, it provides that those who impede or molest individuals and attempt to solicit for the purpose of prostitution in public places will be subject to a criminal sanction. It is a sanction of six months in jail or a fine of $2,000 to those who impede, molest or harass people on the sidewalks.
The Bill does not just deal with those who harass people on sidewalks or the streets. It could be argued that there is a legitimate concern which may have to be addressed by Criminal Code provisions if existing laws are inadequate to deal with those concerns.
However, the Bill goes far beyond that. The Bill states that every person who, in a public place or in any place open to public view, in any manner communicates or attempts to communicate with any person for the purpose of engaging in prostitution or of obtaining the services of a prostitute, is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction. I referred to a sledge hammer approach to the nuisance problem. Think of the implications of this particular clause as it deals with any form of communication whatsoever in any public place anywhere in Canada. What does it mean? What does it do for freedom of speech and civil liberties in this country? Does this include a nod in a crowded bar? Does it include a wink on the street? The answer is yes. Clearly, both of those are forms of communication, and as of the date of passage of this Bill those forms of communication will be branded criminal in this country. If that is not an assault on freedom of speech, if that is not an attack on civil liberties in this country, I do not know what is.
The Minister, in purporting to deal with the acknowledged nuisance in residential communities of those who would impede and harass individuals, goes far beyond that to deal with any form of communication, not just on the street or in alleyways but any form of communication in any public place. What possible justification can there be for that kind of attack on freedom of speech in Canada?
September 9, 1985

Certainly, no resident of Mount Pleasant, Niagara Falls, Toronto, Halifax or the west end has suggested in his or her representations to the House that those forms of communication in a public place anywhere in Canada should subject one to a sentence of six months in prison. It is absolutely unbelievable.
In fact, that is what the Bill does. The question we must ask is, what should have been done to respond to the genuine concerns of the residents of communities such as Mount Pleasant? Let me come to what we in the New Democratic Party propose as an alternative-I emphasize alternative-to the short-term problem of nuisance and harassment.
As well as dealing with the question of the over reaching aspects of this Bill in terms of freedom of speech, I want to look at some of the other implications of the Bill. We, as Members of Parliament can sit here in the Chamber and feel very proud of ourselves that we are sweeping the prostitutes off the streets. We will sleep well at night, knowing that that low life is gone.
Well, the implications of this Bill do not deal with just residential concerns. They go far beyond that. As pointed out by one member of the Fraser Commission, while it is all well and good to sweep prostitutes off the street and out of sight, under the existing laws, where do they go? According to this Bill, not only are they swept off the street, they are swept out of any public place anywhere in the country. We are not just dealing with the nuisance of street soliciting, we are dealing with any form of communication for the purpose of prostitution in any public place, anywhere in Canada. Under existing laws, under bawdy house laws in particular and other laws, any activity in a private place involving prostitution on more than a couple of occasions makes that private place a bawdy house.
What the Government believes it is doing is eradicating prostitution from all public places. It is already a criminal activity in all private places. The Government is saying that it is prepared to eliminate prostitution in Canada. That is the effect of this Bill, Mr. Speaker. One has to state only the proposition to recognize how ludicrous it is.
I am sure all of us would seek the eradication of prostitution as our objective. It is a practice that degrades and exploits women and young people. The reality is, as was clearly recognized by the Fraser Commission, that social and economic changes, and those changes alone, have any hope of ending the scourge of prostitution, and until we come to grips with them we will not eliminate prostitution in Canada. What this Bill will do, in concert with the existing bawdy house laws which must be repealed, is to drive prostitutes directly underground.
Let us think of the implications of that for a moment. It will not be that much of a problem for the wealthy, for the call-girls, for the Wendy Kings whose clients are the wealthy, the establishment, the lawyers, the judges, the doctors and those who can afford to pick up the phone and phone the Wendy Kings, the call-girls. Their business will carry on as
Criminal Code
usual. But what about the others, Mr. Speaker? What about the kids on the street? What will this Bill do about the problem of young boys and girls on the streets? Not only does the Bill not address the problem of kids on the street, but it makes their plight worse. It means that kids can be charged as prostitutes and be thrown in jail or fined. Is that really the answer to the social tragedy of juvenile prostitution? Is that really what this Government is proposing as a serious response to the tragedy in our communities of kids who sell their bodies to survive?
No other answer has been put forward by this Government. Indeed, we see the spectre of provincial Governments shutting down existing services for juvenile prostitutes. The Senator Hotel in Vancouver at least gave kids a roof over their heads and got them off the streets and the people tried to train them for jobs. But what did the Social Credit Government do in British Columbia? It shut the project down.
This Bill does nothing whatsoever to deal with the problem of juvenile prostitution. In 1983, when we studied this problem, if there was one unanimous recommendation by the House of Commons Justice Committee, it was to take tough and effective measures to deal not with juveniles, kids, not to throw them in jail, but to deal with the customers of juvenile prostitution. Where in this Bill put forward by the Government is there any attempt to deal with the customers of juvenile prostitutes? Nowhere, Mr. Speaker. Instead, the effect of this Bill would throw kids in jail.


John Carnell Crosbie: And their customers.


Svend Johannes Robinson: For over a year the Government has been studying the recommendations of a major commission that dealt with the sexual abuse of children in Canada. I speak of the Badgley Commission Report. That report should have been acted on long ago. Only in this month is the Department of Justice finally sending out a series of questions and discussion papers asking for comment on the report. Where has the Government been for the last year? Why was that process of discussion and consultation not started immediately after the Badgley Commission Report was tabled? If the Government is serious about dealing with prostitution of young people, it should start dealing with some of the social and economic causes, including the taking of effective measures to deal with the sexual abuse of young people.
It has been argued that this Bill will be equal in that it will be applied to both customers and prostitutes. That is on paper, Mr. Speaker. The reality has been, I venture to suggest, very different.
In Ontario, for example, the police can charge both customers and prostitutes. The experience has shown clearly that prostitutes are charged overwhelmingly. In 80 per cent of the cases prostitutes, and not customers, are charged, despite the fact that the law is supposedly equal in its application.
What are some of the other effects of this sledge-hammer approach to prostitution put forward by the Government? In effect, it will put prostitutes through the old revolving door of arrests, fines, jail for those unable to pay fines, and then it will

September 9, 1985
Criminal Code
be back to the street for them, working that much harder or back to the seedy hotels to pay off their fines, and being in jail exposes them that much more to criminal influence. There will be a few who will not go to jail, because we all know that the police use prostitutes, in many cases, as a very effective means of surveillance of the community within which they work. Deals will be made because the police will have their club if this Bill passes. Certainly the police will use it and they will use it with a vengeance.
The Government has brought this Bill forward because the police have thrown up their hands and said, "We are powerless to act. We have no tools. We need this change in the criminal law".
It might be one thing for the police to come before Parliament if they had tried to use the existing tools but they have not done that. I speak of the existing nuisance provisions of the Criminal Code and of other provisions of the Criminal Code, of provincial highway traffic legislation, of by-laws, not those rejected by the Supreme Court but by-laws which were carefully drafted by local municipalities to respond to the concern of those municipalities about nuisances in residential communities.
Where by-laws have been carefully drawn, they have been upheld by the courts. The Minister himself conceded that the Montreal by-law was upheld by the courts. Surely it is within the constitutional jurisidction of a local community to say that it is not prepared to accept that kind of harassment and nuisance in its community. Indeed, I want to commend the Mayor of Ottawa, Marion Dewar, for the sensitive approach that she has taken on this question. She recognized that it is not acceptable in her community, just as it is not acceptable in any other community, for soliciting to take place in residential areas. Therefore, as a result of a combination of community policing and other measures which she has been prepared to take, prostitution and soliciting have not been problems in residential communities. In fact there are alternatives. I very much regret that in my view it is residents of areas such as Mount Pleasant and of the west end of Vancouver, until the injunction, who have been manipulated and used to a certain extent as guinea pigs in the fight by police forces for this repressive legislation.
We will see the revolving door syndrome. In fact, this Bill will make prostitutes more reliant on pimps to obtain customers for them. If they cannot solicit in a public place and if any place where they are acting in private is considered a bawdy house, the only way they will be able to obtain customers is through reliance on pimps. Certainly that means increased violence and the possibility of more organized criminal involvement in prostitution.
By adopting this Criminal Code approach, prostitutes will be given criminal records, which, once again, makes it that much harder for them to get off the streets and out of prostitution. It condemns them to remain in that vicious cycle
of arrest, fine, back to prostitution, more violence and ultimately, in many cases, death.
I have mentioned the problem in terms of threat to civil liberties. In that context I want to mention as well the very real threat to women who in fact are lawfully going about their business in our communities. Under the provisions of this Bill, those women can be harassed as well by the police as they go shopping or as they wave at someone they recognize in the street. This Bill opens up tremendous possibilities of abuse with respect to women who are not in any way engaged in prostitution but will be subject to harassment under the provisions of the legislation. The approach is a piecemeal one. It is an approach which has been explicitly rejected by the Fraser Commission. Certainly it is one to which we in the New Democratic Party are strongly opposed.
I have mentioned the rejection by the Fraser Commission of both the short-term response of the Government and of its failure to move forward in terms of meaningful social and economic programs. The Fraser Commission indicated that it saw no virtue in replacing the present system with a more repressive regime. It indicated that there was no evidence in the history of this country or of those countries such as the United States which retain a Draconian system that the results of such a move would justify it. Indeed, we are inclined to think that a move in that direction would subvert any attempt to treat prostitution sensibly as a major social problem. Despite that, the Government insists upon proceeding with this legislation.
I have mentioned that in fact there are alternatives. What are those alternatives for residential communities? I have talked about the possibility of the Criminal Code provisions already in effect being used-the nuisance provisions of the Criminal Code. For example, Section 171 of the Criminal Code makes very clear reference to a number of the acts which are going on in residential communities and which we recognize as unacceptable. There are other provisions of the Criminal Code as well which could be used. I am not convinced that where conduct is aggravating and pressing the police could not move forward even under the existing provisions of Section 195 of the Criminal Code. They do not have to rely on that in residential communities. As I said, there are the existing provisions of the Criminal Code. There are provincial laws with respect to traffic-highway traffic and impeding traffic. There is a whole series of municipal laws and indeed the possibility of municipal by-laws. It is argued that a municipal by-law is like a ticket. However, the reality is that the greatest risk for a customer is exposure. A customer does not care whether he is charged under a traffic by-law in the City of Vancouver or under the Criminal Code of Canada. A customer is afraid of public exposure of his name. I suggest that a name can be exposed just as effectively under a traffic by-law as it can under the Criminal Code of Canada.
There are alternatives. I have mentioned the alternatives within the legal framework. Certainly there are alternatives within the social framework in terms of greater community policing and collective community action to deal with these
September 9, 1985

problems. In particular, I comend the residents of Mount Pleasant who have addressed a number of these community proposals for dealing with what is a community problem. However, in looking at this Bill, I think it is also important to look at the objectives not only of the Government but of the police themselves. I could do no better than quote Staff Inspector William Donaldson of the morality branch of the Metro Toronto Police who said:
We are the last people in the world to believe we can stamp out prostitution but ... we can force it into the several seedy motels and hotels and rooming houses downtown and knock those once in a while to keep it under control.
Is that really the answer, which the Government is suggesting is appropriate, to the serious problem of prostitution? I suggest that it is a pretty cynical cop-out to what is a serious problem.
I have dealt with some of the short-term problems in terms of nuisance and so on. We as a community or a society have to come to grips with the fact that this is a fundamental social and economic problem, a problem which reflects the broader sense of exploitation and degradation of women in our society. It is a problem which ultimately relfects the sexist nature of our society, in that women continue to be dealt with unequally, economically and socially. Women continue to be victims of sexism in advertising. Women continue to be victims of violence, whether it be wife battering, which we know is a problem that touches all levels of our communities, sexual harassment, rape or other forms of violence. As well, they continue to be victims of pornography. It is only when we come to grips with these things that we will be able to deal with the underlying causes of prostitution. It is about time that we started to come to grips with these problems.
Also I commend the Fraser Commission for recognizing that there is a number of concrete steps which could and should be taken to deal with these concerns. For example, it recommended a series of measures to deal with the economic and social concerns in this area. It dealt with the whole question of improved child care facilities, retraining programs for women to assist them to get out of prostitution, extension of benefits to part-time workers and changes to social benefits legislation in order to allow women to support their families adequately. Indeed, recommendations were made by a group in Vancouver, the Alliance for the Safety of Prostitutes in Vancouver. They were concrete steps to assist women to get out of the vicious treadmill of prostitution. For example, it proposed the establishment of drop-in storefront centres to provide health care, family planning information, legal services, court advocacy and welfare appeals. It went on to point out that the instances of prostitution could be reduced if some or all of the following services were available to ease the financial burden for single women and sole support mothers: day care, which I mentioned earlier, so that single parent prostitutes could obtain regular jobs; student grants to allow prostitutes to improve their education or job skills; co-operative housing to reduce the cost of living of single parents or single women; an increase in welfare payments so that welfare women would not have to resort to prostitution on the last few
Criminal Code
days before their next cheque arrives; an increase in the minimum wage so that low-income women would not have to resort to prostitution to make ends meet; and special training for social workers and police who do not presently know how to deal with prostitutes.
In this connection, before closing, Mr. Speaker, perhaps 1 could quote from the words of a young woman who is in fact a prostitute about the nature of that life. Those words lead me to ask why on earth we should be further victimizing these individuals. What kind of society is it that further victimizes women who are already victims and in many cases have suffered from sexual abuse as children? Studies have shown that as many as 80 per cent of these women suffered from sexual abuse and violence. The overwhelming number of these women would, given the choice, want to get off the streets and out of the life of prostitution. A recent study carried out in Winnipeg, Manitoba, by the YWCA and the Elizabeth Fry Society revealed that over 90 per cent of the city's prostitutes wanted to get out of the business. That is not surprising given the levels of violence, assault, degradation, humiliation and depersonalization that exist. However, these women need support. They need job-training skills and education upgrading.
We can sit comfortably here in Parliament and pass laws which sweep this problem out of sight. It is very easy for us to do that. However, by doing that, we are failing the people we should be representing. We are failing our communities because we are doing nothing whatsoever to deal with the underlying causes of prostitution. I spoke of the hypocrisy of hearing the Attorney General of British Columbia calling for tough new sanctions against prostitutes while his Government hammers single women, makes it impossible for them to survive and shuts down hostels for juvenile prostitutes. That is hypocrisy of the worst sort.
With whom are we dealing? One young woman has spoken about her life. She has said the following:
Why do we turn so much away from the straight life? Because we're not even considered part of society. For example, to rent a place, you need to put down your occupation. You can't get a bank loan, buy a car. .. You need to come up with stories. So you live in a world that is strictly cash ... When you leave the business, you have to start at the bottom again. People ask what you've been doing the last five years. Society is what shapes how girls get out of the business. The minute you try to do anything like open a busines with money, the government is down your back. You have to fight the whole world. You try to make it back into the system, get fired, and then people ask, 'Why didn't you make it.'
For years I had a very low self esteem. Society's attitudes makes one feel different about themself. The reinforcement that you're a whore, that you're nothing, that you're a low life does have an impact on how you feel about yourself. If you're constantly being told that, given the same message for years and years and years by society, by the social agencies, by the police force, by your family, you can't help but have a low self esteem and it's only in the last couple of years that I've started feeling good about myself. For years I didn't.
We as parliamentarians are being asked to respond to a crisis in residential communities. However, 1 suggest that the response of this Government is profoundly mistaken. I would hope that when this Bill goes to committee, we will give the opportunity to speak to those who do have serious concerns

September 9, 1985
Criminal Code
about the Bill. I hope we give the opportunity to speak to representatives of the Canadian Advisory Council on the Status of Women who have spoken out strongly against this Bill, representatives of the National Association of Women and the Law and representatives of many other women's groups. I hope we will give this opportunity to civil liberties groups as well as encourage members of the Fraser Commission and representatives of the communities affected to come before the committee. It is my ultimate hope that this Parliament will recognize that it is not by taking a sledge-hammer to civil liberties, and not by this assault on women that we will deal with this nuisance. We will deal with it in the short term, only by taking the kinds of measures to which I referred earlier in terms of community responses and, in the longer term, by recognizing that we as a community must deal with social and economic causes of prostitution. Only in this way will we begin to recognize the nature of this problem.


Mr. Rob Nicholson (Niagara Falls):: Mr. Speaker, it is an honour for me to participate in this debate. It is one of which I am very appreciative in view of the particular concerns of the people of my riding. I am also pleased that this Bill is the first matter on Parliament's agenda for the fall sitting of the thirty-third session of Parliament.
Many of the subjects of debate in this Chamber come and go in our communities and very little notice is taken of them. I can tell Hon. Members that this debate will be watched very carefully by the people of Niagara Falls. This is a problem that concerns them and it is a problem that has concerned me for some time. It is a matter on which I have spoken with the Minister of Justice (Mr. Crosbie) and my colleagues on the Justice Committee. Indeed, I believe the first words that I spoke as a Member of Parliament in this Chamber urged the House to deal with this very serious problem of solicitation for the purposes of prostitution.
I would like to give the House a bit of the background of this problem and in particular mention how it affects the community of Niagara Falls. I think we all know, and it is conceded by Members on all sides of the House, that the problem of prostitution will never disappear. However, I think it is incumbent upon us as Parliamentarians and indeed upon all members of society to do what we can to control and reduce this problem, and, as the Hon. Minister of Justice has indicated, to decrease its attractiveness to misguided young people.
In my community, the problem of prostitution increased dramatically after the Supreme Court of Canada in 1978 in the case entitled Regina versus Hutt. As Members of the House are aware, that case indicated that for a conviction under the present soliciting Section of the Criminal Code, the solicitation must be pressing and persistent. To all intents and purposes, at that point and in subsequent cases, that Section of the Criminal Code became useless when trying to control and deal with this problem. It made the buying and selling of sex on our streets legal for all intents and purposes. At that time and since, it has constituted a problem for many of the major communities, some of which were enumerated by the Minister
of Justice in his remarks. It became a particular problem in the City of Niagara Falls for a number of reasons.
Niagara Falls, as I am sure all Members are aware, is a border city. On the American side of the border there are a number of large communities, the largest of which is Buffalo, New York. Shortly after the 1978 Supreme Court decision, there was a crackdown on prostitution in New York State. Tougher laws and regulations were enacted and these were particularly useful and successful in the City of Buffalo. Niagara Falls, because of its proximity and even because of its warm climate, became very attractive. It is a fact, a fact of which I am sure most Members are aware, that the streets of a place like Niagara Falls are much safer for every kind of business, legal or illegal, than the streets of a large American city like Buffalo.
Niagara Falls was and remains to this day for the most part a quiet, middle-class community with safe streets. However, therein lies the problem. According to various estimates, as this problem increased after 1978, there were on any given night approximately 100 prostitutes crossing the Canadian border to do business in the City of Niagara Falls. As the representative of that community, I should be very careful to make sure that parliamentarians understand that this problem is basically confined to one area of Niagara Falls. It is not the tourist area which is affected. Niagara Falls remains the primary family tourist destination on this continent. That has not changed. Millions of tourists come and go and are never exposed to the problem. It is the residents of the city who have suffered since 1978. The quality of life in that particular area of town has deteriorated in a number of ways.
During the election campaign last summer when I was knocking on doors, as many other Members of Parliament did, the problem of soliciting was put forward to me time and time again. Home-owners asked me who would buy their homes when there is this problem out their front doors. It is there all the time-day and night. I was told by home-owners that no one wants to buy their houses and that property values are declining. The houses that they have worked all their lives to buy cannot be sold.
It was not just home-owners who were concerned about property values who voiced their concerns about this problem. I heard all types of stories from people who told me that their wives could not go to the store any more. If they attempted to go to the local confectionary they would be bothered by people who know of the prostitution problem in that part of the city. People in their cars slow down and blow their horns at women who are legitimately going to the stores to shop. They are being harassed and insulted.
The shopkeepers also suffer as a result of this problem. They all tell me the same story. They ask me why anyone would want to come to this part of the city to shop. There are many other places where people can go to shop in the city. Areas of Niagara Falls in which commercial stores have been located
September 9, 1985

since long before the turn of the century are feeling the pinch. These are the people who have been talking to me.
However, there is an even more sinister element to the problem. The Fraser Report, and others, have indicated that prostitution is not the only result of the problem. There are many other types of associated problems which come with it. It is estimated that approximately 60 per cent of the individuals engaged in prostitution are also heavily engaged in the drug trade. 1 found this summer that not only were there crimes involving drugs but other crimes as well. 1 am speaking of crimes of violence involving prostitutes, pimps and the customers of this business. It has come to the point where words cannot describe how seriously the people of this particular area feel.
A couple of weeks ago the employees of the largest department store in this area of town, Rosbergs Department Store, asked me if I could meet with them. They told me story after story of how they were scared to go into parking lots to get their cars no matter what time of the day or night. They told me of how they were treatened with beatings by pimps who felt that they may be trying to infringe on the territory of the prostitutes under their charge. These are the people who are looking to Parliament to do something about this problem. We have heard a number of solutions. The City of Niagara Falls tried a number of them. A number of years ago we adopted what has been referred to as the Calgary by-law. However, quite correctly, that by-law was struck down by the courts as being unconstitutional. Judge Hubert Oliver described the by-law in this way:
The Aldermen may not like hookers on Calgary streets but it is Parliament that must provide solutions. Municipalities must not assume that function by the enactment of what is, in essence, criminal law.
I say to the Members of this House that that stand is exactly correct. It is not for the regional municipalities or the provinces to find the solution. The solution should be found here in Parliament. Any suggestion to the contrary is simply passing the buck. What we are dealing with is Criminal Code legislation. It is unfair to say to the municipalities: "Take a go at it. See if you can skirt the criminal law." It is unfair to allow them to spend the money litigating and paying the lawyers' bills in the hope that one day they will make it and have their solution approved by the Supreme Court in the process. The responses taken by municipalities were taken because Members of Parliament did not come to grips with their responsibilities. This is why I am pleased that after seven years we have Bill C-49, a Bill which finally addresses the problem.
The Fraser Report was recently released. It has been referred to by my colleagues. As I have said, it is of particular interest to me because of my involvement with the problem. It was an exhaustive and extremely thorough study. I believe it points out the complexities and difficulties of dealing with the subject of prostitution, as well as with the subject of pornography. However, I believe the amendments which it asks us to make to the Criminal Code would not be as effective as the ones proposed in Bill C-49. It bothers me when I see the
Criminal Code
suggestion proposed by the Fraser Commission to amend Section 171(1). 1 see words which state that it becomes an offence for everyone to stand, stop, wander about in or drive through a public place for purposes of offering to engage in prostitution or of employing the services of a prostitute or prostitutes and on more than one occasion to beckon to, et cetera. This is part of the problem we have before us. The problem with the present legislation is the "pressing and persistent" aspect of it. I do not want to see any reference to that in the legislation which is before Parliament.
In addition, I have serious reservations about one of the other recommendations found in the Fraser Report. It states that it becomes an offence for everyone to disturb the peace and quiet of the occupants of a dwelling by engaging in certain forms of conduct, including prostitution, et cetera. I see potential difficulties with that suggestion as well. The people who are bothered by the problem of prostitution in my communities are not bothered by one prostitute on one occasion who disturbs the enjoyment of the dwelling. It is a cumulative process. It is a problem which continues day and night, and one which continues over a long period of time. I ask Members of this House what dwelling owner will say that, yes, a particular woman or man on a particular occasion has unnecessarily disturbed the peace and quiet of his home? My guess is that the courts would make very short work of that. It is something which would have to come before Parliament again. We would have to make other changes in order to make the law effective. This is why I believe the Bill before us provides the solution we are looking for.
I reject the comments of the member of the Official Opposition and the member of the New Democratic Party who have said that the Bill before us is a Draconian measure and that an innocent nod or wave would somehow land a person before the courts. I believe that the police who are trying to deal with the problem have tried to deal with it responsibly and effectively. I know that the members of the Opposition who have spoken have legal backgrounds. They should know that there are protections provided by the court. As the Minister of Justice has said, every single Criminal Code charge in the country has to be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. All the protections which are built into the Criminal Code in a British justice system will apply to Bill C-49. Thus I reject out of hand any suggestion to the contrary.
I cannot over-state the concerns expressed to me by the Mayor of Niagara Falls and other members of City Council when they heard that Parliament would be dealing with this issue first. The Mayor asked me to express his concerns. 1 think the Mayor of the City of Niagara Falls put it very succinctly when he wrote, and I quote:
-the current status quo of the Criminal Code of Canada as it pertains to this problem of street solicitation regarding prostitution is totally unacceptable to our law-abiding citizens. Indeed, it is perceived by many of our citizens that those who will not live within the law and abide by the laws of our municipalities and our country appear to have more rights than our law-abiding citizens. Our Regional Municipal Police Force is most frustrated in that in the practical sense

September 9, 1985
Criminal Code
they cannot keep these incidents of blatant prostitution solicitation under control.
It is my understanding that some Members of Parliament have concerns about the human rights issues related to Bill C-49. May I say to them most strongly: please look at this most important legislation in the broadest sense: The rights of all citizens who live within the law must be protected. Human rights must be relevant to lawfulness. Those who live outside the law should not have rights which take precedence over those who live within the law.
It is signed by William S. Smeaton, Mayor.
Let me say, Mr. Speaker, that many times parliamentarians complain that what goes on in this Chamber does not matter. They feel it is not reported and is of no concern. But I assure them that this is a very important debate. The people of Niagara Falls, Calgary, Halifax, Vancouver and Toronto do not want this debate prolonged. They do not want to see a filibuster on this Bill. Indeed, I will be presenting a petition this afternoon from 2,000 residents of Niagara Falls, who have expressed the sentiments of tens of thousands of residents of my home town. They want Bill C-49 passed immediately by this Parliament. I believe the sentiments expressed in the petition are sentiments which are shared by our citizens right across this country. I believe that parliamentarians would be doing a service to themselves and to everyone in Canada if we expedited the passing of Bill C-49.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, I have a brief question for my colleague, the Hon. Member for Niagara Falls (Mr. Nicholson). He has certainly been very eloquent in expressing the concerns of the residents of Niagara Falls with respect to the very serious problem of street soliciting in his community, and I recognize that concern. But why is it that the Hon. Member believes that we should support and in fact immediately pass legislation which does not just deal with the problem of street soliciting? That is the only concern he has addressed, and quite properly so, in his remarks. Why is it that the Hon. Member believes we should in fact pass a piece of legislation which deals with any form of communication in any public place anywhere in Canada?
I suggest that none of the Hon. Member's constitutents have raised as a great concern the possibility that there may be an offer of solicitation in a bar, pub or other public place. The concern raised by the Hon. Member for Niagara Falls is about street soliciting in public places. Section 195.1(1 )(a) and (b) deals with stopping or attempting to stop motor vehicles and impeding the free flow of pedestrian and vehicular traffic and so on. Paragraph (c) even refers to stopping or attempting to stop any person. Why does my hon. friend believe it essential that we go beyond the concern of dealing with street soliciting to any form of communication, not just on the streets but in any public place anywhere in Canada?
The Hon. Member referred disapprovingly to the recommendation of the Fraser Commission that the legislation require more than one occasion of standing, stopping, wandering about or driving through a public place. He suggested that that is encoded in the existing law. With respect, that is simply not the case. The Supreme Court of Canada said that repeated approaches to different people are not covered by Section 195(1). That is a problem.
There is no such suggestion in the proposal of the Fraser Cofnmission. Indeed, the proposal of the Fraser Commission explicitly deals with repeated approaches to different individuals. I do not buy the argument of the Hon. Member with respect to more than one approach.
I have in effect a double-barrelled question. Why is there this sweeping extension into any public place anywhere in Canada when the Hon. Member's reported concern is street soliciting? Second, what is the Hon. Member's real concern with the proposal of the Fraser Commission in this area?


Rob Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member wants to know why I support the proposition that this offence be related to any public place. Why drive it off the streets into the bus stations? We do not want soliciting in the bus stations, in the parks, on the sidewalks, the streets, or any public place. The Hon. Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson) is very correct when he says, what sort of behaviour we are trying to control is spelled out very clearly. He mentions a communication anywhere in Canada. Well, it is communication for the purpose of engaging in prostitution or obtaining the services of a prostitute. That is what this legislation is directed towards. I believe that is the problem it will control.
The Hon. Member wants to know why there is an urgency with respect to this particular element of prostitution, street soliciting. The Minister of Justice (Mr. Crosbie) has indicated that this Parliament is prepared to deal with the other aspects of this problem but there is an urgency because the police have lost control of the streets. When the legislative committee meets I hope one of the superintendents of the Niagara Falls police will appear and I believe he will say the same thing. The police cannot control that problem and all the associated problems. In fact, in many cases the prostitutes welcome police surveillance because they feel it makes it even safer to do business. It is basically legal to solicit in Canada and now they will have police protection. Because the police have lost control of the streets it is very appropriate that Parliament comes forward with Bill C-49 which deals directly with a problem which affects so many people in my community, the Hon. Member's community and in hundreds of communities across Canada.


Mr. Nunziata:: Mr. Speaker, what causes me considerable concern with respect to Bill C-49 is the civil libertarian aspect and the possible abuse by the police of this particular section. I am concerned about that the powers which would be given to the police forces in the country and the innocent people who might be subjected to harrassment. I would like to ask the Hon. Member first whether he feels that this particular piece of legislation gives too much discretion and power to the police? Would the Hon. Member not agree that this particular piece of legislation could result in innocent persons being harrassed by police officers?


Rob Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, I believe this section will be treated like other sections of the Criminal Code. There is always the possibility with every single section of the Criminal Code that there could be police abuse. 1 have spoken
September 9, 1985


STATEMENTS PURSUANT TO S.O. 22
[Stage Direction]
to members of the police force in my own community and have read comments made by members of the police in other communities and they indicate that they sincerely want to address the problem. What I said earlier in my remarks I will say again to the Hon. Member. All the protections of our system of justice will apply equally to this amendment to the Criminal Code. The Hon. Member asks if police power could be abused. I suppose it could be abused with respect to every single section of the Criminal Code. There is no doubt about that. If the Hon. Member is asking me whether 1 believe it will be abused, I can say from my own experience that I do not believe so. The law is specific as to what Parliament is trying to do. I believe it is better worded than many of the sections in the Criminal Code with which the police forces now have to deal. They are sometimes vague and leave too much discretion. But this section is very specific and anyone who is charged, as 1 have indicated, has all of the protections of our system of justice, and that is a good thing.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Order! It being one o'clock, I do now leave the chair until two o'clock this afternoon.
At 1 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.

Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Before proceeding to Standing Order 22, there is a traditional matter I would like to deal with. You will see in front of you a new group of pages. Perhaps the House would join me in welcoming them.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: I can assure you from my meetings with them that they are at least as good as the group we had last year, and I think they may turn out to be letter. They have as a group successfully passed the recognition test regarding Members more quickly than I did.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


NATIONAL SOVEREIGNTY
Mr. Len Hopkins (Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of utmost importance to all Canadians, that is, those Canadians who are not part of the federal Conservative Government. This summer we witnessed the passage of the American Coast Guard ice breaker The Polar Sea through the Northwest Passage. This was undertaken without requesting the permission of the Canadian Government.
We have also seen the Government take credit for something which was largely the result of a Liberal Government's efforts-the North Warning System. We are constructively spending a great deal of money on this new system for North American air defence and surveillance. We have been told it will greatly improve our position in the North and help increase our claim of sovereignty over the disputed Arctic region. However, within months of announcing the new North Warning agreement with the U.S., the Government severely undermined any claims to sovereignty which would have developed from that system.
The silence of the entire Government, including the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney), the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) and the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Nielsen), has sent a signal to all interested parties that we are not prepared to defend what we think is ours.
The Prime Minister and his Government have once again proven to all Canadians that this is a spineless Government based on reckless rhetoric on the one hand and totally irresponsible silence on the other.


FAMILY VIOLENCE
Ms. Margaret Mitchell (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, the recent conviction of a Member of Parliament highlights once again the grave problem of wife assault. Canadian women expect their elected representatives to treat this matter very seriously and to be positive examples as public figures. They are disappointed that the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) has not acted on his election promise to provide financial leadership, intervention and co-operation with the provinces. Instead, he has drastically cut transfer payments to the provinces which will curtail services for battered women.
This latest incident symbolizes the seriousness of domestic violence and the responsibility of each MP to speak out against battering, as well as the need for government action. Women in northern communities are at particular risk and have few protections or services, according to recent studies sponsored

September 9, 1985
by the territorial Government. Communities throughout Canada urgently need funds to establish and maintain shelters.
Constituents in the Western Arctic have called for the resignation of their MP and they will deal with him at the polls. I challenge the Prime Minister not to ignore this incident. He must publicly condemn wife battering and prove his concern by acting now to fulfil his election promises and provide special funding for emergency shelters for battered women and their children.
 * *


SUPPORT FOR THE SPEAKER
Mr. J. R. Ellis (Prince Edward-Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, this statement refers directly to you so I beg your indulgence.
Over the summer I noticed the combined media at one point came down on you with both muddy feet. You were accused of everything from recommending profligate spending, and heavy-handed treatment of the House, to lacking the confidence of the Members. 1 want to go on record as one member of this Party, and I suspect I speak for many of my colleagues, in extending my full support to you and your office.
In the first year of your speakership you have added a much needed modicum of wit and humour to one of Canada's most difficult positions. Despite criticism you have dealt fairly with all Members, displaying a patience and courtesy I would not have believed possible. You have presented your rulings firmly, soundly, and with tact and dignity. I congratulate you on your first year in office and I look forward to the year ahead with you in the chair.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member knows that messages of congratulation under Standing Order 22 are out of order.


COMMUNICATIONS
Mrs. Claudy Mailly (Gatineau):: Mr. Speaker, residents in the riding of Gatineau and some residents in Hull-Aylmer do not have a telephone system commensurate with their needs. Because of long-distance charges within the municipality of Gatineau, and in some cases this means when calling from one side to the other side of the same street, between the municipalities of Buckingham and Gatineau, and between Gatineau and Aylmer, customers are more likely to do their shopping in Ottawa, where they can call without long-distance charges.
Mr. Speaker, it is not fair that large and small businesses, in Gatineau, Buckingham and Aylmer should suffer this kind of disadvantage compared to businesses in Ottawa, and that families cannot communicate with each other without paying additional charges. On the Ontario side, communities in the suburbs can call locally, except for one community where the problem is the same.
Mr. Speaker, we must have equity, and we ask Bell Canada to finally take a serious look at this aspect of its telephone services in the National Capital Region.
Later on I will be presenting a petition from 10,000 residents in the area who would like to feel that they are really part of the National Capital Region and enjoy the same rights and receive the same services as their fellow citizens.


SPACE WEAPONRY
[Stage Direction]
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine
East): Mr. Speaker, on Saturday, September 7, the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) announced that the Canadian Government would not participate in star wars research but that Canadian business would be free to do so. What kind of double talk is that? Either star wars will escalate the nuclear arms race, or it will not. Either it will destabilize world peace, or it will not. If the Canadian Government has concluded that it will destabilize and lead to escalation, then to condone participation by Canadian business is nonsense. It is an attempt to play both sides of the fence at the same time. In addition, there is considerable opinion that the Prime Minister's decision violates our legal obligations under the non-proliferation and anti-ballistic missile treaties.
When nations disagree with some practice internationally, Mr. Speaker, whether apartheid or the invasion of Afghanistan, the restrictions apply to their nationals and businesses as well as to their Governments. The Prime Minister's decision reminds me of Pontius Pilate who washed his hands and said he would not condemn Christ to death, but left the mob free to do so. Star wars is wrong, not only for the Canadian Government but for Canadian business as well.

Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg-Birds Hill):: Mr. Speaker, on May 2, I asked the Minister of Transport (Mr. Mazankowski) for assurances that there would be no amalgamation of the CN's prairie and mountain regions into one region headquartered in Edmonton. I was given such assurances by the Minister, as reported at page 4341 of Hansard: "Yes, I can give the Hon. Member that assurance."
September 9, 1985

Subsequent to this worthless assurance I learned that just such an amalgamation was quietly going on. Former senior positions in the prairie region were being abolished and new senior positions were being created and filled in Edmonton. 1 provided the Minister with documentation to that effect this summer, along with a letter outlining what was really going on. All I got back was a know-nothing letter which asked me to be assured by a statement that Dr. LeClair, chairman of the CN, had made a few days before the Minister got around to answering me. That statement, to the effect that CN had no plans to do this, was not reassuring, and was totally contrary to the facts. The only people reassured were the Tory MPs from Manitoba, and Manitoba Tory Leader Gary Filmon, all of whom sat sucking their thumbs through this whole affair, believing everything they were told, or being too afraid to tell the truth.
Finally Mr. LeClair, a Liberal appointee from Quebec, had to do what no Manitoba Tory would do, stick up for Winnipeg. He admitted what was going on-blamed it on someone else, mind you-and said a halt would be called to the senior management transfers. We will come to know in future weeks just how deep a reversal has actually taken place. But no matter how you cut it, Manitoba Tories should hide their faces in shame.


Mr. Speaker:: 1 regret to advise the Hon. Member that his time has expired.


PROVINCIAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Gordon Taylor (Bow River):: Mr. Speaker, what do you know! For a long time the people of Ontario could rent a car, rent a house, rent a farm, and now they can "rent a Premier". The rent will be $1,000 per hour, which sounds pretty expensive, so advertisements reading "Sixty golden moments with the Premier of Ontario for just $16.60 per minute!" may make it more enticing.
However, most rentals these days are for longer than one hour and since only the very wealthy will be gullible enough to join the "Rent the Premier Club", weekend specials may be arranged for $20,000. If this gimmick catches on, the Premier's Ministers could rent themselves out too, at reduced rates, of course.
What will the renter get for his money? The Premier says "no special favours". Does that mean there will be favours, but not special ones? If the favours are not big enough to cover the rental charges, will the Government reduce the rates, or will the NDP, the Premier's bedmates, have to call for rent controls? This new Liberalism is sure catering to the rich.
Do you know what, Mr. Speaker? 1 cannot afford luxuries like these so I am heading back to Alberta where I can see the Premier-and a better Premier at that-for nothing.


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Mrs. Pauline Browes (Scarborough Centre):: Mr. Speaker, this past summer Canadians were outraged and shocked to learn of the possibility that Charles Ng and Joseph Kindler might not be extradited to the U.S. for crimes they committed in that country. I believe it is time for the Government to take a long hard look at our extradition process and remove any obstacles which prevent people like Ng and Kindler from facing justice in their home country.
Canadians do not want their country to become a refuge for foreign murderers. We need to send a strong signal to nations around the world that Canada will deal swiftly and expeditiously with any convicted criminal who tries to take refuge in this country.
In the next few days the Minister of Justice (Mr. Crosbie) may be called upon to act in the Kindler case. Mr. Speaker, I believe I speak for millions of Canadians when I say that, in the name of justice and humanity, this murderer should be sent back to the United States without hesitation.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Marcel Prud'homme (Saint-Denis):: Mr. Speaker, 1 would like to thank the former Speakers of the House of Commons and the Senate, the Right Hon. Jeanne Sauve and the Hon. Jean Marchand, and also the Hon. Lloyd Francis and the Hon. Maurice Riel of the Senate for allowing me, when I was Chairman of the Canadian Group of the Inter Parliamentary Union, to invite the union's conference to Canada.
A word of special thanks is due to you, Mr. Speaker, and to the Hon. Speaker of the Senate for renewing permission to hold this conference.
Obviously, the host country, in this case Canada, has to issue entry visas to all delegations accredited by the Union, since otherwise the general assembly cannot take place. I therefore want to thank the Government for authorizing the issuing of entry visas to members of the delegation of the Palestine National Council.
Mr. Speaker, you may be proud of the excellence of our House of Commons staff, and the Hon. President of the Senate also has reason to be satisfied. Both Speakers have every reason to be proud of the success of this conference,

September 9, 1985
during which this country made a tremendous impression on the 1,000 delegates from more than 90 countries who accepted our invitation. I am sure that the friendliness and helpfulness of the entire conference staff will be long remembered by the delegates.
The fact that, generally, bilingualism was the order of the day was considered quite remarkable by all, and in fact it was an advantage in this case, because the Union's two official languages are French and English.
Finally, a special word of thanks to the security services, and I am thinking of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, which understoood its role, perfectly that is to provide full and complete security for all-


Mr. Speaker:: I am sorry to interrupt the Hon. Member, but his time has expired.
The Hon. Member for Thunder Bay-Nipigon (Mr. Epp).


MULTICULTURALISM
Mr. Ernie Epp (Thunder Bay-Nipigon):: Mr. Speaker, another milestone in the multicultural history of Canada has been achieved this month. The appointment of Mr. Lincoln Alexander as the next Lieutenant-Governor of Ontario is an event of historic significance.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Abram Ernest Epp: It is also of great symbolic importance in Canada's relations with the Third World. The appointment of a black Canadian represents a vital recognition of the ethnocultural diversity of our country. His rise from humble beginnings to service as the Queen's representative in the Province of Ontario crowns a long career of public service and indicates the opportunities that one able member of Canada's visible minorities could find in this country.
The Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) deserves commendation for an appointment which is sure to be more than symbolic. At a time of increasing recognition of the need to deal forthrightly with racism in our communities, Lieutenant-Governor Alexander will undoubtedly encourage all Ontarians to develop the sensitivities needed in this area and government to take the actions that appear necessary at the provincial level.
The Government of Canada also needs to take firm action in many areas of federal responsibility and I urge the Prime Minister and his colleagues to meet the challenge. The appointment of Mr. Alexander renews hope for such action in the minds of thousands of our citizens.


PRESENCE OF PARLIAMENTARY DELEGATION FROM YUGOSLAVIA
Mr. Speaker:: May I indicate the presence in our gallery today of a parliamentary delegation from Yugoslavia. Their leader is Mr. Iso Njegovan. They are entirely welcome.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Right Hon. John N. Turner (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. Particularly in recent days, the bumbling incompetence of the Government and the Ministers of the Government is eroding confidence in our country and certainly in its financial stability. The climate of confidence was not helped by the Prime Minister's statement on Friday that Canada is broke, that Canada is bankrupt. Nothing is better calculated to destroy confidence, both at home and abroad, than for the Prime Minister to make such an irresponsible and indeed false statement.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: Will the Prime Minister withdraw that statement in the House of Commons and attempt to repair some of the damage he has done to the financial stability of the country?


Right Hon. Brian Mulroney (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I would first like to welcome the Leader of the Opposition and all Members of the House of Commons back after the summer recess and wish them all well.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: I extend a special welcome to the Yugoslavs who are here today. I can assure them that Canadian Yugoslavs are making a tremendous contribution to the growth of our country.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: The Irish-so, so.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, the reference that 1 made on Friday was really to draw attention to the rather excellent state of affairs that Canada enjoyed when my right hon. friend was Minister of Finance as compared with the dramatic historic deterioration over the subsequent 12 years. Where I
September 9, 1985

come from, if you have a debt so large that you are reduced to borrowing ad vitam aeternam to pay interest on the debt, then you are not in a healthy situation at all.
Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, that is the state of affairs which we were left by the Liberal Party. I think my right hon. friend would agree that it is of grave consequence and must be dealt with.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: That statement won't help.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


BANKS AND BANKING
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, let us get down to specifics and talk about the demise of the Canadian Commercial Bank which has added to the deficit by an unknown amount. Was it a $1 billion screw-up by the Minister of Finance? $1.5 billion? $2 billion? Would the Prime Minister tell us what the loss to the taxpayers will be in the estimate of the Government? Will he assure us that the whole matter will be brought before a parliamentary committee and that the Auditor General will have an independent scrutiny of the whole matter?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I have already indicated, as the Government has through the excellent representations and statements made by the Minister of State for Finance, that this matter will indeed be referred to a House committee as quickly as possible. All Members of the House will be able to examine every aspect of this transaction as they should.
I can tell my right hon. friend that the Government was confronted with a situation where two fledgling western based corporations were in need of assistance, and a value judgment was made. He can interrogate people about that at an appropriate time.
However, there can be no doubt at all that these two western institutions, along with other areas of western Canada, suffered in a very catastrophic way from the implementation, unilaterally, of the National Energy Program. That is one of the things we will examine as well.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: The question really relates to the fact that the House was misled, including this side of the House, when we supported the Minister of Finance in the original bail-out for that purpose. That is what it gets down to-the question of incompetence and the House being
Oral Questions
misled by the Prime Minister, the Minister of Finance, and, indeed, the Governor of the Bank of Canada.


PENSION FUND DEPOSITS OF AIR CANADA AND CANADIAN NATIONAL EMPLOYEES-REQUEST FOR CLARIFICATION
John Napier Turner: My
supplementary question is in French, Mr. Speaker.
Apparently the bankers had been provided with information in the month of July or the month of August; bankers in Toronto and Montreal knew that the Government was considering the possibility of abandoning the Canadian Commercial Bank to its fate in July. Here is my question to the Prime Minister: Why were the Air Canada pensioners, the CNR pensions, who held shares in this bank not treated the same way as the bankers of those two major cities?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Indeed, Mr. Speaker, I have already indicated the Government's intention to make sure that the whole matter will come under close examination by a parliamentary committee. 1 think it goes without saying that such an important incident has to be reviewed and scrutinized by all Hon. Members. The Leader of the Opposition has just made a strong and unusual accusation against the Governor of the Bank of Canada. Unless I am mistaken he is saying that the Governor of the Bank of Canada misled the people. The Governor of the Bank of Canada is a public servant who is not here to defend himself.
I think the accusation made by the Leader of the Opposition is extremely serious and, if he cannot substantiate it, he will undoubtedly want to stake his seat on this issue.


OFFICIALS' ACTIONS-GOVERNMENT ASSURANCE
Miss Aideen Nicholson (Trinity):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. Will he tell the House why his officials were sounding out the financial and banking community about closing the Canadian Commercial Bank in early July when, in late March, after the $255 million bail-out, the Government assured us that the bank would survive and be profitable?


Hon. Barbara McDougall (Minister of State (Finance)):: Mr. Speaker, we took our interest in the Canadian Commercial Bank as a great responsibility and in the spring we had put together a package that was intended to make this bank viable. It was up to us to watch the activities in the bank, to watch its role in the economy, and we did that throughout the spring and the summer.
It was a consistent action and a responsible action on behalf of the taxpayers of this country.

September 9, 1985
Oral Questions


REQUEST FOR LISTS OF DEPOSITORS
Aideen Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, I have here a profile of who the bank's depositors were at the time of the bail-out. Will the Minister table in the House lists of the bank's depositors as of July 7 and as of the closing date, September 1, so that we can begin to examine who may have moved their moneys as a result of receiving advance information from the Minister's officials?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, we have already indicated that there will be a parliamentary committee examining the full process around the Canadian Commercial Bank and the Northland Bank.
All the information that is required to indicate the responsible actions that the Government has taken in connection with a western financial institution, which included many western business people among its depositors and many western credit unions among its depositors, will be available to the parliamentary committee.


REQUEST FOR MINISTER'S RESIGNATION
Hon. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for Finance. In the House on March 25, as reported at page 3312 of Hansard, the Minister said the following:
In consultation with the support group- namely the chartered banks-
-we are satisfied that this bankthat is, the Canadian Commercial Bank-
-is now a viable bank, that it will be profitable in the future-
She went on to offer her ironclad guarantees about this.
We have now learned that none of the chartered banks did an independent solvency assessment of the Canadian Commercial and since that guarantee was given to the Minister, several similar guarantees have been given to the public by many of her officials, all of whom have turned out to be utterly wrong in their assessment. The people of Canada, the taxpayers, are now being asked to bail out herself and her officials. Considering these facts, will she do the honourable thing in our parliamentary system of government, accept her responsibility and tender her resignation to the Prime Minister?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, I said in the spring, and I say it again now, that I do accept the responsibility of my office. My responsibility is to ensure that we have the best possible regulatory system in the b<yiks in the world.


John Edward Broadbent: The Minister has a responsibility to the people of Canada and to the people who she said could rely on her judgment that this bank would be solvent. She turned out to be wrong, and she should acknowledge that and resign.


REQUEST THAT PRIME MINISTER DEMAND MINISTER'S RESIGNATION
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Prime Minister. Considering that he, as Prime Minister has ultimate responsibility for his Minister's performance, and considering that what this Minister assured the House on March 25 turned out to be completely wrong in its assessment, that she obviously made a quick decision without adequate consultation with the chartered banks, without adequate investigation of this situation by the chartered banks themselves, will the Prime Minister do the correct thing and demand that his Minister resign?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, we have indicated, even prior to today, that this entire matter would quite properly go to a parliamentary committee for exhaustive analysis and review.
I think that my hon. friend, who is a longstanding Member of the House, would acknowledge that fairness would require that, prior to bringing the quick rush to judgment that he suggests today, he may indeed change his mind when he has heard the full evidence. He may conclude, as 1 have already, that the Minister of State for Finance is one of the most outstanding and competent women in Canada who has acquit-ed herself very honourably.


John Edward Broadbent: She should try to tell that to the people who have lost money in the bank and see what they think.


MINISTER'S STATEMENT IN MARCH
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, the Minister told the House that it was after consultation with the support group-which was the chartered banks-that she was offering the guarantees to the people of Canada that the $255 million package would lead to profitability. That turned out to be completely false. We have learned that none of the chartered banks actually did an assessment of the solvency prospects of the Canadian Commercial. Therefore, would the Prime Minister not agree that what his own Minister was offering to the House was supremely misleading in terms of judgment and is now costing credit unions, municipalities and taxpayers millions of dollars? If he agrees with that, I repeat, why wait until a committee makes a report? Why not do the right thing now and demand that she resign?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, these matters will all be gone through, as they should, on a day-to-day basis, event-by-event basis before the proper committee. My hon. friend will have every opportunity to question very carefully all those associated with the decision.
If my hon. friend, as the Leader of the NDP, is saying that it was a mistake for the Government of Canada to come to the assistance of fledgling financial institutions based in western Canada in March, stand up and say it. Stand up and say it now. Those fledgling institutions were devastated by the National Energy Program and the climate that it brought for-
September 9, 1985

ward. We are going to hear about that as well, at the parliamentary committee.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


NATIONAL ENERGY PROGRAM
Mr. Raymond Garneau (Laval-des-Rapides):: Mr. Speaker, my question will be very brief and is directed to the Prime Minister.
How can the Prime Minister say what he just said, considering that when the Canadian Commercial Bank's situation was examined in committee, it was made clear that the problem was caused by loans connected with energy transactions in the United States? How can the Prime Minister say what he just said about the National Energy Policy, when we have proof that the bad loans were the result of loans made in the United States in the energy sector?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, the things that happened in Alberta over the last five years are a direct result of the problems of the national energy policy and what had happened to world energy-


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Barbara Jean McDougall: -and we are fully prepared to explore that in a parliamentary committee. The financial institutions of western Canada deserve every bit as much support from this Government as the kinds of companies that were given support by the Liberal Government when it was in office.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


REQUEST FOR DETAILS CONCERNING GOVERNMENT STATEMENTS
Raymond Garneau: Mr. Speaker, I fail to understand the Minister's reply.
In the House, the Official Opposition supported the position the Minister took last March, on the basis of her announcements regarding Bank's financial situation. She can hardly blame us today for asking questions on the subject. We supported her in the past.
What we are asking the Minister today is: How is it that last March, the people of Canada-and the Minister of Finance said this from her seat in the House-were told that the $255 million was adequate and that the Bank's situation would improve?
Oral Questions
We are asking the Minister what has changed between March and July, and today? Were we lied to during the whole exercise in March?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, order please! I think 1 heard the Hon. Member use an unparliamentary term, and I must-


Raymond Garneau: -were we lied to?


Mr. Speaker:: One may not say indirectly what one cannot say directly [English]
A word that is unparliamentary in its intent cannot be put into the record indirectly. May I simply ask the Hon. Member to rephrase his question?


Raymond Garneau: Mr. Speaker, the matter is much too important to spend time debating a point of order. What I said, I said. I am prepared to withdraw what I said, if it serves the purposes of our debate.


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, in March this Government faced a decision on a western financial institution in consultation with the chartered banks and two western provinces. Had we closed that bank then the economic impact in Alberta would have been devastating, absolutely devastating. We have been monitoring the situation ever since.


An Hon. Member:: Is it any better now?


Barbara Jean McDougall: We are prepared to take the decision today that we must take today. It is a different decision and circumstances have changed. We have prepared to face that decision today, just as we were prepared to face that one then.


BANK'S LENDING PRACTICES
Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops-Shuswap):: Mr. Speaker, 1 want to say to the Prime Minister when something is wrong it is wrong whether it is in western Canada, central Canada, or eastern Canada.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State for Finance. After saying in March that she had full confidence in the rescue package, was she aware of the imprudent lending practices of the Canadian Commercial Bank at that time, and the highly questionable accounting practices that described the financial situation, as well as the size of the bank's non-performing loans? When she said she had complete faith in that institution, was she aware of those types of matters?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, we were aware that the Canadian Commercial

September 9, 1985
Oral Questions
Bank had problem loans. The package we put together was to deal with those problem loans. It was done in our best judgment, on the advice of the best bankers of the country, and with the advice of two western provinces. We made our decision, and we made it based on the evidence that we had at hand.


ADVICE GIVEN BY PUBLIC OFFICIALS
Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the Prime Minister. At a time when we are all concerned about the stability of the banking system in Canada as well as about the confidence of Canadians and external investors, questions are being asked about other financial institutions.
The Inspector General of Banks said that the Canadian Commercial Bank was sound, as were all the other banks in Canada. The same was said by Governor Bouey of the central bank, the Minister of State for Finance, the Minister of Finance, and the Chairman of the Finance Committee. They were all wrong. Now when people ask us whether there are any other financial institutions in difficulty, to whom is it that we should turn it for real honest advice, Mr. Prime Minister?


Martin Brian Mulroney: I think, Mr. Speaker, that my hon. friend asks an important but a delicate question. The assets in this unfortunate situation, and we will explore all of the facets of it, amount, as I understand, to less than 1 per cent of the assets of the chartered banks in Canada. I think it is widely known that the chartered banks in Canada are ranked with the strongest in the world. We have that kind of integrity in our banking system, and this Government proposes to maintain it.


DEPOSIT INSURANCE LEVELS
Hon. Donald J. Johnston (Saint-Henri-Westmount):: Mr. Speaker, in the Report on Business of September, 1985, the Minister of State for Finance is quoted as saying "deposit insurance levels will be adhered to religiously if a lending institution fails". In view of that, how can she bring the proposal to us to reimburse uninsured depositors in the Canadian Commercial Bank?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, we have a responsibility to those depositors because they are institutions, businesses and credit unions. If the Hon. Member is suggesting that we do not have a responsibility to those people in that economy, I would certainly be interested in knowing it.


POSITION OF SHAREHOLDERS
Donald James Johnston: Mr. Speaker, perhaps the Minister has changed religions. We have a born-again bail-outer here.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Donald James Johnston: The statement is clear and unequivocal in the Report on Business. How can the Minister if she is going to reimburse uninsured depositors, at the same time not reimburse the shareholders, many of whom are small pensioners who are seeing their interests in this bank wiped out completely through this exercise?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, once again the Hon. Member is using scare tactics around small pensioners. The amount of assets in those pension funds invested in this bank is very small. I can assure the pensioners whose pension funds are in the CCB bank that their assets and pensions are not at risk.
[ Translation]


INQUIRY WHETHER GOVERNMENT WILL SEEK RESIGNATIONS OF GOVERNOR OF BANK OF CANADA AND OF INSPECTOR GENERAL OF BANKS
Mr. Mike Cassidy (Ottawa Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Right Hon. Prime Minister and concerns the Government's confidence in the Bank of Canada and the Inspector General of Banks. Considering the fact that the advice given by these two authorities is going to cost the taxpayer about one billion dollars, do the two public servants concerned still have the Government's confidence? If not, is the Prime Minister going to ask for the resignations of Messrs. Kennett and Bouey?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, after the rather surprising statement ... the accusation made by the Leader of the Official Opposition concerning the Governor of the Bank of Canada, which was unusual to say the least, I find the Hon. Member's statement even more astonishing.
We have already said there would be a parliamentary commission in order to shed light on this complex affair. Wait! Wait! . . . The Hon. Member will then be able to judge the behaviour of all those involved in this matter, but he should not accuse anyone of bad faith or incompetence before hearing all the evidence. That is all.


FINANCE COMMITTEE REPORT
Michael Morris Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. A first-year finance student in university would have known that the Canadian Commercial Bank was a total disaster if that student had read the report of the Finance Committee in June. The information which that committee found was available to the Governor of the Bank of Canada and to the Inspector General of Banks in March when they advised that the support package be given. How could the Government be prepared to give its confidence when it had such advice which cost taxpayers a billion dollars?
September 9, 1985


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, had the Canadian Commercial Bank failed in March there would have been a cost roughly equivalent to what the cost is now. This has not cost taxpayers a great deal more money.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Barbara Jean McDougall: It was worth taking that step to save that institution. Had we chosen to take the same action then-


Mr. Gauthier:: What's a billion!


Barbara Jean McDougall: If we had closed that bank in March, the over-all cost to the Government and to taxpayers would have been roughly equivalent to what it is now, and the economic impact in western Canada would have been enormous.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. John A. MacDougall (Timiskaming):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Agriculture. As he is very much aware, earlier this summer 38 farms in my riding were affected by severe hail damage. Has the Minister received any correspondence from his provincial counterpart dealing with any type of assistance which may be arranged?


Hon. John Wise (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, first of all may I express my appreciation to the Hon. Member for his help and his assistance on behalf of the constituents whom he represents. In addition, he will know that we sent a federal-provincial task force to the scene and that we are dealing with our FCC clients on an individual basis. Of course the province will have to take the initiative and declare the area a disaster area before we can respond to that action.


SOCIAL SECURITY
Mr. Jean-Claude Malepart (Montreal-Sainte-Marie):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. In its famous Budget of May 23, his Government was asking 3.5 million families with children to make sacrifices and to accept a 3 per cent cut in the indexation of family allowances and the child tax credit. Today, how is this Government going to explain to those millions of families in Canada that it does not have the money, that they will have to make sacrifices while at the same time his Government manages to find one billion dollars to pay rich depositors $60,000 or more in compensation, following this bankruptcy?
Oral Questions


Hon. Jake Epp (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the Hon. Member on the newfound responsibilities given him by the Leader of the Opposition. He asked a question regarding the family allowance provisions in the Budget. 1 remind him that the Budget has been passed. I believe it is the intention of the Government to bring forward legislation at a very early date regarding the subject about which he asked.


REQUEST FOR DETAILS CONCERNING $1 BILLION EARMARKED TO SAVE BANK DEPOSITS OF THE RICH
Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary.
I cannot afford to waste time on polite conversation. What Canadian families want is an answer from the Prime Minister. He showed moral cowardice when dealing with senior citizens and he is doing the same at the beginning of this session with respect to families with children.
How does the Prime Minister intend to explain to those families today who still trust him ... He asked them to make sacrifices and indeed they are going to lose $22 next year, 1986 . . . how is he going to explain that he found one billion to safeguard the savings of richer Canadians? How is he going to explain that to these families?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, I remind the Hon. Member, when he asks that question, that he has not said anything about the increase in the child tax credit for those families with dependent children who receive the lowest incomes. All social agencies which have looked at it feel that that is a better approach. In fact I also remind him that the Macdonald Commission made a suggestion along similar lines. I hope he would be in favour of putting more money into the hands of those families with dependent children who are at the lower end of the scale, rather than the approach which he has taken.


SPACE WEAPONRY
Ms. Pauline Jewett (New Westminster-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, I will turn to another potential bail-out and direct my question to the Prime Minister. He seemed to indicate that although the Canadian Government would not officially participate in star wars research, it would give financial support to private firms which wished to bid on defence research contracts in the star wars area. Would the Prime Minister clarify the following for many Canadians? Is he saying that the Canadian Government would provide the same kind of assist-

September 9, 1985
Oral Questions
ance to firms engaging in star wars research as in other defence fields? Will the Canadian Commercial Corporation be the intermediary, and will the RCMP provide security clearance of the classified materials involved?


Hon. Erik Nielsen (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, the Canadian Government has taken a decision with respect to SDI which reflects what we believe to be the national interest in terms of ongoing research activities, as we have been doing over many years. We intend to co-operate with the United States, as we have in the past, and we hope that that research activity will increase. All these projects are subject to a decision-making process which is in place and will be utilized when any new project comes up for consideration.


GOVERNMENT POSITION
Pauline Jewett: Mr. Speaker, 1 want us all to be very clear. I take it that the Minister of National Defence is saying that the Canadian Government will not give the kind of assistance to star wars related research that it does through the Canadian Commercial Corporation to other defence research projects? Is that explicitly what the Minister of National Defence is saying?


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member may take it that we intend to continue our research efforts in co-operation with the United States, and we hope that that activity will grow. We will be consistent in that pursuit, unlike the Hon. Member and her Party with respect to the over-all question of membership in the NATO alliance.


FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS
Mr. Joe Reid (St. Catharines):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. In the light of recent expressions of concern, what progress is being made with respect to setting up a mechanism to protect pension funds, which are really trust retirement funds, from bankruptcies and creditors' claims?


Hon. Michel Cote (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, in answer to my hon. colleague, back in April we set up a consultative committee to study the Bankruptcy Act. As a matter of fact we have already announced that we will look into the matter and make a recommendation in due course.


BANKS AND BANKING
Hon. Douglas C. Frith (Sudbury):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. Will he give his assurance to the House that neither the Governor of the Bank of Canada nor the Inspector General of Banks will be used by his Government as scapegoats for this billion dollar fiasco, and that the responsibility for this fiasco will rest on the shoulders of the Ministers responsible, namely, the Minister of Finance, and the Minister of State for Finance?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, that is one of the most interesting questions that I have heard in a long time, inasmuch as why does the Hon. Member not ask his Leader if he will give the assurance that he will not hang the Governor of the Bank of Canada before he has heard the evidence? That is what he wants to do.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Guilbault (Saint-Jacques):: That is an interesting answer.


Martin Brian Mulroney: We will wait for the "blues", but unless I misunderstood my right hon. friend I thought I heard him say that the Governor of the Bank of Canada had misled the House of Commons and misled the Canadian people, deliberately-


Some Hon. Members:: You have!


Martin Brian Mulroney: And that is a grave, grave accusation to make against a senior servant who has served Canada loyally, honourably, and well.


REQUEST FOR INQUIRY BY AUDITOR GENERAL
Douglas Cockburn Frith: Mr. Speaker, we want to make sure that it is the responsibility of the Ministers for overseeing and recommending this billion dollar fiasco to the people of Canada. That is who is responsible for it.
The Leader of the Opposition asked the Government and the Prime Minister to allow the Auditor General to conduct an independent inquiry into the state of affairs which led to the collapse of the bank. Would the Prime Minister agree to that request?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, this gentleman was a member of the Liberal Government, a Government that would not let the Auditor General investigate Petro-Canada.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Martin Brian Mulroney: They absolutely turned him down.


Some Hon. Members:: Really?
September 9, 1985


Martin Brian Mulroney: And we said absolutely yes. The only thing that we would not do was allow the Auditor General access to the papers of the former Prime Minister and his predecessor because we believe in British parliamentary tradition. That was done in order to protect the papers of the former Prime Minister.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: We will refer this matter to a parliamentary committee. We will expect everybody to be heard. Having turned down the Auditor General with regard to Petro-Canada, if my hon. friend wants to go before a committee, the Auditor General will tell him and any Member of the House that the only reticence the Prime Minister had was with regard to the Auditor General digging into the papers of the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition and of the Right Hon. Pierre Trudeau because I said that that was unacceptable, and I believe it to be unacceptable. The rest the Auditor General can have.


APARTHEID
Mr. Howard McCurdy (Windsor-Walkerville):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Prime Minister who has been quoted as saying that there are loud voices rejecting sanctions directed against the South African regime, voices to which presumably he is listening. Can the Prime Minister tell us what loud voices he is hearing which would outshout the 77 per cent of black Africans and their most respected leaders who are demanding sanctions in support of their struggle?


Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I think the House has noted and would join with me in expressing approval for the statement made by the President of the United States today announcing some sanctions against South Africa. I point out to Members of the House of Commons that the sanctions announced by the United States at noon today were, by and large, sanctions announced by the Government of Canada in early July.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: It is the view of this Government that it is now essential for us to do everything that we can to encourage change in an offensive and unacceptable regime in South Africa. For the moment, that involves maintaining steady pressure upon South Africa. Obviously, if we have to resort to the full disruption of economic and diplomatic relations, we are prepared to do so if other measures do not work. However, most of us in this House believe that it is important to keep a door open and to use the influence that we now have, rather than to spend it immediately in a gesture that may be more effective in terms of public relations at home than it would be in ending apartheid in South Africa.
Oral Questions CANADIAN POSITION


Howard Douglas McCurdy: Mr. Speaker, first I would suggest that the Government listen to those who are fighting for their freedom in order to determine what sacrifices they should be making. I would ask the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for External Affairs when Canada will get leadership. This is ridiculous. Constructive engagement is ending down South while Canada, to whom the world is looking for leadership, is still silent. The Americans are being more forceful than the Canadians.
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External
Affairs): Mr. Speaker, what is at issue here is what steps Canada can take to end an offensive regime in South Africa. What is at issue here is not how loudly our voices will speak but how loudly our actions will speak.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Charles Joseph Clark: To use the word "leadership", we have already demonstrated leadership in the actions and sanctions that were announced in July. Those Canadian initiatives were followed by similar intitiatives in Australia, Japan, France, and now the United States. We intend to continue to play a leading role. 1 expect to make a statement on the response not only of this Government but, 1 hope, of this country to the South African situation later this week in the House.


BANKS AND BANKING
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. I do not believe that it has gone unnoticed that the questions put in the House relating to the Canadian Commercial Bank have been replied to by the Minister of State for Finance. The Minister of State for Finance may have been delegated certain responsibilities. However, the statutory and parliamentary responsibility for the stability of our financial institutions and for the management of this country's economy rests always with the Minister of Finance. I would ask the Prime Minister why it is that the Minister of Finance has not been addressing this question in the House. Would the Prime Minister assure us that he still retains confidence in that Minister?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, because it is Day One, I will dignify a frivolous question with an answer.


Ms. Copps:: It's not frivolous to the Canadian people.


Martin Brian Mulroney: My right hon. friend knows full well that the Minister of State for Finance has performed extremely well,

September 9, 1985
Oral Questions
has held a responsibility and acquitted herself well from the beginning.
With regard to the Minister of Finance, on September 17, and even today, we can say that, because of his stewardship of the economy, 284,000 new jobs have been created-


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: -interest rates are down by almost 3 percentage points, and the economy is growing at a rate of-


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. It is indeed Day One.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, 1 will be happy to answer any further questions the Right Hon. Member may have.


MULTICULTURALISM
Pauline Browes: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for Multicul-turalism. Last month the federal Government contributed $30,000 to the installation of a toll-free telephone information service for the families of the victims of the Air India disaster. Could the Minister provide the House with an update on this assistance project and other measures that the Government has taken to help these particular families?


Hon. Otto Jelinek (Minister of State (Fitness and Amateur Sport) and Minister of State (Multiculturalism)):: Mr. Speaker-


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Beginning now, I am going to try to discourage the waste of time with clapping, if that is all right.


Otto John Jelinek: Mr. Speaker, I would like to advise the Hon. Member that since this project was initiated on July 15 there have been over 1,500 calls for assistance. Some of that assistance included providing information about death certificates, legal referrals, psychiatric help, family reunification and other things. I would like to tell the Hon. Member that, further to that, all federal government Departments are involved in a co-operative and co-ordinated way to help the families in this disastrous situation, and assistance will continue to be provided by the Government after the six-month expiry date.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Essex-Windsor. One question.


CANADA-UNITED STATES TRADE
Mr. Steven W. Langdon (Essex-Windsor):: Mr. Speaker, this is a question for the Prime Minister. There is great confusion in the country about the Government's intentions regarding free trade moves with the United States. The Prime Minister is saying one week that nothing will happen until after to November discussions with the provinces, and is saying the next week that decisions will be announced by September 17. Would the Prime Minister clearly and unambiguously tell the Canadian people about the Government's plans with respect to this issue?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry that my hon. friend has had difficulty understanding what is a very clear-cut position. When I met with President Reagan in Quebec City we agreed that, within a period of six months, our Governments would send out respective signals as to whether or not it was our intention to embark upon these exploratory conversations that could lead to new trade arrangements.
There are commercial arrangements in which Canada is interested. We are interested in them for two reasons. First, for us, trade means jobs. Second, we are concerned about the growth of protectionist sentiment which is now infesting many areas of American life. A growing percentage of our trade- almost 80 per cent-is with the United States. We want to ensure that those markets are secured for Canadian producers because they mean jobs in British Columbia, Sault Ste Marie, Sydney, and everywhere else across the country.
Thus, at an appropriate time, and on a schedule agreed upon, we will send out a signal, in co-operation, after having consulted with the provinces, and after having discussed it with the House. A parliamentary committee went across the country this summer and it has made its recommendations. It will be done, as with our decision yesterday with respect to SDI, in the national interest of Canada.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


CLERK OF PETITIONS' REPORTS
Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that the petitions, with the exception of five, presented by Hon. Members on Friday, June 28, 1985, meet the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.

The petitions presented by the Hon. Member for Cochrane-Superior (Mr. Penner) and by the Hon. Member for York West (Mr. Marchi) and certain petitions presented by the Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell (Mr. Boudria)
September 9, 1985

do not meet the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.

The petitions presented by the Hon. Member for Broadview-Greenwood (Ms. McDonald) and the Hon. Member for Cowi-chan-Malahat-The Islands (Mr. Manly) by filing with the Clerk of the House also meet the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS

[Stage Direction]
[ Translation]

Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, in accordance with Standing Order 47(2), I have the honour of laying on the Table, in both official languages, the four following documents: First, a new conflict of interest/post-employment code for public office holders. Second, instructions to Ministers imposing specific and strict limitations on the hiring of family members. Third, letters to the Leaders of the Opposition on the subject of ethical conduct for all MPs and Senators. Fourth, advice to Crown corporations concerning their relations with the central Government.

Mr. Speaker, anyone who expected the documents to be tabled with a red ribbon on them knows that my non-partisanship only goes to so many limites.
It is a great principle of public administration-I could even say an imperative-that to function effectively the government and the public service of a democracy must have the trust and confidence of the public they serve. In order to reinforce that trust, the government must be able to provide competent management and, above all, to be guided by the highest standards of conduct. To this end, I am tabling today a set of documents detailing several aspects of a package of major initiatives on public sector ethics undertaken by this Government.
This afternoon I wish to provide my colleagues in the House with some thoughts in explanation of the documents and to acquaint the House with other elements of the package which will soon be placed before the House in documentary form. There are seven components in the over-all program.
First, there is a new conflict of interest/post-employment code for public office holders, which has been tabled. Second, there are instructions to Ministers imposing specific and strict limitations on the hiring of family members, which has also been tabled. Third, there are letters to the Leaders of the Opposition on the subject of ethical conduct for all MPs and Senators, which has been tabled. Fourth, there is a document
Tabling of Documents
dealing with an experimental program of parliamentary scrutiny of Governor in Council appointments, which I know we all hope will become a permanent feature of our parliamentary democracy here in Canada.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: Fifth, there is a document dealing with the registration of lobbying activity in Ottawa. Sixth, a document dealing with advice to Crown corporations respecting appropriate conduct in their dealings with the Government has been tabled. The seventh document deals with a review of the judicial appointments process.

To this end, Mr. Speaker I am tabling today a set of documents detailing several aspects of a package of major initiatives on public sector ethics undertaken by this Government.
This afternoon I wish to provide my colleagues in the House with some thoughts in explanation of the documents and to acquaint the House with other elements of the package which will soon be placed before the House in documentary form.
There are seven components in the over-all program, as I mentioned earlier. First, there is a new conflict of interest/ post-employment code for public office holders, which has been tabled.
Second, there are instructions to Ministers imposing specific and strict limitations on the hiring of family members, which has also been tabled.
Third, there are letters to the Leaders of the Opposition on the subject of ethical conduct for all MPs and Senators, which has been tabled.
Fourth, there is a document dealing with an experimental program of parliamentary scrutiny of Governor in Council appointments. At this point, Mr. Speaker, I would like to mention the work done by all Members on the Committee, and especially by the Hon. Member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath) and the Hon. Member for Papineau (Mr. Ouellet) who did an excellent job.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: Fifth, a document dealing with the registration of lobbying activity in Ottawa.
Sixth, a document dealing with advice to Crown corporations respecting appropriate conduct in their dealings with the Government has been tabled.
The seventh document deals with a review of the judicial appointments process.

Mr. Speaker, we have not made final decisions in all of the component areas. However, we are putting forward an authoritative outline of our intentions today. Some elements,

September 9, 1985
Tabling of Documents
such as the new conflict of interest/post-employment code for public office holders are ready for implementation. The code will take effect on January 1, 1986, once the necessary infrastructure is in place. In the interim, Ministers and Governor in Council appointees will conduct themselves in accordance with its provisions.
Other elements, such as the experimental program of parliamentary scrutiny of Order in Council appointments, will be refined through discussion with Leaders of the Opposition and with the benefit of experience. We would like to consult, again, the distinguished Members, the Chairman and Vice-Chairman of the Committee on the Reform of the House of Commons.
Still others, such as the review of the judicial appointments process, will require more consultation with the Canadian Bar Association before detailed proposals can be advanced. [Translation]
For the first time in this country's history, Mr. Speaker, the government has laid before Parliament a broad program of iniatives concerning public sector ethics.
This is tangible proof that the government is determined to see to it that the affairs of state are conducted according to the very highest standards.

Rather than dealing at some length with each component orally, I have tabled today an open letter to Members of Parliament and Senators which delineates each of the seven components in summary form, highlighting the most important aspects which Members should consider.

As indicated in the document I have just tabled, it provides a set of reform measures that reflect the Government's intention, and I would add that of all parliamentarians, to adopt a standard of ethics that will meet with the respect of all Canadians. In this way, we want to strengthen the economic renewal process and enhance the faith of Canadians in our Government institutions.
Many of these measures have been awaited for some time, and sometimes, Mr. Speaker, this Government would have wished that they were already in place. They now are or are about to become so, and we can look forward, in the near future, to a new era of confidence and respect.
The documents, the ideas and the propositions, Mr. Speaker, are placed before all Hon. Members of Parliament today in the genuine belief that they will enhance the respect which Canadians must have for Parliament as a noble institution.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: believe I just heard the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) at his unctuous best attempting, presumably in a non-partisan fashion, to disguise the most blatant series of partisan appointments over the last year than we have had in the history of our country.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Napier Turner: The Prime Minister has spoken about civility in this House. I received a copy of the documents which were just tabled and a copy of the statement the Prime Minister has just read at one thirty this afternoon, a half hour before Parliament assembled for Question Period. I do not know whether my friend, the Leader of the New Democratic Party, received earlier communication.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: It was in accordance with our arrangements.


John Napier Turner: It is absolutely impossible for any member of the Opposition, particularly myself and my colleague, the Leader of the New Democratic Party, with our responsibilities, to respond with some clarity and with some profound appreciation of what is in that pile of documents.


Michael Morris Cassidy: Never complain and never explain, John.


John Napier Turner: I will say as well, of course, that I am suspicious. The House Leader may protest but he knows how the business of the House ought to be conducted.


An Hon. Member:: He's a dummy, anyway.


John Napier Turner: He knows.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Napier Turner: I am also suspicious of the coincidence of the timing of the tabling of these documents today. The Government is faced with a bank scandal. The Government is faced with a financial Titanic and it hopes that the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) may be able to pre-empt the news and distract the attention of the country and of the media by this little subterfuge.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Chretien:: The Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) is running away now.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Run away, Mike.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Bye, bye, Mike.


John Napier Turner: The Minister of Finance has just left the House shaking his head. We hope he will stand in this House tomorrow and defend the issues for which he has statutory responsibility.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Right on.


John Napier Turner: The issues of the guidelines and the conficts of interest, Mr. Speaker, arose in this House several months ago. Why the delay? Why do we have to
September 9, 1985

wait until the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark)-and he is now leaving-is able to favour his brother? Why do we have to wait until the Minister of Justice (Mr. Crosbie) is able to dispense his largesse to his sons in Newfoundland? Why do we have to wait until the Minister of Finance-who just left the House-has favoured his brother-in-law? Why so late? Are these guideliens retroactive? Will the so-called experimental scrutiny affect the 1,200 appointments which have already been made?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: One every three hours.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: 1 suppose, Mr. Speaker, Hon. Members of the House are entitled to ask the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Nielsen) if these guidelines are going to be any more enforced than the guidelines which are currently before the House. Are these guidelines going to be breached the way Mr. Trudeau's guidelines which are currently in force were breached by the Minister of Justice, by the Minister of Finance and by the Secretary of State for External Affairs? That is a question we are entitled to ask.
I notice that the Prime Minister, following some of the recommendations of the Hon. Member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath), on an experimental basis only, will allow some Governor in Council appointments to be scrutinized by a parliamentary committee.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: 


John Napier Turner: We will see, and we will see how effective that is. That is not what the Prime Minister said during the election campaign. He said all appointments were going to be scrutinized.


An Hon. Member:: And not on an experimental basis.


John Napier Turner: And not on an experimental basis. We want a commitment-


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: And not a year too late.


John Napier Turner: -and not a year too late, not after the barn door has been closed and the horse has escaped.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: All of them retroactive.


John Napier Turner: The Prime Minister's supporters, his friends and intimates, have been in the trough for over a year. That is enough time to accomplish the evil. Now we look sanctimonious, we look statesman-like, we look parliamentary and we bring in these guidelines, some of them on an experimental basis.


Mr. Dick:: He looks better than you.


John Napier Turner: During the election campaign the Prime Minister set very high expectations for the
Tabling of Documents
performance of this House. He breached those expectations blatantly during the last 12 months. There has been the most consistent patronage, partisan and crony-like appointments in the history of this country.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: Frankly, when I looked at the Prime Minister closely as he wrapped himself in the cloak of prime ministerial non-partisanship, I said, what a shameless hypocrite after his conduct during the last year.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Stevens:: Withdraw.


Mr. Rossi:: Bravo.


Mr. Speaker:: The Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner) is an experienced Member of the House. I think he knows that to accuse someone of being a shameless hypocrite is not terribly parliamentary. I would ask him to withdraw.


John Napier Turner: Which word, Mr. Speaker, would you like me to withdraw?


Mr. Speaker:: The Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition knows the difficulty these situations create. I would simply ask him to do what he knows is the right thing and to withdraw the comment.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Which one?


John Napier Turner: Do you want me to withdraw the word "shameless" or the word "hypocrite", Mr. Speaker?


Paul Wyatt Dick: You know better, John Turner.


Mr. Speaker:: I invite the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition to do the right honourable thing and withdraw the comment "shameless hypocrite".


John Napier Turner: If that is your interpretation of the rules then, of course, I accept it, Mr. Speaker. May I say-and I do withdraw those words-that the Prime Minister has been blatlantly cynical over the past year in the way he has treated appointments of the Crown.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: I notice that the guidelines, or the package tabled under "blue ribbon" today, does not include contracts awarded by the Crown. I would invite the Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister and the House Leader to review with the Hon. Member for St. John's East whether contracts under the benefit of the Crown also ought to be included within these guidelines because, coincidentally, The Ottawa Citizen headline of September 7, reads, "Firm
6402

September 9, 1985
Tabling of Documents
hires PMs pal, $200,000 job follows". This involves the Prime Minister's pal, Sam Wakim, apparently a former classmate at St. Francis Xavier University. Is this type of thing covered? We had a preliminary review of those documents and we do not see this type of arrangement covered at all.
All I will say, Mr. Speaker, is that we were not given the time to review these documents thoroughly. We will give them a close study. We suspect that they may well be more cosmetic camouflage. In any event, the Government will have the co-operation of this side of the House if there is any sincerity at all on its part.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, among the many things said by the Hon. Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Turner) which were accurate, was the fact that we did not receive advance notice with regard to the tabling of the documents here today. For that reason I am responding on behalf of my leader and my caucus. I would like to begin by saying that at first glance-which is really all we have been able to have-it seems as if the guidelines will go further than the guidelines which previously existed. It seems as if what the Government is intent on doing will provide more restrictive guidelines and will bring about a better code of behavious than existed under the guidelines which are now in place.
The question, of course, will be-as is now the case-will these guidelines be adhered to any more closely than the guidelines which are presently in place? It has been a question asked in the House of Commons for the last five years. The guidelines are interpreted, it seems, to satisfy the mood of the government of the day. I want to say that if in establishing new guidelines we can have some assurance that there will be a common interpretation by everyone in the House of Commons as to how they are to be enforced, then I think we will have gone a long way towards solving what was a very difficult and acrimonious period. And that was from the early part of 1980 into the early part of this administration.
I also want to say that it strikes me, at first glance, that these guidelines may well put in place a regime which will preclude another orgy of patronage such as occurred at the end of the last Liberal Government. I hope that that is the case. I hope that as a result of these guidelines this Government will not be in a position, at the time of its defeat, to appoint any number of its inadequate back-benchers and hangers-on to positions of a permanent nature in the Public Service or government agencies.
I also want to say that the performance of this Government until now in its appointment of friends and cronies and old pals to political patronage positions is not something to be proud of. I admit that there two or three notable exceptions, as the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) frequently points out, but when you compare those to the thousands of appointments made, this is hardly a record to be proud of. Therefore, I was
pleased to note that the opportunity will be there in the future for Members of Parliament to review retroactively the qualifications and quality of the appointments made by this Government after it assumed office on September 4, 1984.
Having said that, I hope the House of Commons and the Senate will take seriously, if you will, the request of the Prime Minister and that the Speakers of both Houses will in fact review in consultation whatever is required to be reviewed in order to determine the appropriate behaviour for Members in addition to those who happen to be Ministers of the Crown. However, based on past performance, I am not too optimistic about what the future holds. I look at the Government House Leader (Mr. Hnatyshyn) and the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Nielsen) and I remember the long debates we had in the House over what was appropriate behaviour when the Liberals were in government regarding certain of their former Cabinet colleagues who engaged in business after they left Government. I remember the way this Government castigated the previous Government for its despicable abuse of both patronage and entree to the Civil Service using powers that had been gained while in office.
I am hoping to see an end to this kind of thing. I note that it is referred to but I am not quite sure how it is going to be dealt with. Therefore, I think the proof will lie with the passage of time. Once we see the more definitive description of how we intend to implement and enforce, then perhaps we will have more confidence. However, I say to the Prime Minister that were we to base our confidfence on the performance of the past year, it would be pretty shaky.


PETITIONS
Rob Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege as a Member of Parliament to present a petition signed by almost 2,000 residents of the City of Niagara Falls who, because of the increase in the incidence of prostitution and associated violence, have asked that this House immediately pass Bill C-49.


Abram Ernest Epp: Mr. Speaker, 1 have the honour to present a petition signed by 247 of my constituents, including residents of the Township of Shuniah, Amethyst Beach, as well as members of the Island Beach Campers' Association. They are seriously concerned about damage to their property caused by high water levels in Lake Superior. This damage is due in part to unseasonably heavy rainfall, but it is also due to actions by the Board of Control of the International Joint Commission in keeping the water level of Lake Superior high to preserve properties in the lower lakes. Your petitioners humbly pray that the Government of Canada
September 9, 1985

intervene on their behalf by taking action to prevent the IJC from raising the level of Lake Superior to its maximum height.


Claudy Mailly: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition signed by 10,000 residents of the ridings of Gatineau and Hull-Aylmer who exercise their ancient right to present a common grievance to the House.
These residents are complaining about the telephone communication system, in very many cases with long distance rates within the territory of the National Capital Region. They find that Quebecers, men and women alike, are treated unfairly with respect to telephone communications. They suggest as well that everybody should have the same ready access to communication facilities because that is essential to the development of the esprit de corps and the feeling of community membership of all residents of the National Capital Region.


Mr. John Gormley (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake):: Mr. Speaker, 1 have the honour and duty to present to this House a petition signed by Members of the Mennonite Breathren Church in Borden, Saskatchewan, in my constituency. They call upon Parliament to support the Private Members' Bill C-226, coming before the House later this week, which proposes to make abortion in Canada less available.


Mr. Andrew Witer (Parkdale-High Park):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present a petition on behalf of residents of the MacDonell and Fuller Avenue area of the City of Toronto. They ask this House to provide them with relief from the indignity of the harassment and abuse they have received at the hands of individuals involved in the suspected illegal drugs traffic in their neighbourhood. They ask for police protection from such harassment and urge the responsible federal Ministers to use all powers at their disposal and to initiate appropriate legislation to resolve this problem and return the neighbourhood to a safe environment in which to raise a family.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Paul Wyatt Dick: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 334, 351,354, 375, 383, 388, and 418.
Order Paper Questions
[ Text]


Mr. Hockin: What are the names of the present Board of Directors of the (a) Ridgemount/ Mountmuir Co-op Housing Corporation, Hamilton (b) Coral Co-op/Barrie Community Credit Union (c) Kenfinch Co-op/Toronto Board of Education Credit Union, Toronto (d) Parkfarm Co-op/IBM Toronto Employee Credit Union, Toronto and do they presently reside in the projects they represent?


Hon. Bill McKnight (Minister of Labour):: 
Mr. Desrosiers: 1.	What budget was allocated by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation for its Foreign Sales Department for the 1985-86 fiscal year?
2.	On what date was the Department established and what was its annual (a) income (b) expenditures since it was established?
3.	How many representatives are there in the Department and does each of them attend one or more festivals throughout the world each year?


Hon. Marcel Masse (Minister of Communications):: I am
informed by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation as follows:
1.	The inquiry concerning the "Foreign Sales Department" refers to the CBC Enterprises operation. The figures below reflect the whole operation and not just foreign sales.
Revenue Projection	$9,594,000
Expenditures	$8,068,000

September 9, 1985
Order Paper Questions
2.	(a) and (b) CBC Enterprises was established as a Corporation-wide exclusive sales operation on April 1, 1983. Incomes and expenditures are as follows:
1982-83	1983-84	1984-85
(English Operation	(Both English and French
Only)	Operations)
(in thousands of dollars)
(i) Program Sales
Revenues	4985	5787	5689Expenditures	3684	4625	4813Net Operating Profit	1301	1162	876Consumer Products	Revenues	584	1128	2068Expenditures	858	1531	1885Net Operating Profit	(274)	(403)	183Fixed Administrative Costs	720	768	943Net Profit (Loss)	307	(9)	116Prior Year's Adjustments*	(105)	(587)Total Profit (Loss)	307	(114)	(471)
* Prior Year's Adjustments: Up until the present fiscal year, upon signature of a contract the amount of the contract was entered as revenue for the fiscal year in which it was signed. The value of programs not delivered under the contract during that fiscal year was debited as "Prior Year's Adjustments" in the next fiscal year.
(d) (1) Communications Consultants Ltd. were employed for the purpose of promoting National Physical Activity Week. (2) Paul McGrattan was employed for the purpose of promoting the Canada Summer Games throughout Atlantic Canada.


Mr. McKinnon: 1.	On March 31 (a) 1981 (b) 1982 (c) 1983 (d) 1984, what total amount was at the credit of the Supplementary Retirement Benefits Accounts for (i) the Public Service (ii) the Armed Forces (iii) the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (iv) Members of Parliament and Senators?
2.	During (a) 1981 (b) 1982 (c) 1983 (d) 1984, what rate of interest did the Government pay for the use of this money?
3.	What amount of interest was credited to the Accounts during the fiscal year ended March 31 (a) 1981 (b) 1982 (c) 1983 (d) 1984?
4.	For each of the above fiscal years, what was the total amount paid into the Fund by (a) public servants (b) armed forces personnel (c) Royal Canadian Mounted Police personnel (d) Members of Parliament and Senators?
5.	For each of the above years, what amount was paid from the Accounts to contributors?
3.	TV Program Sales-10. Audio Products-4.
It is important to note that representatives do not attend festivals but rather structured trade fairs or markets. Each representative attends one or more of them each year.


Mr. Desrosiers: Did the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation ask some of its executives to take early retirement and, if so (a) how many (6) did they get a lump sum payment as damages or for any other reason (c) did any of the employees sign, since their departure, a contract with the Corporation for a position with the CBC or any of its affiliates?


Marcel Masse: I am
informed by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation as follows: Yes. (a) 35 members of the management staff at la Maison de Radio-Canada in Montreal, (b) Yes. (c) Yes. Two of them received short-term contracts to enable them to complete certain projects.


Mr. Marchi: Since the Minister of State for Fitness and Amateur Sport assumed office, were any outside consultants employed by his department and, if so (a) how many (b) what were their names (c) what was the total amount paid to each (d) for what purpose?


Otto John Jelinek: (a) Yes, two.
(b)	(1) Communications Consultants Ltd. (2) Paul McGrattan.
(c)	(1) $57,500. (2) $35,000.


Mr. Doug Lewis (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Treasury Board):: 1. Balance in the Supplementary Retirement Benefits Account for
(i)	(ii)	(iii)	(iv)
Members of
Royal Canadian Parliament and
Public Service	Armed Forces Mounted Police ($000,000's)	SenatorsMarch 31, 1981	664.4	189.7	43.9	1.4March 31, 1982	899.6	251.8	60.4	2.0March 31, 1983	1,156.8	324.0	80.1	2.7March 31, 1984	1,440.2	399.2	101.0	3.4
2. Average rate of interest credited to the Supplementary Retirement Benefits Account
	Per cent
1980-81	12.4
1981-82	15.4
1982-83	13.6
1983-84	10.8
3. Amount of interest credited to the Supplementary Retirement Benefits Account
(i)	(io	(Hi) Royal Canadian	(iv) Members of Parliament andPublic Service	Armed Forces Mounted Police ($000,000's)	Senators1980-81	69.6	20.3	4.3	0.11981-82	117.7	32.8	7.7	0.21982-83	131.9	37.9	9.0	0.21983-84	136.6	38.2	9.4	0.3
September 9, 1985

4.	Contributions to the Supplementary Retirement Benefits Account
(a)	(b)	(C) Royal Canadian	(d) Members of Parliament andPublic Service	Armed Forces Mounted Police ($000,000's)	Senators1980-81	61.1	14.7	4.1	0.11981-82	71.9	17.0	4.8	0.21982-83	83.2	19.5	5.6	0.21983-84	88.5	21.2	6.0	0.25.	Payments under the Supplementary Retirement Benefits Act(a)	(b)	(c)	(d)
Members of
Royal Canadian Parliament and Public Service Armed Forces Mounted Police Senators
($000,000's)
(i)	(ii)	(i)	(ii)	(i)	(ii)	(i)	(ii)1980-81	31.8	201.6	4.3	108.6	0.5	10.0	0.03	0.71981-82	33.2	263.9	4.6	140.5	0.7	12.1	0.07	0.71982-83	35.6	332.4	4.8	178.0	0.5	14.7	0.0	1.51983-84	30.8	380.0	5.2	207.2	0.5	16.5	0.03	1.6
Note: Benefits paid in respect of a former contributor are charged to the account only until their accumulated total equals the aggregate of all amounts credited to that account in respect of that person. Supplementary benefits paid in excess of that aggregate are then charged to the Consolidated Revenue Fund. These amounts are shown in columns (ii) above.
CHARTERED/LEASED AIRCRAFT


Mr. Boudria: 1.	Since September 4, 1984, did the Government lease, charter or obtain the use of any aircraft for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and, if so (a) how many times (b) at what cost (c) to which locations and, in each case, what (i) was the name of the air carrier (ii) were the names of the passengers on the trip?
2.	What was the reason for chartering rather than utilizing commercial flights in each case?


Michel Côté: 1. Yes. (a) four.
(b)	(c)	(C)(i)	(d)(ii)$1,119.00	Ottawa/Quebec/Ottawa	Bonavair	Hon. Michel Cote Jacques Gagnon Diana Monnet Julien Beliveau Alban Garon$1,200.70	Ottawa/T oronto/Otta wa	Bonavair	Hon. Michel Cote Julien Beliveau John Polak Jacques Gagnon David McLaughlin Dora Koop$2,183.25	Ottawa/Toronto/Quebec/ Montreal/Ottawa	Bonavair	Hon. Michel Cote Julien Beliveau Andre Garneau$1,975.00	Gatineau/Quebec	Bradley Air	Hon. Michel Cote Jacques Gagnon Louise Dufresne
Order Paper Questions
Quebec/Gatineau	Bradley Air Hon. Harvie Andre
Rene Pelletier Jacques Gagnon Louise Dufresne
2. Unavailability of commercial flights.


Mr. Robichaud: 1.	Did the Minister of State (Youth) select a young English-speaking person to represent New Brunswick on the National Advisory Committee on Youth and, if so (a) did the Minister consult youth organizations in New Brunswick before making her choice (b) did the Minister consider the possibility of recognizing New Brunswick's French speaking community during the selection of the committee's members?
2.	Will the Minister change her mind in order to appoint a young Frenchspeaking member to the committee and, if so, on what date?


Hon. Andree Champagne (Minister of State (Youth)):: 1.
The Minister of State for Youth selected a group of 24 young people from across Canada to act as her advisors on an International Youth Year Advisory Committee. The committee has a mandate to: attend various International Youth Year events; facilitate the development of the International Youth Year federal youth forums; advise the Minister on matters of interest and concern to Canadian youth which arise during the Year.
The committee members were chosen on an individual basis to reflect the various interests and backgrounds of young men and women as well as the different regions, and linguistic and cultural groups in Canada. The members do not represent a specific region or group. One of the members is from Saint John, New Brunswick. While she is bilingual, her mother tongue is English.
(a)	The Minister selected these members based on suggestions received from her departmental officials, various groups and individuals from across the country.
(b)	The possibility of selecting a French-speaking youth from New Brunswick was considered as was the possibility of selecting French-speaking young people from other provinces and other linguistic and cultural groups.
2. There are seven French-speaking committee members, two of whom come from French-speaking communities outside of Quebec (i.e, Ontario and Saskatchewan). At this time, the Minister is not planning to appoint additional members to the committee. However, the Minister has appointed Martin Pitre of Robertville, New Brunswick, as an International Youth Year ambassador.


Paul Wyatt Dick: Mr. Speaker, if Question No. 368 could be

September 9, 1985
made an Order for Return, the return would be tabled immediately.


Mr. Speaker:: The questions as enumerated by the Parliamentary Secretary have been answered. Is it the pleasure of the House that Question No. 368 be made an Order for Return?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Heap: 1.	Since January 1, 1985 to date, how many projects were given allocations under Section 56.1 of the National Housing Act and, in each case, what was the name of (a) the project (b) the resource group or developer (c) each person on the Board of Directors?
2.	For each such project, what was the (a) number of units to be built and in what city (b) type of housing built (i) co-op (ii) public non-profit (iii) private non-profit (iv) special purpose?
Return tabled.


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


Mr. Speaker:: Shall the remaining questions stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: I have received two notices under Standing Order 31. I propose to take them in the order in which I received them. The Hon. Member for Oshawa (Mr. Broadbent).


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 31. If you make the correct ruling in a few minutes, I would be pleased to move the appropriate motion. This motion would call for a debate concerning the circumstances flowing from the collapse of the Canadian Commercial Bank. At that time the Opposition will present our serious concerns about all those Canadians who are adversely affected by this failure, and we expect the Government of Canada to give a thorough acounting of the lamentable job it has done in dealing with this extremely serious situation.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member has given the Chair the proper notice of his intention to seek leave of the House to move a motion under the provisions of Standing Order 31. The matter that he wishes to debate is, of course, a matter of great interest, not only to the banking community, but I am sure to all Canadians.
Standing Order 31(5) directs the Chair to take account of two main criteria in order to determine whether the request for leave should be granted. First, the Chair must determine that the matter is within the administrative responsibilities of the Government. Second, and more importantly in this case, the Chair must consider the probability of the matter being brought before the House within reasonable time by" other means.
In the present circumstances, on April 18, 1975, the House charged the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs to inquire into the regulation of Canada's financial institutions and on June 26 last the House instructed the same committee to make its final report by October 30, 1985.
Furthermore, the Finance Committee has scheduled a meeting for 3:30 p.m. this day and the Minister of State for Finance (Mrs. McDougall) is scheduled to appear on that particular order of reference. For the Chair at this time to ignore that Members of the House are considering that matter in committee would not only be a violation of our precedents, but a violation of the very specific limitation imposed on'the Chair by Standing Order 31(5). I do not think it proper, therefore, at this time to allow the request for leave while the matter is and can be considered by a committee of the House.
The Hon. Member for Trinity (Miss Nicholson) gave a notice of a similar question. She may wish to make her case.


Aideen Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, in accordance with Standing Order 31,1 too, ask leave to move that this House do now adjourn for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter requiring urgent consideration, namely the failure of the Canadian Commercial Bank and the Government activities in relation thereto. Mr. Speaker, I would suggest respectfully that the failure of the Bank, the Government's decision to put it into liquidation in the last few days, is a separate matter from the order of reference previously given and, therefore, I ask you to consider this request.


Mr. Speaker:: When the Hon. Member reads what I said in response to the Hon. Member for Oshawa (Mr. Broadbent) she will find that it is a very tight ruling. The Chair is given the power to simply say yes or no to these questions without comment.


An Hon. Member:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: I am not sure whether that was a suggestion that I should say yes without comment or no without comment, but I will take it that it really meant without comment. I am trying to convey to the Hon. Member that the Chair takes extremely seriously the representations made on this question. I invite her to read precisely what I have already said.
September 9, 1985



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Crosbie that Bill C-49, an Act to amend the Criminal Code (prostitution), be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.
Mr. Speaker:: I will now advise the House, if I may, that because of the new Standing Order 19(4) the House will sit for an extra 20 minutes this afternoon. Government Orders will be extended for 20 minutes. What is usually five o'clock becomes 5:20, etc. The floor was open at the time of adjournment.


Mrs. Lucie Pepin (Outremont):: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my confusion, my astonishment and my concern about Bill C-49 to amend the Criminal Code with respect to prostitution.
First I should like to stress that Bill C-49 is not by any means an intelligent response to the Fraser report and the Badgley report. Indeed the commissioners of the Special Committee on Pornography and Prostitution have stated that a global approach taking social aspects into account was necessary to find solutions to the prostitution problem.
Bill C-49 deals only with a minor aspect of the Criminal Code concerning prostitution. It summarily rejects the global approach advocated by the Fraser committee, and Canadian men and women can now see for themselves that the Minister of Justice took a rather short-sighted view of prostitution.
Let us refer to the fact that in a survey made this summer 92 per cent of Canadians said that prostitution ought to be legalized, but indeed that a special effort should be made in cases of juvenile prostitution.
The Bill now under consideration does not contain anything at all concerning young people who prostitute themselves, nor is there any kind of reference to pimps who work with those young people.
This morning I heard the Minister of Justice (Mr. Crosbie) conclude his remarks by saying that there simply would not be any pimps if there were no prostitutes. I would simply add that I am convinced that there would be no pimps if there were no customers, for we know full well that pimps get their money from prostitutes.
In addition, the Bill to amend the Criminal Code now under consideration aims at reinforcing repression against street prostitution. Many organizations, including the Advisory Board and the Women and the Law Group, had already expressed the wish that nuisance related to prostitution be reduced. Commissioner Paul Fraser and his colleagues also
Criminal Code
agreed on the importance of restricting prostitution-related activities.
We must not think however that criminal law can eliminate the phenomenon we are dealing with today. In my opinion, it could be dangerous to make improper use of our criminal law to solve problems for which global social strategies are better suited. I believe that prostitution is such a problem.
Bill C-49 brings absolutely no change to the sexist view of the Criminal Code sections dealing with prostitution. Indeed, its aim is to define soliciting even more narrowly, which means that the target still remains the prostitute. This reflects a rather hypocritical point of view. The Government turns a blind eye to the customers, the pimps, the touts, and the owners of the premises where prostitution occurs.
The way in which Bill C-49 has been presented today gives us the feeling that only the prostitutes are punished and stigmatized. While it is absurd and unfair to put all the blame for the ills of this complex phenomenon on the prostitutes, these are the conclusions we must now draw from this Bill.
Both the Badgley Report published in September 1984 and the Fraser Report published last spring recognized that the Government should develop special programs to eliminate disparities and economic discrimination. More specifically, recommendation 50 of the report noted the importance for the Government to intensify its moral and financial commitment to eliminate economic and social disparities between the sexes and discrimination based on sexual orientation.
Commissioner Fraser and his colleagues also stated that the Government should see to it that social programs are developed for women and young people in need.
The Special Committee on Pornography and Prostitution very rightly pointed out that prostitution is related to the lack of social and educational programs to help young Canadian men and women to deal confidently and responsibly with the problems of sexism, sexuality and sexual identity.
At the time when the Progressive Conservative Government is closing down the Family Planning Division of the Department of National Health and Welfare, the Fraser Report states that the Government should help finance the development and implementation in schools of educational programs dealing with relevance and tact with the issues of sexuality.
The members of the Special Committee on Pornography and Prostitution also believe the Government should provide joint funding for a national centre on sexuality and training for life in society, with a program to prevail on academics and well-known specialists to do research work and develop teaching programs and models. They also feel federal and provincial governments should commission further research on prostitution and come to grips with that social phenomenon and its impact on those who engage in it.

September 9, 1985
Criminal Code
Bill C-49 is a further step on the road to criminalizing prostitution, although the Fraser Report and a number of groups now recognize that criminalization has fallen short of its goal of reducing prostitution.
Because total elimination of prostitution is altogether unrealistic, it is normal to try to limit it. As I said earlier, prostitution is one of those problems against which criminal law is of no avail. What must be found and implemented is a social strategy rather than the big stick approach which the Minister of Justice is proposing today. In that sense, Mr. Speaker, I personally call for the de-criminalization of prostitution. The actions of people engaging in prostitution should not be considered as offences under the Criminal Code whenever they cause no public nuisance.
Like the members of the Special Committee, the Fraser Committee, I believe that criminal provisions concerning bawdy houses should be rewritten in order not to prohibit small groups of persons, one or two people, from engaging in prostitution in residential premises, nor to prevent provinces from authorizing and regulating small prostitution establishments located on non-residential premises and involving adult people.
I am aware of the dangers of such an attempt to allow the commercialization of prostitution, but it is my view that this is an approach that should be considered and looked into. We should look at foreign experiments, especially in Sweden and the Netherlands.
Make no mistake about it, Mr. Speaker: the idea is not to encourage prostitution but to place it in its proper social and economic context. It would be irrealistic to try to abolish prostitution in view of the inequalities which continue to exist in our society and the place occupied by women within the political and economic pecking order. We would be better advised to try to limit prostitution and reduce its harmful effects.
With an open mind, the Government should take steps to help women involved in prostitution to adopt a different lifestyle, if they want to.
Prostitutes may have a hard time trying to do so. Economic inequalities which women are faced with on the marketplace are not likely to encourage them to adopt massively a lifestyle more consistent with social morality.
A woman who has spent a major part of her adult life in marginal or even illegal activities is not likely to have the knowledge and abilities necessary to carry out most ordinary duties. She will also lack the contacts which would enable her to find a job on the normal labour market.
Any woman outside the labour market should have access to programs where she can learn what qualifications are required to join the paid work force. She should be able to obtain information about jobs offered and the required training.
Mr. Speaker, prostitution is a complex phenomenon and 1 think it is sad that after the Fraser report the Government is introducing a bill which will solve none of the issues this report has raised. This patchwork approach borders on misunderstanding. I find it quite disconcerting and disappointing that after the Fraser and Badgley reports, the Government should view prostitution from such a narrow angle.
Street soliciting seems to be the major issue for this Progressive Conservative Government and the Minister of Justice. It should be emphasized that soliciting represents only 15 per cent of prostitution. They fail to recognize the fact that for women de jure and de facto equality is a basic right, as well as the means to achieve it. Prostitution is but one result of social and economic inequalities, and I feel that the Government should deal with these inequalities much more urgently than with street soliciting.
The institution of a truly egalitarian society where all men and women could really be involved in the decision-making process which affects their personal, economic and social lives is one of these prerequisites. The issue of prostitution is one which should be dealt within the broader context of the type of society we want to develop.
We should emphasize, therefore, that in a truly egalitarian world, all exchanges, sexual and otherwise, should neither be bought nor sold.
I strongly encourage the Conservative Government to widen the debate on prostitution. This problem should be considered more from the social point of view than the legal one. I am not alone to hold that view: many groups of women, as well as the Special Committee on Pornography and Prostitution and the Badgley Committee have drawn the same conclusions.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-49. As we know, this Bill will amend the Criminal Code to make it a criminal offence, punishable by summary conviction, for persons in a public place to stop or attempt to stop a motor vehicle, impede the flow of traffic, to stop or attempt to communicate with any person for the purpose of engaging in prostitution or obtaining the services of a prostitute. It also provides for a review of the legislation after three years.
As my colleague stated this morning, our Party is opposed to this Bill. However, I also want to say that contrary to the propaganda that some of our Conservative friends have been pushing, we do not intend to unduly delay this Bill. Although my colleague elaborated on this in some detail this morning, let me quickly relate some of our major concerns about Bill C-49. We believe that although much stricter enforcement legislation that affects communities is needed to protect communities and its citizens, this Bill is unlikely to be a quick fix, contrary to a rather common belief held by the public.
September 9, 1985

There are some serious omissions in this Bill. It ignores the recommendations of the Fraser Commission that would deal with community problems in a more non-criminal way with the strengthening of some nuisance provisions of the Criminal Code. It also ignores major recommendations of the Badgely Report. They are two very important federal reports that involved input from all parts of Canada and considerable study and research.
The fact is that it will be mostly women who will be charged under the Criminal Code. They will be thrown in jail, given a criminal record and returned to the streets to pay their fines. With such a record, it is doubtful that there will be very much chance to move into any kind of occupation in the future.
There is no provision in the Bill to deal with pimps. Although the Bill includes a provision by which customers could be charged, they are less likely to be charged. It is much easier to pick up a woman or young person who is on the street than it is to pick up the fancy customer who is in a car cruising around the neighbourhood. There is no question that past experience shows that it will be women and an increasing number of young people, including young men, who will be the primary victims of this legislation.
I hope the Government will seriously consider addressing our deep concern about the fact that this Bill also criminalizes juveniles and provides no strong sanctions against customers of juveniles. This was one of the most important recommendations of the Fraser Commission. I do not understand why there is no clause in the Bill dealing very strongly with such sanctions.
The Government has no plan to deal with the comprehensive situation that causes and has spin-offs from prostitution. Most of us agree, and the reports I have mentioned underline strongly, that prostitution has a social and an economic cause. Therefore, we must look at social and economic solutions along with protections for neighbourhoods.
We will oppose this Bill. We will present further details in debate and committee. Being the Member for Vancouver East, where this summer there have been intolerable kinds of activities particularly in the Mount Pleasant area of my riding, I wish I could support a Bill that would be a quick fix to solve community problems relating to street soliciting.
I know the Hon. Member for Vancouver Centre (Miss Carney) will agree that as street soliciting is concentrated in one neighbourhood it starts out as a nuisance problem which quickly escalates to include very serious problems leading to violence and intimidation. In one apartment building in my riding a prostitute was murdered and an incident took place involving 13 year-olds on private property. These are but two extreme incidents but they must cease. We cannot tolerate disruption to neighbourhoods. Citizens and communities have rights and it is up to all of us to assist in protecting these rights.
Our party and certainly myself feel that aggressive action must be taken on many fronts to deal with community prob-
Criminal Code
lems. We feel that not enough has been done to deal with these problems. We would like to see much more aggressive enforcement by police. I have spent a lot of time talking to people regarding specific incidents that involved local people calling police. Much more aggressive enforcement by police must be taken under existing provisions of the Criminal Code as well as under municipal by-laws and provincial laws, all of which have provisions to deal with nuisance, loitering, intimidation, indecent acts, traffic violations, noise, trespassing and the involvement of juveniles. In Vancouver and in some other cities, there has not been a concerted attempt to follow up with concentrated police action, particularly community policing.
My colleague, the Hon. Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson) has spoken very eloquently and in great detail about the many reasons we have concerns regarding Bill C-49. Unfortunately, it is impossible to improve this Bill in committee. It would be nice if we could change the focus and modify it in some way to be helpful. Under the existing terms of reference and the purposes of this Bill, it cannot be amended. It is an extremely simplistic Bill which has many serious omissions regarding street soliciting, community problems and prostitution generally.
I want to repeat that while we cannot agree with this Bill, we do not intend to delay it beyond the normal period for debate. We feel it is important to have all views presented in committee, including views of community groups which have considerable expertise in the area. We know in advance that the Bill will be passed by the Conservative Government majority, despite its inadequacies and despite a complete disregard of the Fraser Committee recommendations.
In the New Democratic Party we agree most emphatically with the comments made by the Minister this morning, that the quality of life in residential neighbourhoods and the safety and rights of residents must be protected and of primary concern. Situations have almost destroyed a neighbourhood in my riding which has experienced nuisance problems, harassment, obscenities and violent crimes. Citizens and communities have rights to a safe environment.
Young people are drawn into street prostitution, a point which the Minister stressed. We too are most concerned about this. I have talked to many women who are raising young children on very low incomes and little security. They are forced to take to the streets to increase their incomes. As well we have people on grossly inadequate welfare rates who have to go to food banks and must prostitute at the end of the month to feed their kids.
I want to add my voice to those of my constituents who are demanding an end to this intolerable community disruption experienced in the Mount Pleasant community. Noise and offensive behaviour of customers, prostitutes and pimps has escalated, as I said before. Many women are afraid to go out at night. Parents are rightfully incensed at the obscene behaviour which their children are witnessing. I am very concerned when I hear about calls to police that more often than not are unable to be completed. I have heard about calls being unanswered. Responses are delayed. I am told there is no chance to

September 9, 1985
Criminal Code
follow up and charge people in cases where they should be charged. Residents feel unprotected.
Juvenile prostitution and activities of pimps are largely ignored in this community. They are tolerated. This should not be happening under our existing laws. I am proud to say that residents in the Mount Pleasant community, and I am sure it is an example of other communities, have dealt with the situation in a positive way. People are concerned about the need for alternate jobs and adequate income so that women particularly have an alternative to prostitution, even though we know many are caught in chronic situations. People are demanding stronger police enforcement.
I helped to convene a meeting during the summer. Block representatives were established and a positive program was set up. Many proposals were made, including police task forces, community policing, neighbourhood block programs. Meetings with city hall people were set up to press for more community services. In Ottawa, Mayor Dewar has been successful in curtailing the effects of prostitution in residential neighbourhoods. Montreal has a special by-law which our provincial Government refused to allow in Vancouver. We believe enforcement has been lax. Much more emphasis should be given to this. If the present sections of the Criminal Code that deal with nuisance are inadequate, they should be changed. I hope the committee will take a good look at some of the proposals of the Fraser Commission.
I want to speak as the NDP critic for the status of women and for social policy. Prostitution has always exploited and degraded women, particularly poor women, disadvantaged women and native women, women who are unprotected and who have inadequate income. These are the ones who we find on the streets. Many prostitutes have a history of childhood abuse. Most would have few employment skills to cope in other jobs. It is most important we recognize the root of prostitution, and from that the very many social problems that exist in prostitution-related activities.
We need social and economic approaches as well as a legal approach to deal with problems. There must be an alternative way of life. Young people must be made to realize that this is a dangerous and not a glamorous occupation. To accomplish this, we have to be able to reach them. They are street kids, many of whom are foster children and do not have any home base. They must be reached through Outreach programs. They must have alternative job opportunities. They must have places in which to live with role models. They must have training and community support. I am pleased that our community recognizes these facts and is working on community programs, as well as ridding itself of street prostitution.
Government politicians at all levels have a responsibility. However, I particularly appeal to the federal Government- and I see that the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Miss MacDonald) is with us this afternoon-that it is not enough to have criminal sanctions. We do not agree with the particular approach of the Government. It is not enough just
to do that and ignore employment opportunities or ways of ensuring adequate incomes and alternative lifestyles. The New Democratic Party wants stronger enforcements of nuisance laws, both local and federal, to protect citizens and to deal with community problems. Primarily, we feel that they should be directed at customers. Bill C-49, in its application, will be directed more to punitive measures against prostitutes, most of whom are women. I am not convinced that it has a strong method of dealing with customers. Customers provide the demand. If the customers are not there, the prostitutes and the pimps will not be there because they will not have any business. We would like to see the enforcement of nuisance measures strengthened in order to deal with and discourage customers. We also want social and economic solutions so that young people and women will not have to earn their living on the streets. Unfortunately we do not feel that these methods of dealing with a very complex social and economic problem will be met under Bill C-49.


Hon. Pat Carney (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, it is with great satisfaction that I am able to participate today in the debate on Bill C-49, an Act to amend the Criminal Code dealing with prostitution. As many Members of the House will know, I am very pleased with the action taken by the Conservative Government and by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Crosbie) to deal with an issue which affects families and neighbourhoods right across the country. It deals with the blight of street soliciting which has invaded residential neighbourhoods, which is helping to destroy juveniles in particular, and which has led to a deterioration of some of the most historic neighbourhoods of Canada.
While 1 agree with the Hon. Member for Vancouver East (Ms. Mitchell), that there are other issues in the whole field of prostitution which must be addressed, I think this Bill which deals with street soliciting certainly is a major step forward in dealing with the problem. It is particularly a victory for citizens across Canada, because it was the pressure brought by citizens from Vancouver to Halifax who wanted to preserve their neighbourhood which led to the introduction of the Bill by the Conservative Government. It was one of our campaign promises. It is very satisfying to know that we have been able to meet this campaign promise within the first year of our mandate. It is also gratifying to know that it has the support, if only the qualified support, of the Hon. Member for Vancouver East.
I want to point out that the problems which the Hon. Member for Vancouver East now has in her riding are very similar to the ones which I had in my riding when this issue was first raised. I should like to refer to Hansard of December 17, 1981, and to quote, with Your Honour's permission, some sentences from the speech I made at that time. I was describing what street soliciting was doing to my riding and to my neighbourhood, and 1 said:
It is one of the most historic neighbourhoods in our city. For the last couple of years it has been invaded by prostitutes and pimps who are found on every corner. It is a business well organized by pimps with walkie-talkies- It is organized in relation to territories- It is dangerous for residents. They are not only accosted every time they leave their apartment or home to get a loaf of
September 9, 1985

bread or to pick up some milk or go to the post office, but there has already been one knifing incident.
Also in that speech I added:
I would like to emphasize, Mr. Speaker, that we are not dealing with the age old problem here of street prostitution ... we are dealing with the problem of prostitution on people's lawns, by their paper boxes, right in front of their grocery stores, in their churches and in their daycare centres. It is an infestation of a quiet and beautiful neighbourhood.
I made those comments with regard to Vancouver Centre, my riding, but the very same comments can be made right now with regard to Vancouver East, as the Hon. Member indicated. It is another historic neighbourhood, another family neighbourhood, which is being subjected to this blight.
I talked with some of the residents of Mount Pleasant last week and went through some areas in the Vancouver East Riding. I found that the same churches, the same lawns and the same beautiful homes were now afflicted. It is too bad the Hon. Member for Vancouver East could not have supported me in my efforts four years ago to have this problem corrected and that now that it is in her riding she recognizes the problem. When it was in my riding, she ignored it. In the meantime there have been four years of problems in neighbourhoods, a deterioration of neighbourhoods, harassment of ordinary citizens and corruption of juveniles in the four years of delay and procrastination before the Bill was brought before the House for second reading. I urge Opposition Members not to delay unduly this Bill, as they know the injunction which applies in British Columbia could be challenged in October. As they also know, there have already been instances of violence in other ridings. No matter what qualifications the Opposition Members may have about the Bill, we share a common desire to avoid the vigilante type of action which is surfacing in the Vancouver area and in other centres across the country.
I want to review some of the history of this measure and the role which my own constituents played in getting us to this stage, because the Conservative Party has been the only Party which has consistently dealt with the issue of street soliciting in a way that enhances families and neighbourhoods. We have consistently advanced the argument, since I entered the House in 1980, that the preservation of neighbourhoods and the preservation of families require that steps be taken to deal with soliciting. I would like to review some of the steps which got us here today. In Vancouver Centre I first became concerned about this issue in 1979 where, with the help of Denny Boyd of the Vancouver Sun, I participated in a well televised and well covered walk through some of the areas of my riding. It was the first time that attention had been focused on what happens to a neighbourhood, a family residential area, when it is invaded by this kind of blight. I can still remember the shock of the people who were with me when they saw little children on the streets soliciting, when they saw young women on the streets soliciting, and when they saw what was happening in terms of the noise and degradation of neighbourhoods. It was the first time that people realized that what happened in Vancouver Centre could and subsequently did happen in other centres across Canada.
Criminal Code
In early 1982 I tackled the then Liberal Minister of Justice on the issue. We had just repatriated the Constitution; we just had the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. In response to my continual raising of the issue of what good was the Charter of Rights if residents could not go to church without being hassled by hookers, he finally referred it to the Justice Committee of the House of Commons. About the same time a group was formed in my riding to which I give a lot of credit, the Concerned Residents of the West End, with people like Gordon Price and Jerry Stafford who got together to see what they could do to support myself as their Member of Parliament and other MPs in getting the changes through the House. They lobbied right across Canada and helped form other groups in other cities to focus attention on this issue. This is one of those issues which, if it does not occur in one's own neighbourhood, one tends to ignore it but when it does occur in one's own neighbourhood, one becomes very concerned by what can happen to friends, families and home life.
In 1982, the Justice Committee which, on our side of the table, was spearheaded by the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Hnatyshyn), heard representations from all across the country. Again, since it is now three years later, 1 would like to read into the record the organizations from which we heard before making our recommendations.
We heard from witnesses who came to Ottawa to appear before us representing the Concerned Residents of the West End; the West End Hotel Association; the West End Businessmen's Association; the Mayor of Vancouver, Mike Harcourt; Gordon Neighbourhood House which is in my riding and deals with the issue of juvenile prostitutes; the National Association of Women and the Law; the Elizabeth Fry Society of Toronto; the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police; the Vancouver Coalition for a Non-Sexist Criminal Code; the National Action Committee of The Status of Women; the Mayor of Niagara Falls; the Mayor of Calgary; the Metropolitan Toronto Board of Commissioners of Police; the Justice Department; Priscilla Platt, a barrister from Toronto; Professor Gerald Beaudoin of the University of Ottawa; and the Canadian Association of Elizabeth Fry Societies. I have read that list into the record because I want to make the point that in 1982, we were already getting substantial input from citizens across the country regarding this issue. What is now before us is a Bill which can deal with the matter and which should not be unduly delayed.
The results of the Justice Committee hearings were very similar to the legislation that is now before the House. The proposed amendment of the Justice Committee, and all-Party committee, contained in its majority report, dealt with the issue of soliciting for the purposes of prostitution and suggested that it should be banned in public places or any place open to public view including vehicles on the street or in driveways. That was important because today, as then, soliciting does not only take place on the street, it takes place in back lanes, churchyards, shopping plazas and apartment foyers of affected neighbourhoods. The present law does not address this prob-

September 9, 1985
Criminal Code
lem. The majority report also dealt with the issue of public places including automobiles since a great many of these transactions take place in automobiles. As well, it recommended that both the prostitute and the customer may be charged, something which is of course essential and for which there has been general agreement.
The Justice Committee recommendations also dealt with the issue of juvenile prostitution, an issue which, according to the Minister of Justice will be dealt with in a separate Bill after more consultation with the parties affected. We all share the wish to protect these children rather than to penalize them and we wish to ensure that whatever steps are taken are humane and not punitive.
The recommendations of the Justice Committee were ignored and the Liberal Government brought in Bill C-53, a Bill which of course was toothless. The Bill did acknowledge the need to charge clients as well as prostitutes but since we could not charge prostitutes under the old Act, there was no particular point in trying to charge clients under legislation which could not be effectively enforced. At that time, the Fraser Committee was set up and of course there was a delay while its report was being made, during which time the problem spread to other cities.
In 1984, the residents of my riding formed the Shame the Johns Committee. It was a source of some pride to me that the citizens would continue to defend their neighbourhoods but at the same time it was a concern to me because, in the confrontation between the neighbours and the hookers and pimps, there was, of course, an atmosphere conducive to violence and I did not feel that people should have to risk their lives in order to defend their nighbourhoods. However, the Shame the Johns Committee movement spread. I walked with the Shame the Johns Committee in Halifax, a city which had the same problem in a historic neighbourhood, and such committees have been organized in other cities.
The point I would like to make is that this problem is not confined only to Vancouver. It is a problem that has spread across the country. It is a problem which has frustrated people such that they have gone from making complaints to the organization of community groups. What I fear now is that if the House does not deal with this issue, debate the issue, make recommendations and pass the Bill so that we have new laws in place, the formation of vigilante groups could lead to incidents of violence. Last weekend in Vancouver, there was such an incident, an incident which should spread fear among all legislatures regarding what happens when people take bad laws into their own hands.
I am suggesting that we proceed in a lawful manner by processing this legislation. We should examine it. Opposition Members should offer improvements. I beg opposition Members not to filibuster this Bill, to stop its process or to create an environment in which citizens are forced into the streets to defend their neighbourhoods because then anarchy prevails and the faith in legal institutions such as Parliament will break down. Right now what we have is an uncontrolled and unlimited problem. While this legislation will not resolve all the
problems, it will deal with the issue of street soliciting in residential neighbourhoods. That will give us a good basis on which we may continue to work together to resolve some of these other issues.
Mis. Copps: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister a question regarding a statement which she made in the latter part of her speech. She suggested that we should pass this Bill expeditiously because if we did not do so, we would find people taking the law into their own hands and perpetrating violent acts on society. It would seem to me that if that were the rationale used for the passage of laws across this country, it would in fact lead to anarchy.
Miiss Carney: Mr. Speaker, I am not surprised that it is a Liberal Member who has brought that proposition forward because it was the Liberal Government that delayed and delayed on this kind of legislation until what was a fairly small, localized problem had spread right across the country. It is because of the delay in passing this legislation, because of the blight of neighbourhoods, because of daycare centres with little kids playing in the shadow of hookers, and because of all of the activity in the churchyards that people in defence of their own neighbourhoods got together and served notice that if the Government of Canada cannot deal with this problem, they will.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, I do not understand the Minister's rationale for suggesting to Parliamentarians that we should expeditiously pass this particular Bill for fear that if we did not pass it, society will be taken over by vigilante groups. That is a rationale that I do not understand and I would think that as a Parliamentarian, the Minister would find it very shocking that we should pass laws simply as a response to groups that could potentially become vigilante groups.


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, I accept the fact that the Liberal Member does not understand the situation. The Liberal Party never did and the Liberal Government did not either.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister a question with respect to the report of the Fraser Commission to which she has made reference. In dealing with the question of prostitution, the report of the Fraser Commission pointed out that one of the causes of prostitution was economic roots and in particular, and I am now quoting from the report:
-the discrimination in employment that some gays, and gay males in particular appear to encounter. The latter problem is accentuated in the case of transsexual individuals who may find themselves virtually unemployable.
The Fraser Commission went on to recommend that the Government of Canada in conjunction with the Government of the provinces and Territories should strengthen both their moral and financial commitment to removing the economic and social inequalities between men and women and discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. The Canadian Human Rights Act should clearly be the appropriate piece of legislation to be amended in order to prevent discrimination against gays and lesbians, discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. This is a recommendation which has been made
September 9, 1985

repeatedly by the Canadian Human Rights Commission and one which I myself have made to the House through a Private Member's Bill which is now before the Committee on Equality Rights. Indeed, it is one which the Minister herself, when she was a private Member, made to the House through a Private Member's Bill. Does the Minister continue to support amendments to the Canadian Human Rights Act to prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, and if so, what action is she and the Government taking to ensure that those amendments will in fact be enacted?


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, as the Hon. Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson) has indicated, 1 have supported this measure. He did not indicate the fact that I was the first MP ever of any Party to introduce a Private Member's Bill in this House urging a change to the Canadian human rights legislation to include sexual orientation. He did not mention the fact that I supported his Private Member's Bill as, in fact, he supported mine; nor did he mention that when we were of a minority opinion in the House that we both advanced this cause.
When he asks whether I would support any changes in this light, of course, I would. When he asks what our Government is doing about it, I note that the matter is before a committee dealing with equality rights and I am watching the focus of that committee with great interest.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, 1 appreciate the Minister's indication that she has supported this measure in the past and continues to support it. In the event that the sub-committee recommends the inclusion of sexual orientation in the Canadian Human Rights Act, does the Minister intend to press on her colleagues in Cabinet the implementation of this important recommendation, as she has recommended in the past and as the Fraser Commission recommended in its report to the Government?


Pat Carney: The answer to the question, Mr. Speaker, is yes.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to have an opportunity to participate in this debate. I believe there is one issue upon which all members can agree, that is, where we have come to a parting of the ways and, in particular, come to a parting of the ways with this Government, is in the selective application of recommendations emerging from the Fraser Commission. The Hon. Member for Vancouver Centre (Miss Carney) spoke earlier about the specific problem in the city of Vancouver and how a number of community groups, including the Mayor of Vancouver, joined together in an effort to eliminate a problem in an historic neighbourhood of her community. She also outlined the difficulties faced in another community, specifically in an historic neighbourhood in Halifax.
It seems to me that one of the things we must do when we look at the question of prostitution is set aside the issue of whether or not it happens to be occurring in a nice neighbour-
Criminal Code
hood or a not-so-nice neighbourhood. The members of my Party and I believe that every citizen in the country deserves to be free of annoyance and free of any difficulties when it comes to solicitation and prostitution. Of course, everyone would agree that it is not a problem which should only be addressed in nice neighbourhoods.
During the past weekend, I happened to be in Yellowknife in the Northwest Territories. At that time, the Federation of Canadian Municipalities was holding a national meeting on this and other important issues. Included among its members and representatives who attended that particular meeting was, in fact, the Mayor of Vancouver. The Mayor of Vancouver and, presumably, the municipalities across the country, have been directly involved in the implementation of the recommendations of the Fraser Commission.
I would like to bring to the attention of the House the feelings of the Federation of Canadian Municipalities. These are feelings which, in fact, do not concur with the words expressed earlier by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Crosbie) to the effect that no one has disagreed with Bill C-49. 1 would like to take a few moments to read into the record the serious concerns which have been expressed by the Task Force on Pornography and Prostitution which were unanimously endorsed last weekend in Yellowknife by the Federation of Canadian Municipalities. I realize that the Hon. Member for Vancouver Centre cannot accept the word of a Liberal because she is blinkered by partisanship when it comes to discussing serious and substantial issues. However, she may listen to the words of the Federation of Canadian Municipalities in which they unanimously endorsed a report which states:
The Task Force has serious concerns about the approach adopted in Bill C-49. First, this approach is not comprehensive. It is like trying to remove the tip of an iceberg and assuming that the rest will disappear. Second, as stated in the Fraser Report, "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 in those countries like the United States which retain a Draconian system, that the results of such an approach would justify it." In short, we have serious doubts about the likely effectiveness of Bill C-49.
This report was not written by the Liberal Party. It was not written by members of the Opposition about whom the Minister would pretend obstructionism. This report was written by a task force established by the Federation of Canadian Municipalities because that Federation was extremely concerned with the issue of street solicitation, which is one portion-a very small one-of the market of prostitution. This particular report was unanimously supported not only by the task force but by representatives from coast to coast who were at the meeting in Yellowknife.
1 know we have a problem. I think the members of the New Democratic Party have also recognized the problem when it comes to the issues of street solicitation. When I look at the recommendation in Bill C-49, which is particularly punitive toward the prostitutes, I would like to ask the Government: Where are the purveyors? Where are the pimps? Where are the customers when it comes to this piece of legislation? The suggestion that the Government will move in with a half measure which targets solicitation without dealing with the

September 9, 1985
Criminal Code
issue of procurement and without dealing with the issue of customers in a very direct way is in and of itself flying in the face of all of the recommendations of the Fraser Report.
Even if the Government is insistent upon adopting a one-tier approach to the problem, and if it refuses to look at the comprehensive recommendations made in the Fraser Commission Report, then, at best, it should introduce amendments to this piece of legislation which would ensure equal treatment of the pimps, the customers and the prostitutes. As long as there is a single piece of legislation which will light out simply on the issue of solicitation against the prostitutes, then we will not reach the root of the problem of prostitution, nor will we deal with the difficulties intrinsic in street solication. I would ask the Hon. Member for Vancouver Centre, who has walked the streets of Vancouver, to tell us how many prostitutes are operating out there without a pimp in the background, without a purveyor or without customers. It takes a trio to operate in this particular situation in dealing with street solicitation. Unfortunately, the Bill before us makes a feeble attempt to deal with only one third of the group involved in this activity.
Again, the task force, in a report which was unanimously endorsed on the weekend by the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, expressed some concerns with respect to the decision of this Government to target legislation toward prostitutes without looking at the entire question. They make certain recommendations. The first is that they have an opportunity to meet directly with the Minister of Justice to address some of the specific concerns related to amendments to this Bill. They do not particularly want Bill C-49 to proceed at this time. However, if it is to proceed, then they are encouraging the Government to at least include recommendations 59 and 60 of the Fraser Commission Report which cover the areas of the purveyors as well as the customers of prostitution. The task force recommends that the effectiveness of Bill C-49 be reviewed in a period of two years following the introduction of the legislation. However, before that happens, the Federation would like to have a chance to meet directly with the Minister of Justice with the intent of developing a more comprehensive approach to the problem of prostitution.
It is clear that prostitution, whether it be street solicitation or other forms of prostitution, is not a unique problem to Vancouver, Halifax, or nice neighbourhoods. If looked at historically, the issue of street solicitation only became an issue when the prostitutes started to move into "nice" neighbourhoods. In many neighbourhoods where the political clout of the residents has not been as strong or as effective over the years, prostitutes have carried on their business for a number of years. Prostitution was not discovered in 1978, 1979 or in the decades previous to that. Recently in my own community in Hamilton a concern was expressed in a neighbourhood which certainly could not be described as an historic neighbourhood. It is a neighbourhood of working people who expressed the same kinds of concerns about the intrusion into their private lives as has occurred in Vancouver and Halifax.
The Hon. Member for Trinity (Miss Nicholson) has often spoken to me about some of the difficulties faced in the Kensington market neighbourhood in Toronto and how she and others would like to find a way of solving the problem in the short and long term. I think it is clear, Mr. Speaker, that this rather piecemeal and in fact discriminatory piece of legislation which deals specifically with prostitution without including in its legislative target the customers, the purveyors and the procurers of sex, does not deal with the problem. I would suggest to the Hon. Member for Vancouver Centre, as well as other Hon. Members who have been involved in this dossier for a number of years, that when we have the kind of strong objection raised by organizations like the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, which has been in the front line of the fight from the moment it became apparent that it was a public problem, there is something intrinsically wrong with this legislation which must be corrected before we can expect to see all-Party support.
I believe it would be wrong and unfair of the Government to suggest that Members of the Liberal and New Democratic Parties were not interested in trying to find meaningful solutions to the problem of prostitution. Organizations like the Federation of Canadian Municipalities unanimously suggested that this particular piece of legislation will not do the job. People like the Mayor of Vancouver who were at that meeting and endorsed this task force recommendation are calling upon the Government not to introduce Bill C-49 without some very specific amendments and have expressed concern that even with amendments, Bill C-49 will not address the basic problem of juvenile prostitution, delinquency and all the other inherent social problems we saw very fully explored in the Fraser commission report. In a sense, the Government is throwing up a smoke screen. It is trying to address a problem through legislation which does not do the job. Across Canada that appears to be an emerging consensus, not only from women's groups and from groups representing, for example, the question of civil liberties for Canadians, but also from the Federation of Canadian Municipalities which has been elected to speak for the major communities across this country which are specifically facing the problem.
I would like to read for the record some of the names of people who were on that task force so we know we are not just speaking about partisan Liberal opposition: Baryl Gaffney from the City of Nepean who was the chairman of the task force; Harold Macdonald from the City of Winnipeg; Donna MacArthur from Prince Edward Island; Jack Layton from the City of Toronto; Larry Gilchrist from the City of Calgary and a staff member from the Federation of Canadian Municipalities. These people are dealing on a daily basis with the direct complaints in their communities, and who are dealing on a very specific basis with the kind of problems which were outlined by the Hon. Member for Niagara Falls (Mr. Nicholson). When they express serious concerns and reservations about Bill C-49, they are echoing the sum and substance of the statements which have been made in this House and outside
September 9, 1985

this House. 1 do not think that anyone believes that Bill C-49 is the answer to the question. It is simply a clouding of the facts when the Government and the Minister parade Bill C-49 as a fulfilment of the Conservative promises on the issue of prostitution.
I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that we on this side of the House will want to work with the Government and with the Federation of Canadian Municipalities to encourage the Government to back off on this particular piece of legislation. We believe it should introduce instead a more comprehensive package which will take into consideration not only the issue of street solicitation, which is 10 per cent of the problem with respect to prostitution, but the over-all difficulties as outlined in the Fraser Commission report. This report begins to address this problem for all Canadians in a way which is not specifically punitive toward the prostitute while in fact allowing the procurers and the customers to go scot free.


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Hon. Member two questions. She correctly pointed out that prostitution did not begin in 1979, but 1 would suggest to her that street soliciting did emerge about that time. Since prostitution has been with us for about 4,000 years, is the Hon. Member proposing that we wait another 4,000 years to deal with the over-all problem of prostitution as she seems to infer from her remarks?


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, I am suggesting that the problem of prostitution was dealt with in a very complete and informative way by the Fraser Commission. This piecemeal piece of legislation does absolutely nothing to deal with the over-all social problems which derive from prostitution. Why is the Minister and her Government hiding behind a piece of legislation which is so flimsy that it cannot even get the support of the Federation of Canadian Municipalities?


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, that raises my second question. The Minister of Justice (Mr. Crosbie) had indicated that he will be consulting with provincial Governments and other groups before bringing in some of the other legislation which was suggested by the Fraser report. Of course, that would include the Federation of Canadian Municipalities. I would ask the Hon. Member one specific question: since I know that the Mayor of Vancouver totally supported myself and the constituents of Vancouver Centre in backing the measures we took to bring the problem of street soliciting before the House, and totally endorsed the Justice Committee recommendations which are contained in this legislation, is the Hon. Member suggesting that the Mayor of Vancouver does not support this legislation?


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, what 1 am suggesting is that there was a unanimous recommendation passed on the weekend in Yellowknife at a meeting which was attended by the Mayor of Vancouver. This particular recommendation was endorsed unanimously by all municipalities at a meeting which was attended by the Mayor of Vancouver at which very serious concerns were expressed about the approach adopted in Bill
Criminal Code
C-49. It is like "trying to remove the tip of an iceberg, assuming the rest will disappear". That particular report was endorsed by, among others, the Mayor of Vancouver, so the Minister can draw whatever conclusion from that.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: If there are no further questions or comments, we shall resume debate.


Mr. Jim Fulton (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, 1 am pleased to have an opportunity to speak on Bill C-49. I applaud its intention. I believe all Members of this House and the many people who are concerned with it applaud the intention which seems to be espoused by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Crosbie) and by some Conservative Members. However, I think it is the responsibility of every Member of this House, even if he or she is on the Government side, to take a close look at the way this Bill is drafted because it is dangerous law, Mr. Speaker. It is police law and I intend to expand on that considerably as I speak this afternoon. What this Bill is going to do is force a realignment of prostitution in Canada, as previous speakers have pointed out. The street prostitution is going to be dealt with here but will be at the choice of a municipality or police force or an individual police officer who wants to apply this draconian, steel fisted wording which the Minister of Justice put before us to deal with today.
I come to the House of Commons having been a probation and parole officer in British Columbia. I have dealt on a regular professional basis with both male and female prostitutes, with pimps and with the general grouping of people we find associated with the criminal element. I intend to expand at some length at what the real issue is here, how prostitution should really be dealt with in a Canadian way rather than this typically narrow way which is an attempt to be able to say to a few concerned constituents across the country, "We have brought the legislation in. The Liberals, the New Democratic Party and a few groups across the country did not like it but we have brought it in and we are able to deal with it". If anyone in this country is going to give the highest of all ratings to this Bill it is going to be organized crime, not those community groups which are concerned about street soliciting. It is organized crime which stands to reap the very greatest benefits from the kind of inflation we are going to see in the whole field of prostitution in Canada.
I believe Canadians should take a close look at the wording of this Bill. I am not persuaded, and I do not believe the Minister of Justice has persuaded anyone in his own caucus, that this is the way this problem should be approached. 1 quote Section 195.1 of the Criminal Code which states as follows:
Every person who in a public place or in any place open to public view
(a)	stops or attempts to stop any motor vehicle,
(b)	impedes the free flow of pedestrian or vehicular traffic or ingress to or
egress from premises adjacent to that place, or
(c)	stops or attempts to stop any person or in any manner communicates or
attempts to communicate with any person-

September 9, 1985
Criminal Code
Subparagraph (c) is really crucial:
(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 obtaining the services of a prostitute is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.
As we heard from the Minister of Justice that is $2,000 or six months in jail. It goes on to define in Clause (2) a "public place". It says:
In this section, "public place" includes any place to which the public have access as of right or by invitation, express or implied, and any motor vehicle located in a public place or in any place open to public view."
When I opened my remarks this afternoon I said that this is police law. I have watched over the years while I was in corrections the kinds of laws which came out of this House. From time to time I saw police law come from here. It shocked me. Police certainly like to have that kind of law. They can determine at what point they do not like a prostitute or pimp. As you can tell by the wording, this is a guaranteed power to bust. Whether we are talking about Mount Pleasant, Toronto, Halifax, Calgary, certain areas of Vancouver, Prince Rupert, Terrace, Smithers or Atlin, this gives the police the kind of power they really like. The power is incredibly broad and gives police an almost guaranteed bust when they want it, but it does not deal with prostitution per se. I disagree with the Minister of Justice and the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Miss Carney).
This Bill deals with a very narrow part of prostitution and, from my professional experience, it deals with those who are already in the weakest position. I never met a street hooker who wanted to be there. Not one. We heard earlier today about the Government of Manitoba Study which found that 90 per cent of prostitutes did not want to be in that line of work. Well, I never met anyone in the line of street prostitution who wanted to be there. In driving them off the streets, Members of this House had better keep in mind one of the reasons these people are on the streets. In many cases they do not have the kind of organized crime network for personal, physical protection. They are on the streets so they at least have that narrow opportunity to determine whether or not the customer, male or female, is likely to stab them, shoot them, or put them in a sack and dump them off a bridge. In bringing forward this Bill the Minister should keep in mind that these people, particularly the young people, should be dealt with by social workers, probation officers and a more loving and caring support system rather than by the police forces of this country. The police have a unique opportunity with this legislation to not only harass these people while they are on the street but to place them in an even more difficult situation, that of the revolving door of our penal system. As many Canadians know, we have one of the highest rates of incarceration in the world. Canadian taxpayers want to get people out of jail and get that barbaric burden off our back. What this legislation will guarantee is that a lot of these young and underprivileged people, almost all of whom were sexually abused as children, are going back into the correctional system.
Even if they move out of prostitution, where are they going to go? They have to go into either the world of drugs or other
forms of crime. As another Member said, if you have been a hooker for five years, what are you going to tell IBM when you apply for a typing job? You cannot say you have been a hooker on Davey Street. If they say that is why you do not get the job, then you may be able to appeal it under the Human Rights Act, but you are not going to get very far.
I think this institution has a responsibility to take a situation like this a little more gravely rather than simply throwing a bone to the police or to organized crime. I will be the first one to admit that I do not like to go into Mount Pleasant and hear people say they are tired of pimps beating on each other in the front yard with saps and knives, hookers all over the streets, screaming tires, and liquor bottles being thrown out the window. No Member of Parliament in his or her right mind would support that kind of activity, but to pass Draconian law is wrong.
We in British Columbia know why there are more juveniles on the street involved in prostitution. It is because the Socreds are interested in restraint. They closed the transition houses and got rid of the probation officers. They got rid of the social workers and all kinds of teams of professionals who go and deal with these people to get them off the street. What is the Socred and Conservative way of dealing with this kind of thing? They say they will give the police all the powers they need. They can pick and choose and we will get the hookers off the street. Brian Mulroney makes the country strong! What a lot of poppycock. Look at the implications for civil rights and human rights. Let us look at what a few newspapers have had to say about it. There are a few people who are willing to stand up and say that even though you are a hooker, you are a Canadian and you have human rights. There should be a few more Members here standing up and saying they will be counted for the human and civil rights of a hooker or pimp. Yes, we will make sure they know the activity they are involved in is criminal and we will get them into other occupations until we reach a state where it is recognized that this kind of activity is inherent in this economic situation.
The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources says prostitution has been here for 4,000 years. The Minister of Justice says we cannot get rid of it, but do they offer any realistic way of dealing with it? You can suppress it, decriminalize it or legalize it. What they have done is take what I consider to be a totally inappropriate and narrow-minded approach, not supported by the Fraser Commission or the Badgley Commission, and which should not be supported by Members of this House. You have to take a broad and far-ranging approach to these kinds of social problems. An Alberta newspaper says:
Crosbie, then, is rolling up his sleeves to tackle a symptom while ignoring the disease. If he does a good job on the symptoms the disease will probably get worse.
They are absolutely correct. A couple of years from now this House will be dealing with this problem all over again. In a few minutes I will read the chronology of action taken by this House as provided by the parliamentary library. Sure, people in Vancouver and Halifax will be happy; the police can move in and move the hookers and pimps from these residential


September 9, 1985

areas, and so they should. They have had the capacity to do that all along but they have been waiting, choking Parliament into producing a law we should not be producing. The article goes on to say:
Whatever one may think of some of its recommendations, the Fraser committee did appreciate the multifaceted nature of prostitution. It suggested a measure which it hoped would reduce or eliminate street soliciting. But, recognizing that if prostitution is driven from the streets it will go elsewhere, it tried to deal with that reality.
Bill C-49 does not deal with reality and people in this House should wake up. We should not keep passing law which is totally unrealistic. It goes on to say:
Hence its proposals that one or two prostitutes be allowed to carry on business in their own residence and that provinces be allowed to licence non-residential brothels. Hence, also, its recommendation that pimping and living off the avails of prostitution be illegal only if the prostitute concerned is under 18 or if a pimp uses force or the threat of force. Hence, not least, its plea for increased governmental support for efforts to ameliorate the social and economic conditions which often push young women into prostitution and for those aimed at helping and encouraging them to leave that way of life.
We have not heard anything from the Minister of Justice, the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp) or the provinces. As economic conditions get worse, you get more prostitution. Look at places like Mexico City. It is incredible! Anyone who thinks that as economic conditions get worse this kind of law will deal with prostitution is dreaming in Technicolor. The articles goes on to say:
Essentially, the Fraser committee argues that, street soliciting apart, the criminal law respecting prostitution should be limited to proscribing violence or the threat of force. This is a marked departure from the traditional approach of Canadian government and society. It is pragmatic rather than moralistic. The committee's proposals for legalized places of prostitution underline how radical its thinking is.
Let us see what another newspaper has to say. The Ottawa Citizen says: "Crosbie's bill threat to free speech". It says:
John Crosbie has responded to pressing and persistent pressure to get prostitutes off city streets. But his anti-soliciting bill is a dangerous answer to the wrong problem.
The Justice Minister's new bill would make it a crime to stop a car or impede pedestrians to offer sex for sale. That would be acceptable enough.
In an over-reaching subclause, however, the bill goes much further. In makes a criminal of anyone who "in any manner communicates or attempts to communicate with any person" in public in order to supply or obtain a prostitute's services.
Let us look at a few other implications of Bill C-49 going forward. As I pointed out earlier, it essentially deals with the poorest and most disorganized of those involved in prostitution. Some people may think that is great. However, where are those people going to go? Many of them cannot find other employment. Governments in British Columbia and other areas of the country do not have, or have cut off transition houses and training programs so that these people cannot move into the job market. They will move in with organized crime in "escort services" and the whole gamut of organized crime in relation to prostitution. It is true that it will remove the majority of prostitutes from the areas where people do not like it because when they are reported the police can simply go in with this "easy bust" legislation. If the police are looking for a
Criminal Code
piece of legislation which they can wave as a guaranteed bust, this is it.
Previous speakers have said that prostitution is a victimless crime but some Canadians have become associated victims to the effects of prostitution in this country. We feel badly about it and everyone in the House wants to do something about it because we do not want that kind of activity. It is very disruptive to have that kind of hassle in the community. It is not anyone's idea of a particularly good time to have a lot of heavies-the pimps-on the streets with batons and knives.
We must look carefully at what the Bill proposes to do and what its effects will be. When I was a probation and parole officer I dealt with hookers from the courts. In the late 1970s they were given probation orders which were very similar to the process of cities and provinces passing by-laws and injunctions to keep people out of certain areas of the community. Those probation or parole orders would stipulate that a prostitute could not be between certain streets or in certain premises where this prostitute was known to have made a living. Part of my job was to find out whether that order was being broken. If it was I would have to breach them and they would go to jail, be fined, or get another order of some kind.
In almost every case where the hookers had some kind of initiative they would get in touch with someone on another echelon of organized crime. If they had simply worked with a pimp before, they would move up into the call girl echelon of prostitution. They then had a more select clientele and less opportunity to have to deal with myself who would bust them, or with a police officier who would recognize them. They moved into another milieu where there is no opportunity for them to come into contact with police. That is how organized crime is starting to operate in the field. If any group in the country will give a ten star rating to this legislation, it will be organized crime. When we come to vote on this legislation we should consider whether we want to guarantee hundreds of millions of dollars to organized crime in this country as a result of the legislation that we would be passing.
The problem of the involvement of juveniles in prostitution has been raised with almost all Members of the House. This Bill does not deal with it. British Columbia now is almost resourceless. There is almost nothing that can be done there any longer because British Columbia has been made resourceless by political decisions. Camping opportunities and even incarcerative facilities are extremely limited and job-training programs have been eliminated. Society should be dealing much more effectively with the source of the disease rather than with symptomatic legislation such as we have before us.
I said I was going to discuss a paper produced by the Library of Parliament, but I do not have a lot of time. I will simply recommend that Members who are interested in this get it from the parliamentary library. It is called "Prostitution" and starts in 1892 with the first vagrancy and bawdy house legislation in the Criminal Code and continues on to the Hutt decision. It includes various attempts made by cities and provinces to deal with this problem.

September 9, 1985
Adjournment Motion
Let us take a look at what the Canadian Advisory Council on the Status of Women said in May when this Bill was first made public. As my colleague, the Hon. Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson) made very clear, the Minister did not actually introduce this Bill until June 26 at 10 o'clock at night. The Minister of Justice cannot go to my province and say that the Opposition is holding up a Bill when he did not introduce it until 10 o'clock at night two days before we rose and then never reintroduced it until today. If anyone stalled on this Bill it was the Government, and it does not deal with the problem.
The Canadian Advisory Council on the Status of Women described this as unimaginative, narrow, and punitive. It said that the Government's new anti-soliciting Bill only addresses half of the problem and it is going to result in more fines, jail sentences and criminal records and does not deal with the disease. Mr. Speaker, I think we should be very careful. Members of the Government should speak to prosecutors, social workers, and the Elizabeth Fry Society to find out the implications of the passage of such a Bill. Otherwise, in 18 months to three years from now we will be dealing with a much more broadly based piece of legislation involving the provinces as the Fraser Commission recommended. It is a sorry day to pass another piece of legislation just like Bill C-51 which had the search and seizure powers without warrant.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 46, to inform the House that the questions to be raised at the time of adjournment are as follows: The Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell (Mr. Boudria)-Government expenditures-(a) Minister's Middle East visit (b) Inquiry whether travel expenses will be made public; The Hon. Member for Cape Breton-East Richmond (Mr. Dingwall)-Energy-(a) Announced closure of Cape Breton heavy water plants (b) Government's position (c) Minister's position; the Hon. Member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia)-Environmental Affairs-(a) Storage of lethal gases (b) Transportation of lethal gases.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Crosbie that Bill C-49, an Act to amend the Criminal Code (prostitution), be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Questions and comments, the Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell (Mr. Boudria).


Mr. Boudria:: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a question of the previous speaker. I congratulate him on his excellent speech. I have listened very attentively all day. I am sorry he did not get an opportunity to speak of the customers. Would he share with us some of the information that he has in that regard, thereby enabling us to have the benefit of that information as well.


James Ross Fulton: I thank the Hon. Member for his question. It is intriguing how the Bill is written. It really does not deal with the whole question of customers. I think that Members of the House should remember that the Bill deals with a very narrow band of prostitution in Canada. It is the poorest, least educated, most abused and most violence-prone people who end up having to ply that trade. The customers who are involved, when dealing with street prostitution, are generally a rather rag-tag crowd. By that I mean they are not those who tend to use the more exclusive mechanisms of finding their way to prostitutes. Those in more exclusive lines of work, whether MPs, judges, doctors, or whoever, would tend to be made aware of the exclusivity of prostitution. Here we are talking in terms of street prostitutes.
Let me deal with Vancouver where I worked with the Vancouver Court team which worked out of the corner of Hastings and Main which is the toughest part of Vancouver to say the least. The customers of the female prostitutes tended to be men coming from the mining or logging resource based industry camps who had been away for some time. They tended to be a fairly rough crowd but not violent.
Street prostitutes now must also deal with a more peculiar phenomena. As they move up to the lowest levels of organized crime they will be faced with an even more difficult problem. As they get into the clutches of organized crime they will not be able to make the decision I talked about concerning the protection they get on the street. In that case, when they become involved in transactions with someone on the street, they are at least able to make a superficial judgment about whether they are afraid of that person. Once they become involved with organized crime it will not be that easy. That small protection will disappear.
September 9, 1985

I believe Parliament must play a bigger role in this respect because it also involves the issue of pornography. The random evolution of violence within human sexuality in the western world is exemplified in much of the pornography available today and street prostitutes will have to deal with this frequently. Prostitutes with whom I dealt professionally were frequently beaten, stabbed and mugged. It was terrifying and most, if not all, wanted to get out of the trade but were in it for very real economic reasons and could not get out.
As some of my colleagues have pointed out, in many cases these might be women with three children at home, living in a hovel. They run out of money and decide that they could use that $50 or $100 for their kids. I have met prostitutes who found themselves in that situation. When I interviewed them in their home and met their children I was flabbergasted that these women were prostitutes. Imagine the effects of this Draconian Bill on a woman, typing out of her home, who occasionally had to become involved in prostitution for economic reasons. She may face 30 days in Oakalla. Subsequently, she has a criminal record and cannot be bonded to do typing at home for students at Simon Fraser University.
We must consider the implications of this Bill more carefully. I want to talk more about the customers. We are beginning to see that there is more violence, as we learned in Vancouver with the murder of young prostitutes. Some of the prostitutes involved are 12, 13 and 14 years old. This Bill does not deal with that fact. The Government is throwing a bone to the police in order to vacuum-clean hookers off the street. While it will make a few people happy, Canadians must be aware of the implications of this legislation.
I suggest that customers may well be far more satisfied in their dealings with organized crime because if they want to beat a hooker once in a while, you can be sure that organized crime at the higher levels will send an unknowing individual into that situation knowing that they will make a lot of money from it. Even under the present law which is inappropriate and inactive, these prostitutes at least have an opportunity not to go back to be beaten by the same person.
Street prostitutes deal with a very different crowd than prostitutes within the more organized levels. It is much more dangerous to push them off the street and into a situation where they must deal with a pimp, operating out of a sleazy hotel. It does not deal with the fact that they are human beings. We cannot sit in the House and say that hookers are no good and have no rights and therefore will be dealt with in this way. As Canadians, even hookers in our society deserve better than this Bill and the customers deserve to be included in some kind of legislation in a more direct way.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, I listened to the eloquent remarks of my colleague, the Hon. Member for Skeena (Mr. Fulton). I wish he had more time to speak, given his experience as a parole officer dealing firsthand with many of these problems.
In the limited time which is available, would he indicate some of the background chronology of this particular area of
Criminal Code
the law? I believe he began to do so and it would be most helpful to all Members to have some sense of the many attempts that have been made in the past to address this important question.


James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, before doing that, I know that this Bill will go to a committee soon and 1 think we should remember that we are dealing with real human beings who are faced with a real human situation.
There are three options which the Fraser Commission carefully considered. First, we can take the action that is in this Bill, which is suppression legislation. We can decriminalize or we can legalize. I do not believe that that debate has been heard here. Some are worried that this is a controversial issue which will cost votes. However, I believe we must be practical.
Let me point out the serious situation which is developing by relating the chronology of changes in this legislation. It comes from the parliamentary library. In 1892, there was the inclusion of vagrancy, bawdy house and procuring provisions in the first Criminal Code of Canada. These provisions remained essentially unchanged for 80 years. In 1970, the report of the Royal Commission on the Status of Women recommended repeal of the vagrancy provision dealing with prostitution and a study of how best to deal with the activity. One can see that there is an enormous lapse of time before there was any substantive movement in terms of change to the sections we are dealing with.
On July 15, 1972, there was the Criminal Code amendment Bill which repealed Section 175(1 )(c) of the Code and introduced Section 195.1 on soliciting with which we are dealing today. On February 8, 1978, we begin to see that the action being taken by Parliament is becoming compressed. The decision of the Supreme Court in Hutt is handed down, giving a narrow interpretation to "solicit". That is the pressing and persistent ruling that was spoken about earlier today.
On May 1, 1978, the Government introduced the first of three Bills designed to reverse the effect of Hutt. In November, 1978, the Law Reform Commission Report on sexual offences recommended making it clear that the word "prostitute" applies to both men and women. It also recommended further study of the law dealing with the practice.
In November, 1979, the Conservative Government indicated that its policy was that no amendments be made to the Criminal Code dealing with soliciting. On May 26, 1980, the City of Montreal passed an anti-prostitution bylaw restricting soliciting on city streets. There was recently an interesting ruling by the courts on that bylaw.
On June 25, 1981, the City of Calgary passed two bylaws.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: I am sorry to interrupt the Hon. Member for Skeena (Mr. Fulton) but the time for questions and comments is now over. Resuming debate.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I wish to speak briefly on this Bill. I have listened to much of the debate today. Again, I want to reiterate my congratulations to the Hon. Member for Skeena (Mr. Fulton) who I

September 9, 1985
Criminal Code
believe contributed much to the debate this afternoon by adding some very new and very interesting points of view. Of course, we recognize that those comments came from someone who had worked as a social worker and has had to deal with this situation in a way that makes him far more knowledgeable about those issues than perhaps many other people would be.
We are dealing, of course, with a very serious problem and 1 know that the topic is not always dealt with by many people in the serious manner that it deserves. I suppose there are reasons for that. The stigma and so forth attached to the topic we are talking about today creates a situation whereby this happens.
The first thing we should recognize, the Minister himself recognized it today in his opening remarks, is that the problem has been with us since the beginning of time and since the beginnings of society. It is obvious that the problem, in the last 100 years and even more so in recent years, seems to be coming more and more evident. We are experiencing difficult economic times and street solicitation does augment income when people are out of work. Prostitution is a way of making a living, not perhaps an occupation that many of us agree with, but nevertheless it exists. Many do not want to do it for a living but have to because they are unable to do anything else. One must conclude, therefore, that unemployment is not a cause for prostitution to exist but is a reason for its increase, particularly in large metropolitan areas, that are suffering from the terrible effects of unemployment.
We must also recognize that the average salary paid to women is considerably less than that paid to men. We know that women make only 60 per cent of the salary of men. The present inequality is a contributing factor to this situation. We heard the Minister say that in his view if we get the prostitutes off the street, it will eliminate the pimps. At least, he said something to that effect. By the Minister's logic, if there were no prostitutes, there would be no pimps. If you follow that logic to the extreme you can also say that if there were no customers, there would be no need for prostitutes or pimps. I have not heard the Minister address himself to that issue. We have not heard the Minister address himself to any of the other issues involving prostitution, other than what he has chosen as the instrument to remove people from the street, which is to place this burden on the prostitute herself, as opposed to the customer and the pimps. Also absent from the Minister's remarks today, and not in the Government's intentions, at least at the present time, are ways to deal with the pimp or to stop them from doing what they are doing. There is nothing new and significant. There is nothing new to stop or to curtail the activities of the customers on the street, at least nothing major. Even more important, there are no measures for rehabilitation or measures to find employment or other ways in order to assist the prostitute herself or himself as the case may be.
We should all be very concerned as legislators about one aspect of prostitution, namely the age of prostitutes. You would have to be blind not to notice, when walking down the streets of any major city, how young they are. Statistics were
given in the House today about the increasing number of juveniles involved. Again, you will recognize, Mr. Speaker, that unemployment among juveniles is higher than in any other age group. We talked earlier about the salary of women being less than men as being a contributing factor to the problem. We can apply that circumstances to young men, and young women particularly, where changes for employment are even less because unemployment is extremely high. The problem is compounded with ever increasing numbers of young women involved in prostitution.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I apologize to the Hon. Member for disturbing his very interesting and germane remarks on this important legislation.
Before the end of the Government business, pursuant to Standing Order 65, I would like to table in both official languages a notice of Ways and Means motion to amend the statute law relating to income tax and to make a related amendment to the Tax Court of Canada Act. I would ask, Mr. Speaker, that you designate an order of the day for consideration of this Ways and Means motion.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order just to seek clarification. Is it in order to undertake an action of the nature of that undertaken by the President of the Privy Council on a point of order? Certainly if he sought unanimous consent of the House that would be one thing, but surely the nature of this type of motion is such that it cannot be undertaken on a point of order.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Standing Order 65(1 )(2) indicates that the Government House Leader can do this at any time during a sitting. I, therefore, find it in order.


Svend Johannes Robinson: But he did not have the floor, Mr. Speaker. [Translation]


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: I presume the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier) is also rising on a point of order?


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I should like to point out to the Chair that this can be done at any time on the orders of the day. However, I think that it is unacceptable to interrupt a member on a point of order which is not a point of order to introduce or table in the House a ways and means motion. 1 would not want any precedent to be set. I merely want to
September 9, 1985

suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that you take into consideration the procedure used by the President of the Privy Council and advise us perhaps tomorrow whether it is appropriate, but I do not think it is.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Very well. The Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell (Mr. Boudria).



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Crosbie that Bill C-49, an Act to amend the Criminal Code (prostitution), be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.
Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I will be brief because I want to conclude my remarks today. It has been said by some that prostitution is a victimless crime. I beg to differ with that comment. I believe the prostitute herself is a victim of the crime because the prostitute is generally controlled by others who place the prostitute in a position of quasi and even outright slavery. The attitude of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Crosbie), who has decided to remove the enslaved from the public view and believes that that is somehow a solution to the problem, is very inadequate. I do not think it is right. None of us should be participating in any way to give this Minister the approval of the Bill. I cannot support this kind of legislation.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Is the House ready for the question? The question is as follows: Mr. Crosbie, seconded by Mr. Hnatyshyn moves that Bill C-49, an Act to amend the Criminal Code (prostitution) be now read a second time and referred to a legislative committee. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: On division.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Carried on division.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Since it is 17.20 p.m., the House will now proceed with the consideration of private members' business as indicated on the Order Paper today.
Mulliculturalism


PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS-MOTIONS   MULTICULTURALISM SUGGESTED ESTABLISHMENT OF DEPARTMENT
Abram Ernest Epp: That, in the opinion of this House, the Government should consider the advisability of establishing a Department of Multiculturalism and a Standing Committee on Multiculturalism.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Mr. Epp (Thunder Bay-Nipigon), seconded by Mr. Marchi, moves:
That, in the opinion of this House, the Government should consider the advisability of establishing a Department of Multiculturalism and a Standing Committee on Multiculturalism.
Does the Hon. Member for Thunder Bay-Nipigon have a point of order?


Abram Ernest Epp: Mr. Speaker, may I begin to speak to the motion?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: It was my understanding that the Hon. Member for Thunder Bay-Nipigon had a point of order concerning the motion.


Mr. Marchi:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I think Your Honour suggested that I seconded the motion of the Hon. Member for Thunder Bay-Nipigon (Mr. Epp), and I did not, just for the record.


Abram Ernest Epp: It is seconded by the Hon. Member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell).


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: This time we will try to get it correctly. The motion is moved by Mr. Epp (Thunder Bay-Nipigon) and seconded by Mr. Waddell. The Hon. Member for Thunder Bay-Nipigon on a point of order, I believe.


Abram Ernest Epp: Mr. Speaker, before I begin to speak to this motion, and recognizing that I am unable to amend it, 1 would ask for the indulgence of the House to delete the last six words of the motion.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Is that agreed, by unanimous consent?


Abram Ernest Epp: Mr. Speaker, by way of very brief explanation of that-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Just a moment, please. The Hon. Member for Grey-Simcoe (Mr. Mitges).


Mr. Mitges:: Mr. Speaker, it has come to my attention that the Government is willing to acept this motion with some possible amendments.

September 9, 1985
Multiculturalism


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: It is the understanding of the Chair that by unanimous consent we will drop the six last words in the motion, which read as follows:
-and a Standing Committee on Multiculturalism.
It was already established on June 28, I believe. Is that agreed?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Abram Ernest Epp: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and through you I thank colleagues. By way of brief explanation, I need only say that on June 19, when I put forward this motion, there was no expectation that a Standing Committee on Multiculturalism would be established. On June 28, I had the great pleasure, with other Hon. Members, of seeing the standing committee established. Therefore, that part of the motion is now superfluous.
Before speaking to the motion, I should like to take a moment to recognize the presence in the House of the Minister of State for Multiculturalism (Mr. Jelinek) who has recently assumed these duties. I am honoured to have him present in the House this afternoon to participate in or to listen to this debate.


Otto John Jelinek: Listen.


Abram Ernest Epp: Thank you very much. It gives me great pleasure to speak to this motion on the first day of the resumption of sittings of the House of Commons, given the events of recent days which make the motion a most timely matter. The establishment of the standing committee by unanimous consent of the House on June 28, 1985 has already been noted. At that time the following was indicated:
That the Standing Committee on Multiculturalism be empowered to encourage and monitor the implementation of the principles of the federal multiculturalism policy throughout the Government of Canada, and in particular,
(1)	to encourage the departments and agencies of the federal government to
reflect the multicultural/multiracial diversity of the nation; and
(2)	to examine existing and new programs and policies of federal departments
and agencies to encourage sensitivity to multicultural concerns and to preserve
and enhance the multicultural/multiracial reality of our nation;
Those terms of reference can be found in Hansard of June 28, 1985. It is worth having them before us because we do not have them in the Standing Orders of the House where this committee now exists in Standing Order 70.
The establishment of this committee is likely to be-and perhaps is expected to be-of enormous importance to the country and to all Canadians who are concerned that, as Section 27 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms declares, the Charter be interpreted in a manner consistent with preservation and enhancement of the multicultural heritage of Canadians. Although those words were not included in the permanent terms of reference for this committee or, rather, the section of the Charter for which my Leader, the Hon. Member for Oshawa (Mr. Broadbent), worked hard earlier in this debate to see that included, I am sure the committee will be working in that spirit.
This establishment of a committee, if I may say so, occurred in rather surprising ways at the end of June. I gather that the Minister was not at all sure that the committee would be established. The report of the Parliamentary Reform Committee of the House of Commons did not include this committee in its list of standing committees. Suddenly, on June 28, we were able to give unanimous consent. It is in a context of labours toward that end but limited expectation that it would happen very quickly that I want to deal this afternoon with the question of establishing a Department of Multiculturalism, a full-fledged Ministry of Multiculturalism.
In the past few weeks there have been media reports suggesting that such a Department is under consideration. These media reports, particularly out of Toronto and Winnipeg, suggested that a new Department might be established which would bring together responsibilities for immigration, for multiculturalism and for citizenship affairs. Of course this could be done by splitting immigration off from the Canada Employment and Immigration Commission, by combining it with the present Multiculturalism Directorate and by moving the Citizenship Branch of the Department of the Secretary of State over and constituting that as the core, though perhaps not the sole structure of a new Department of Multiculturalism.
The Government is at work on a White Paper dealing with multiculturalism. That White Paper has been expected for some time and is likely to appear early in the new year, one gathers. Presumably it will be followed by a Multiculturalism Act, which has long been hoped for by persons active in ethnocultural affairs across the country. This suggests that the deliberations of Government may well be involved with this question. That makes it all the more appropriate that the House of Commons, in its advise and consent responsibilities, has this opportunity to consider the question this afternoon.
I would suggest as well, with perhaps a touch of hesitation, that the curious arrangements which exist at present with a part-time Minister of State for Multiculturalism may of course represent an interim arrangement. The former Secretary of State is now the first Minister of State for Immigration in the Canadian Government and has declared that he has a mandate to consider the question of combining these functions which other press reports have suggested were under consideration for inclusion. This makes it all the more timely and topical for us to consider this afternoon what the purpose and structure of a Ministry of Multiculturalism might be, a Ministry which may well materialize some time between 16 months and 18 months hence, if one may speculate about the speed with which Government acts.
In this context, I would like to note briefly the positions that the political Parties of Canada which determine these events have taken on these questions in the past. The Canadian Ethnocultural Council made the effort during the summer of 1984, before and during the election campaign, of consulting with the three political Parties to determine where they stood on a dozen or so questions which were of great importance to
September 9, 1985

the member organizations of the Canadian Ethnocultural Council. From that effort, we learned that the establishment of a permanent Standing Committee on Multiculturalism was in fact approved by all three of the political Parties with their own nuances, and at that time the now governing Party indicated its support in principle and its promise to give it full consideration. That particular statement was clearly fulfilled by the end of June of this year.
As far as the establishment of a Department of Multiculturalism is concerned, however, there was some considerable difference of view among the three Parties. I may say immediately that only Members of the New Democratic Party were in full support of a Department at that point in time. Members of the Liberal Party were not favouring a full Department at that point although they promised to increase support to the Minister in his advocacy role. I look forward this afternoon to hearing whether or not there has been any development in that position. I do hope that there has been. As far as Members of the Conservative Party were concerned, they felt last summer that they did not favour a full Department at that time but promised to increase Ministerial support after consultation with ethnic groups. Since the process of consultation has been underway for some time and given some of the straws in the wind to which I have already alluded, I would like to conclude this afternoon by indicating that the Government of Canada is inclining toward the establishment of a full-fledged Department of Multiculturalism.
If I may, I will paraphrase a few lines from a speech given by the Leader of the New Democratic Party last June to the Council of National Ethnocultural Organizations. Of the Equality Now Report which had been produced by the Special Committee on the Participation of Visible minorities in Canadian society, he noted that the report called for the immediate creation of Ministry of Multiculturalism with its own Deputy Minister and he added that his Party was the first in Canada to call for that. The fact, of course, is reflected in the work done by the Canadian Ethnocultural Council. I may note that my predecessor in the multiculturalism spokesperson role for this Party, the former Hon. Member for Dauphin-Swan River, was credited by the Leader of the New Democratic Party for the efforts that he had made within the Parliamentary Committee on the Participation of Visible Minorities, the report which led to that particular recommendation.
There was, then, out of a Parliamentary Committee of representatives of all three of the Parties, this particular Recommendation No. 25 which urged the federal Government to immediately introduce in Parliament a multiculturalism Act creating a Ministry of Multiculturalism. Given the importance of that recommendation in placing this matter on the public agenda, I would like to give some attention to what that Parliamentary Committee had to say about this report.
I may perhaps note that the last Government responded in the negative to this report when it issued its response in the spring. After describing various ways in which the multiculturalism directorate would be strengthened, the conclusion was
Multiculturalism
that Multiculturalism Canada within the Department of the Secretary of State would have its visibility increased and be made more accessible to the community both at headquarters and regional levels. That, of course, only underscored the continuation of the directorate within the Department. What has happened, of course, under the present Government, is some further upscaling of the importance of this directorate within the Department by giving it its own Deputy Minister and that augurs well for the development to which 1 am addressing myself this afternoon.
In the context of institutional evolution, 1 want to say something about the importance of a Ministry of Multiculturalism in playing a lead role in a number of different areas. I have already referred to the Equality Now Report in which such a Department was called for and that obviously suggests that one important public role of the Ministry would be to play this lead role in ensuring that the participation of visible minorities is enhanced. I would further suggest that the Ministry could continue to play a strengthened lead role in the varied cultural, heritage, language and other concerns that so many of Canada's ethnocultural groups feel and for which they depend on the federal Government as well as provincial Governments across the country to ensure that there are resources to meet these particular cultural needs.
The report of the Special Committee on Visible Minorities is very revealing in emphasizing the importance of having a full-fledged Department. I would suggest parenthetically that at a time when matters of employment equity for a number of groups including visible minorities are so largely on the public agenda, ensuring that a Department is able to play this lead role is of very great importance. Without taking the time to read these paragaphs, I would note particularly that in the paragraph on priority which appears on page 55 of Equality Now, there is a delineation of the difficulties of the directorate. A couple of paragraphs earlier, in a discussion under the heading "Limited" on page 54, it is pointed out the extent to which the existing structure, somewhat enhanced by the present Government, of having a directorate within a Department with limited power and limited authority in the structure of Government impedes the race relations work that is of such importance to the Canadian nation. I would suggest that the same thing could be said of the area of cultural concerns.
I would like to make an impassioned appeal both on the side of the participation of visible minorities and the enhancement and preservation of the multicultural reality of the country that it is of vital importance to have a Ministry that can play a lead role. It is of enormous importance to have such a Ministry with a scope large enough to ensure that all Canadians realize that the very history of our country and the very nature of society is multicultural and that multiculturalism is not a term used to describe only one third of Canadians. In fact, multiculturalism is the recognition of the fact that people of many backgrounds including natives of North America and migrants from other parts of the world than Europe, long before the end of the Second World War, played their own important roles in building this country. There should be recognition by the

September 9, 1985
Multiculturalism
federal Government and Canadian institutions generally of the importance of that fact in order to ensure that within our teaching of history and cultivation of culture there is genuine recognition of that. If one looks at Book IV of the Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism, one finds an unwillingness to take that step by actually providing recognition.
There is one particular question that is clearly before the Government if one recognizes that which the present Minister of State for Immigration (Mr. McLean) has indicated. That is the question of whether or not immigration should be an important part of this new Government. I would ask the Government to consider that question with particular care.
Eloquent arguments have already been made by certain persons suggesting that to make immigration a part-and it will inevitably be a large part-of such a department will reinforce the unfortunate impression that multiculturalism has to do with immigrants, with new Canadians and with the concerns of those who are still, in a sense, "other" to the country. Of course, in its way, the citizenship branch activities would only underscore the fact that multiculturalism is involved in facilitating the assimilation process which this society is carrying on. That particular impression would be a profoundly unfortunate one because, as I have already suggested, it is recognized that multiculturalism is the very basis of this country. It is recognized that it is the essence of this country which was built by persons from a great variety of backgrounds. Each made their contribution. The Asian contribution was fundamental to the opening of the West, if one considers the Chinese labour which built the transcontinental railway.
It must be recognized that at one place and another we have had diversity building the country. If for too long the life of the country was dominated by those of British background, then it is clear that in the last 15 years that dominance has been shaken. In the Liberal Governments past, and the present Conservative Government, it is obvious that a British dominance is a thing of the past. What many Canadians are calling for these days is a realization that it is not two founding peoples, even with the addition of some recognition of the native peoples who built the country, but that, in fact, people of many colours and many creeds from many parts of the earth worked together in building the country and they play their part in it. The Ministry of Multiculturalism should be one which pulls that fact up bravely and boldly before the Canadian public, which insists that the Department of Multiculturalism must be one which cultivates the diversity and preserves and enhances the multiculturalism, which is the very nature of this country and which makes it genuinely a part of the consciousness of every Canadian.
It is with these comments, Mr. Speaker, that I conclude. I think the establishment of a Department of Multiculturalism is of enormous importance to the cultural, political, social and economic evolution of the country. There are great concerns
with respect to employment and other matters which need to be addressed. We need a Department which can play a leading role in pressing these matters on in ensuring that the federal Government itself remains sensitive and becomes still more sensitive. The Department must ensure that the provincial Governments act and that in jurisdictions, both federal and provincial, this country reflect in all of its life the multiculturalism that is the very essence of its history and its stature.


Mr. Ian Waddell (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. In a bit of confusion, and because of the new timing provisions of the House which we are following for the first time today, I had tried to catch the eye of the Chair when you called Bill C-49.
I wish to say that I had intended to speak on Bill C-49, which is an Act respecting prostitution, since the Mount Pleasant area of my constituency is directly affected, but did not speak in order that there be no delay in passing the Bill, as I promised my constituents this summer. Therefore, I did not speak and the Bill received second reading without a recorded vote in just one day of debate. 1 would like to bring this matter up as a point of order. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: I do not think it necessary to rule on the point of order.


Sergio Marchi: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak on the motion put forward by the Hon. Member for Thunder Bay-Nipigon (Mr. Epp). Before proceeding with my remarks, I would like to recognize the new Minister of State for Multiculturalism (Mr. Jelinek). 1 congratulate him on his new portfolio and I wish him well in the coming weeks, months and, perhaps, years.
I believe that in the last decade and a half multiculturalism has travelling a long and fairly successful journey. It was initiated in 1971 by the then Government of the Right Hon. Pierre Elliott Trudeau. I think a national multiculturalism policy has become a permanent fixture within the Canadian political, social and cultural landscape and that one can point to a number of successful developments which have come about since 1971. However, we on this side of the House cannot and should not point to the list of achievements which have been developed over the last decade and a half with respect to the policy of multiculturalism as an answer to the new and evolving challenges, problems and questions which we will not doubt be facing in the coming years.
It is from this perspective that we on this side of the House are in full concert with the motion as put forward by my hon. friend from Thunder Bay-Nipigon. The Government should consider the motion as a way of enhancing and strengthening the role that multiculturalism should play in the federal Government and throughout the country from coast to coast.
The initial part of the amendment, as my friend has mentioned, concerns itself with the Standing Committee on Multiculturalism. I, too, am pleased that on the last day which the House sat before the summer recess that we unanimously passed a measure to establish the Standing Committee on
!*



September 9, 1985

Multiculturalism. I say that I am pleased because we on this side of the House in parliamentary debates, through Standing Orders and in discussions with the former Minister, have been urging that a separate committee should be put in place by this fall. I am fully confident that this new committee will go a long way toward strengthening the role which multiculturalism should be playing in the country through Parliament Hill channels. 1 say that because all issues affecting multiculturalism used to flow through the Standing Committee on Communications and Culture. The problem with that was that a number of Ministers reported to it, namely, the Secretary of State, the Minister of Communications, as well as the Minister of State for Youth. What I found disconcerting was that multiculturalism was somehow placed on the last rung of the ladder by this committee. In fact, during the course of the last year there has been only one occasion when the Minister of State for Multiculturalism appeared before the committee.
A separate standing committee will certainly aid and enhance the regular dialogue, if you will, which will be taking place between the Minister, his officials and parliamentarians. It will also provide an opportunity to specifically focus on and specialize in a number of areas affecting multiculturalism. One exemple which comes to mind in this regard is the jam which we are presently in with respect to the Japanese Canadian redress issue. I think a separate committee will certainly go a long way in playing an active role in trying to establish a consensus and solution to this most urgent problem.
I think that politically it is a shot in the arm for multiculturalism in terms of the establishment of a separate standing committee. From a perception point of view, I think the committee places multiculturalism in the proper perspective. I think the committee will provide a vehicle for the Minister of State for Multiculturalism in carrying out his role within the House of Commons and within Cabinet.
Finally, with respect to the new committee, I think it is for the public at large since it will provide a permanent platform and resource for people from the ethnocultural communities and organizations, and Canadians in general, to come before the committee and communicate with their Minister and their parliamentarians the aspirations which they feel and the problems they see on a regular basis. I think that the new committee will be a welcome and powerful addition to the committee structure as we see it.
A separate, full-fledged Department would have similar and positive repercussions in the apparatus. First, 1 think we could be looking at improving the administrative infrastructure of multiculturalism. We are not necessarily talking in terms of spending a great deal of money with respect to implementing a new Department because, as it stands now, there are a number of programs and services closely associated with multiculturalism which exist in other Departments. When we speak of a full-fledged Department, we are trying to gather a number of roles and services which are presently being provided by other Departments under one roof.
On this specific point, I agree with my hon. friend that if we are to take the role of immigration and put it with multicultur-
Multiculturalism
alism, then it would be a serious mistake. I say this not only because multiculturalism will again be second on the twopronged ladder, but because it will fuel the perception that multiculturalism is only for new Canadians or immigrants. If that perception were allowed to travel from coast to coast then it would set multiculturalism back another decade. 1 believe that on a political level a separate Department speaks for itself. A separate Department and a separate deputy minister would certainly enhance the clout, the feasibility and viability of multiculturalism within the federal Government. I believe there is a danger in the motion before us if it is taken as a limited motion, in other words, if it is perceived by the Government that this is the only way to go to strengthen multiculturalism. I believe the present motion should not be seen as a substitute for political commitment. We should be looking at the political will of this present Government vis-avis multiculturalism. I believe that is the real thrust of the matter. That is the real heart of the issue and of the debate. If we are to look at the political will, that is different from looking at the structures or new structures which one may be implementing. I would respectfully submit that we can have all the structures, all of the changes and all of the reforms we like but if we have within those structures a lack of political will and encouragement, then those structures will not service.
When I speak of political will, I mean exactly that. Looking back over the last year with respect to multiculturalism, I for one cannot say that I am terribly heartened by the way in which this Government has dealt with multiculturalism. We could point to a number of issues, for instance, the reduction in the multiculturalism budget, as an example of political priority. At a time when expenditures were at least staying the same, multiculturalism suffered an 8.5 per cent reduction in financial support and resources. That to me does not put it on a level of priority as far as this Government is concerned notwithstanding the fact that the Prime Minister (Mr. Mul-roney) back in June of 1984 at the Conservative Party Conference said, "We have seen millions of dollars spent on advertising and promoting our linguistic duality and a mere pittance directed to promoting our cultural diversity". Canadians from that comment, and others, assumed that multiculturalism occupied a greater priority in this Government. I believe it has not from a purely financial point of view.
We can look at the 46 specific multiculturalism promises which were made during the election campaign and then at the follow through and we must come to the conclusion that there are still 46 promises to be kept. We can look at the appointments of nearly 1,500 Canadians to various commissions, boards and committees. If we are to simply look at those appointments from the perspective of a balanced view of Canadians and their various cultures, we have to come to the conclusion that while there are a few appointees from Canada's so-called ethnocultural communities, certainly we are not pleased with the handful of appointments on a global sense considering the 1,500 appointments which were made.

September 9, 1985
Multiculturalism
We also cannot take solace in the refusal by the former Minister of Multiculturalism to get involved in a very direct and practical way in the racism which is currently going on in the taxi industry, not only in Montreal but in Toronto and Elamilton. We must look also at the absence of movement on the recommendations in Equality Now and the Abella Commission report. The Equality Now report, it was agreed by all three political Parties, was received with great enthusiasm out in the communities which are still wondering what happened to the many recommendations which have not been implemented.
We also have a lack of concrete results from the First Ministers' Conference on Multiculturalism. Every question I asked in this House of the then Minister of Multiculturalism was answered by saying that this conference was to be the answer to many of the problems. Yet we saw a two-page memorandum which said absolutely nothing. It gave us platitudes but in terms of concrete results, co-operation and eliminating duplication, there were no results. It was a closed door policy as well. It was a conference which was completely void of any input from the communities which that conference was supposed to be addressing. If there was any genuine interest in having a relevant agenda, then there should have been some dialogue with the communities at hand and that was not the case.
We can also look at the recent shuffle. This is not to be meant as a slight against the new Minister, by any means, because he did not make the decision. I feel we are going backwards, to the year 1979 when the former Government of Joe Clark appointed a Minister to be responsible for multiculturalism as well as an additional ministry. If we are talking about political will and a genuine desire to place multiculturalism on a solid footing, I would submit to you, with all due respect, that that is not the road to go. A caucus of 212 members have a lot of able men and women to perhaps dedicate themselves on a full-time basis to a multicultural program without taking the time and energies away from another portfolio. When I talk of political will, I talk of these and other movements we have seen in the last year.
Of course, we cannot overlook the handling of the Japanese-Canadian redress issue. Once again there were tremendous expectations on behalf of the Japanese-Canadian community based on the promises and utterings of the Prime Minister during the last election campaign. He promised that a solution would be forthcoming. Yet we see we are still in a log jam. The community has not been given a genuine opportunity to make proper representations at the proper time. It is fine indeed to talk about reforms and modifications but we also need the political will to make those recommendations viable.
We do not have to stop at the recommendations in this motion which have been already undertaken in the sense of a new committee and in terms of the separate Department. We can also talk about other structures. We can perhaps have a Parliamentary Secretary to the new Minister of State for Multiculturalism. For the last year that Minister was one of the new Ministers without a Parliamentary Secretary. I do not
know if things have changed with the new Minister but certainly it would be a welcome addition. Whenever the former Minister was absent in order to fulfil his legitimate responsibilities across the country, we in the Opposition were not able to get an answer from a person who spoke with any sense of authority or in any specific detail. I think perhaps we can start there as a way of reforming these structures as well.
We can look at the Canadian Multicultural Council and make reforms there as well because initially there were a number of ethnocultural communities which complained they were not represented. Specifically the German Canadian and Spanish Canadian communities did not have a representative on that council and that was a problem. There was also the problem that a number of people who were appointed to that 60-person committee did not have their roots in these com-munitees so there were complaints from these various communities that in fact the representative who was supposed to be speaking for them were unknown. Therefore, I ask myself what use there was in having an advisory committee to the Minister when members of that Committee do not have their grass roots in the communities they are supposed to represent. Why should the Advisory Council only recommend and speak to the Minister directly? Why can it not come to this new committee on multiculturalism and exchange information with Parliamentarians and representatives of communities alike? Why should it only speak to the Minister rather than report back to Parliament directly?
We can talk about a Cabinet committee on multiculturalism. We all know that the major decisions of the day are made by Cabinet and specifically by the Planning and Priorities Committee. We all know that both the former and present Minister of State for Multiculturalism do not belong to that committee. That is not a slight against them, but if we are serious about this we can have a special or separate Cabinet committee to deal with multiculturalism so that aims and objectives of this policy can be put in front of the major decision-makers in Government on a day-to-day basis. We can go a long way toward improving the appointment procedure as I indicated earlier. We can look at the international scene and say why can the Canadian Government not make more use of the natural resource which many Canadians possess, namely a key to the language and culture of the various countries we do business with? Why not employ some of these Canadians in our trade missions abroad, our consulates and our embassies? These, too, are reforms or perhaps modifications to structures which can aid, enhance and strengthen an active and vibrant and bold multiculturalism policy, in addition to the changes announced by the Hon. Member for Thunder Bay-Nipigon.
My point is this. We can have changes in structures, yes. These will be improvements, yes. But if we do not have the political will to make the required changes, then those structures are rendered useless. 1 look forward to hearing from the Government side on how they would approach this issue.
September 9, 1985

In the time remaining to me I would like to talk about something which I think is very important to this debate. That is to say, I think it is this Government's responsibility to recognize that perhaps there are aspirations for a second phase, if you will, of multiculturalism. It can be said that the first decade and a half has focused largely on the cultural retention aspect as the foundation for our multiculturalism policy. I think that is fair; it had to go that way for the first decade or so, but I think Canadians, particularly younger Canadians, are saying that multiculturalism must also address the social, political and economic forces and realities at play in this country. They are saying that the colour of your skin or the pronunciation of your name does not matter when it comes to being a full-fledged Canadian. Multiculturalism certainly can advance these aspirations, but it should also tear down what John Porter described 20 years ago as the Canadian reality, namely the vertical mosaic.
I hope that with these words the Government can perhaps reflect on not only this motion but some of the other issues I have raised. I look forward very much this afternoon and in the new Standing Committee on Multiculturalism to pursuing this motion and other ideas which have been put forward.


Andrew Witer: Mr. Speaker, I listened with some interest to the remarks of my friends from Thunder Bay-Nipigon and York West. I noted that my friend from York West referred to the long road multiculturalism has travelled over the last 14 years. I also noted that he failed to elaborate on the specifics of that long road. He failed to advise us as to why in 14 years the previous Government had not set up a standing committee, a separate department, or why it had failed to bring Canadians from these very essential cultural groups into the mainstream of Canadian life. He also referred to the track record of this Government in the 12 months it has been in office. Therefore I think it is appropriate for me to refer to that record and in fact set it straight.
This Government has initiated a number of key accomplishments in the field of multiculturalism. One of the highlights of the Government's work in bringing us all on stream with the provinces was the convening last May 14 in Winnipeg of the first ever federal-provincial-territorial conference on multiculturalism. This was the first time we had all sat down together to discuss common goals. I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, that the conference was an unqualified success. It marked an important step forward in sharing ideas and working together to strengthen the rich fabric of Canadian society.
What came out of the meeting was a willingness to work together and mesh federal and provincial programs. You have to remember that this country runs because we all talk together. As I said at the outset, this was the very first time both levels of Government had talked together on multiculturalism and the meeting was long overdue.
Another achievement of this Government was the setting up of the Standing Committee on Multiculturalism. That was one of 80 recommendations made by Equality Now!, the report of a special all-Party House of Commons committee on "The Participation of Visible Minorities in Canadian Society." The
Multiculturalism
creation of this committee shows how important the Government viewed the changing patterns of Canadian society which have evolved greatly over the past 30 years.
Canada's ethnocultural population now stands at 7.8 million people, or 31 per cent of the Canadian population. Ethnic minorities are now the majority in several urban centres. As an example, close to half the populations of Toronto, Winnipeg, Vancouver and Edmonton are now members of ethnocultural groups. This gives you an idea of why the Government deemed it imperative that those groups be given a voice and help make them more a part of the democratic process.
Previously, questions dealing with multiculturalism had been dealt with by the Standing Committee on Broadcasting and Culture, so its members did not exactly have a handle on the subject matter at hand. It was one of many issues they had to contend with and therefore was not a satisfactory arrangement. Now that multiculturalism has its very own standing committee, the whole gamut of multiculturalism issues can be examined in depth. The committee's mandate will be to encourage and monitor the implementation of the principles of the federal Government's multiculturalism policy throughout the Government of Canada. This general mandate is subdivided into three specific target areas. The first is to ensure that the Departments and agencies of the federal Government reflect the multicultural-multiracial diversity of the nation. The second is to examine existing and new programs of federal Departments and agencies to encourage sensitivity to multicultural concerns and the multicultural-multiracial reality of our nation. The third is to select and initiate projects for investigation within the jurisdiction of the standing committee and prepare background papers, reports and research in this regard.
Another major step this Government saw fit to implement was to give a higher profile to the Multiculturalism Directorate by moving it from a directorate to that of a sector. One of the moves which came with this upgrading was the appointment earlier this year of an Assistant Undersecretary of State at the Department of the Secretary of State to head the new sector.
Another accomplishment, Mr. Speaker, was the establishment last July of an interdepartmental working group to examine a framework and mandate for a national advisory committee on ethnic broadcasting. The establishment of such a national committee was one of the recommendations of a policy paper on ethnic broadcasting issued this summer by the CRTC. This new working group is an excellent beginning toward encouraging the Canadian broadcasting system to better reflect the cultural and racial diversity of Canada.
Only a few days ago Canada's Association of Police Chiefs representing 250 chiefs of police from across the nation held their eightieth annual meeting in Saint John, New Brunswick. It was an important meeting in that the theme was "Police in a Multicultural Society". As I mentioned a few minutes ago Canada's ethnocultural population is now at 7.8 million people

September 9, 1985
Multiculturalism
with 90 per cent of the country's estimated 1.2 million visible minorities concentrated in Canada's major urban centres. This puts a whole new perspective to policing work as police officers have to learn how to deal with Canadians of many races and with many new arrivals who have lived under authoritarian governments where the police are deeply feared and mistrusted. The multiculturalism factor is funding various projects across Canada where representatives from ethnocultural communities are working with their respective police forces, such as in Ottawa and Vancouver, to learn from each other and understand each other better. The Saint John meeting also saw the start of the newly established Police Multicultural Liaison Committee comprised of police chiefs from the nation's seven largest cities. The multiculturalism sector is also co-operating with the Canadian Federation of Municipalities to mount race relations programs in centres across Canada. The multiculturalism sector is assisting immigrant women to gain access to women's organizations and to sensitize these networks to their needs. Effective systems are also being established, Mr. Speaker, to ensure that qualified members of ethnocultural communities gain access to federal appointments to boards and commissions.
This is a necessarily superficial rundown of the accomplishments so far in the multiculturalism sector. In a few days time the Minister of State for Multiculturalism (Mr. Jelinek) will be meeting with Ministers responsible for Human Rights from the Provinces and Territories. At this meeting the Minister will be discussing ways to promote and co-ordinate action to combat racism and discrimination. Our objective is to bring one-third of Canada's population into the mainstream of Canadian life. In the process we must not in any way endanger the right of any group to maintain and expand its cultural traditions. Needless to say, this is a difficult and complex task. Creating a standing committee on multiculturalism was a positive first step. Establishing as full-fledged Ministry could be a positive second step. In the end we must make it pefectly clear by our actions that multiculturalism is synonymous with being Canadian. I am confident that this Government will accomplish exactly that.


Mrs. Monique Landry (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased with this opportunity to speak to the important motion tabled by the Hon. Member for Thunder Bay-Nipigon (Mr. Epp):
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should consider the advisability of establishing a Department of Multiculturalism and a Standing Committee on Multiculturalism.
The creation, on June 28 of this year, of a Standing Committee of the House on Multiculturalism, clearly proves how important the issue of multiculturalism is to this Government. It was a decision that reflects the same concerns as the Hon. Member's motion and constitutes a major milestone in the development of government policy.
The policy on multiculturalism and its programs are the result of post-war developments. Canada has always been a
nation of immigrants, but the massive wave of immigrants and refugees after World War II brought new life to the ethno-cultural communities already existing throughout North America. This new wave made it possible for many groups to renew their ties with the culture of their native land. Among the new arrivals, children of immigrants and their grandparents often spoke only their mother tongue, not having had an opportunity to learn English or French. Across Canada, especially in urban areas, it was possible to live in one's own culture.
Through the rising demand for social services, immigrants made their needs known directly to the various levels of government. At this time, around 1953, the first federal-provincial agreement on civic and language training came into being. It was then that established groups started to express to governments and other Canadians the needs of their community.
At the same time, French Canadians and native peoples started organizing and expressing their views more actively and effectively on Canada and their place in this country.
Before our centennial year and throughout the sixties, Canadians were asked to examine their views of the country and of themselves as Canadians. The Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism acted as a catalyst, making it possible to clarify many of these issues. It was an incentive to ethno-cultural groups of other than English or French origin to make Canadians aware of their contribution to this country, especially in the West.
Mr. Speaker, according to the 1981 Census eight million Canadians consider themselves to be of other than British or French origin, which means 31 per cent of the population. About six million live in our large cities. For instance, 27 per cent of the population of Montreal belongs to this group, with comparable figures for Toronto, Winnipeg, Regina, Edmonton and Vancouver showing percentages varying between 40 and 50 per cent.
The economic impact of this population is considerable. It is estimated that a large proportion of all small businesses in Canada are owned by persons of other than British or French ethnic origin. In Toronto, the ethnic market is estimated at about $6 billion annually.
Each province has a population that is characteristic in terms of its ethnic origins. In this respect, we would like to stress the contribution of Quebec's cultural communities.
Although the proportion of Quebecers who consider themselves to be of other than French or British ethnic origin is small-11 per cent compared with 37 per cent in Ontario and nearly 50 per cent in Western Canada-their contribution to Quebec society is tremendous.
Montreal is a city with a flourishing mixture of various groups, cultures and races. For instance, there are 166,000 people of Italian origin, 93,000 of Jewish origin, 50,000 of
September 9, 1985

Greek origin, 51,000 of black origin and 18,000 of Chinese origin.
Many Francophone immigrants arrived in the last 20 years encountering a North American culture often different from that of their country of origin.
Others have made a considerable effort to learn French as a language of work and communication, in addition to adapting to life in North America.
The Government of Quebec has recognized the fact of this cultural diversity in the province. It constitutes a major element of the Quebec Charter of Rights and Freedoms. More recently, legislation on a Quebec Council on Cultural Communities and Immigration has demonstrated a desire to reflect this reality.
Considering the recognition of multiculturalism in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and the importance attached by this Government to multiculturalism in Canada-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: With respect, I must interrupt the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary and inform the House that the hour provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have an opportunity this afternoon to take part in the adjournment debate on a subject I raised in the House on May 3, 1985.

1 am sure you will vividly recall that on May 3, 1985, I asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of National Defence (Mr. Nielsen) to account to the House why his colleague, the Minister of Communications (Mr. Masse) spent $57,000 of taxpayer's money to fly himself, his wife and five aides to Algeria, Greece and the Middle East on a government jet to cut a ribbon. I am sure you will agree that this was a terrible waste of taxpayers' money and only Tories would think of such a way to squander the hard earned dollars of the taxpayers of this country. I believe it could be said that the
Adjournment Debate
Minister of Communications in so doing has made the whole Cabinet look like a Mickey Mouse outfit. I believe that kind of waste of funds must end.
We see that the Budget of the Prime Minister's Office for staffing and so on increased by 57 per cent over one year and that the salary increases for two Tory losers-and I know this is enough to make most Tory winners cringe and wish they had lost-Lawrence Hannigan and Roy McMurtry whose appointment we will be reviewing shortly under the new process announced by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) were $38,000 a year. That would have been enough to restore the indexed Old Age Security to all the seniors of my riding. Apparently the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) has found other ways of finding the money to do that. In order to replenish the coffers of money that was squandered, I am sure the Hon. Member for Durvenay (Mr. Della Noce) is aware that the gasoline prices have had to be increased. If that is not enough, let me talk about other instances of government waste.
As I came into the building today I was looking at that used car lot beside the west door, namely the fleet of limousines of the Cabinet Ministers. There are 39 or 40 of those limousines, all idling out there, with the chauffeurs chatting while waiting for their bosses to do whatever it is that Ministers do. The Government bought $173,000 worth of limousines in the first six months it was in office. I know the Hon. Member for Durvenay is hiding his face in shame for being a member of a Party that partakes in that kind of act. No doubt he will cross the floor very shortly after seeing the light when he notes that kind of action perpetrated upon the people of the riding of Durvenay.
Even today in the House of Commons we learned that Cabinet Ministers are not only using government jets that way, they are now chartering private jets. Today in a written response to a question I placed on the Order Paper we learned that the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Cote) one day chartered a jet to go from Ottawa to Toronto. There are about 35 flights a day from Ottawa to Toronto. At some periods of the day there is one every 15 minutes. It seems none of them could accommodate the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. He must have wanted to go to Toronto at 3:30 a.m. because that is about the only time of the day when there are no commercial flights from Ottawa to Toronto. That trip cost the taxpayers thousands of dollars.
There must be not only the reforms we talked about before, Mr. Speaker, but there has to be some respect for the taxpayers.
During the election campaign, what did we hear from the Conservative Party? I am sure you will recall hearing the Conservatives in the last election campaign talk about the Liberals who were squandering the taxpayers' dollars. In their view it was shameful that the Government would be using funds in a way that they considered was inappropriate.
When I hear of things like $130,000 to wallpaper the offices of six Cabinet Ministers and $22,000 for the office of the

September 9, 1985
Adjournment Debate
Minister of Elealth and Welfare (Mr. Epp) and other squandering of funds, responses given by this Government are unsatisfactory. I am sure the Parliamentary Secretary across the way will provide a better explanation today. If not, I am sure he would not be here because he is a good, honest and sincere Member. He would want to provide this House with correct facts.


Mr. Geoff Scott (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Communications):: Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I respond to the concerns raised by the Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell (Mr. Boudria). He originally addressed this matter in the House of Commons on May 3, as reported at page 4380 of Hansard.
On January 24, 1985, Mr. Brian O'Regan, Vice-President of public affairs at Northern Telecom, requested that Canada undertake an official mission to support Northern Telecom's efforts in securing a $487 million contract with the Algerian Government, representing 7,000 person years of employment for Canadians over a five-year period. This request was supported by officials in both the Department of Communications and External Affairs and was then recommended to the Minister of Communications (Mr. Masse).
The main thrust of this official mission was to support the bid of Northern Telecom. In view of the considerable Canadian business interests in various industries currently under way in northern Africa and the Middle East, it was deemed opportune and useful for the Minister to take advantage of the request from Northern Telecom to show the Government of Canada's support for these additional business endeavors.
These companies included Radio Canada International; Bell Canada International, as well as other Canadian companies with $400 million in projects completed to date in addition to $1 billion in potential contracts.
With the preliminary planning for a visit to Algeria under way, External Affairs requested through the international relations branch in the Department of Communications that the Minister officiate at the opening of the new Canadian embassy complex in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. In addition to this request, Department of Communications officials informed the Minister that a Montreal-based company was pursuing a major spectrum management contract with the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. As the responsibility for this contract was in the control of Dr. Kayal, Minister of Post, Telephone and Telecommunications for the kingdom, a meeting was requested between the two Ministers to discuss the contract as well as to renew co-operation between Canada and Saudi Arabia.
As is normal practice, commercial flights for this trip were investigated but, given the commitment of the Minister for April 9 to address the conference of the Canadian Cable and Television Association in Toronto, the requirement for his attendance at the meeting of the Priorities and Planning Committee on April 16, 1985, as well as the religious holidays one must observe when in Moslem countries, the commercial option was impossible.
To demonstrate the logistical problems experienced in travelling to Algeria, it should be noted that the two ministerial assistants, who accompanied the Minister during his visit in the Middle East, travelled to Paris commercially where they experienced a 36-hour delay before available seating on a connecting flight to Algiers could be confirmed.
The Hon. Member also made a number of substantially incorrect statements in a radio interview in April. First, the Minister's trip did not take him to Israel as alleged by the Hon. Member. The stop-over in Greece was a mandatory refuelling stop and maintenance operation in accordance with Department of Transport regulations. It was not a stop requested by the Minister or any of the passengers.
1 hope, Mr. Speaker, that this information answers some of the concerns of the Hon. Member. I will be happy to answer any further questions he wishes to place to me at a later date.


ENERGY-ANNOUNCED CLOSURE OF CAPE BRETON HEAVY WATER PLANTS. (B) GOVERNMENT'S POSITION. (C) MINISTER'S POSITION
Mr. Dave Dingwall (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I rise at this time concerning a question I directed to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) on May 24, 1985 regarding the announced closure of the Cape Breton heavy water plants in Glace Bay and in Port Hawkesbury, Nova Scotia.
At that time I indicated to the House, and in particular to the Minister of Finance, that certain assurances were given to the workers of those two plants prior to the particular announcement which was made in the Budget. Again I want to quote, for Your Honour's edification, as I am sure you are concerned about the workers and their families in my riding and in the Port Hawkesbury area, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Miss Carney) who indicated on a couple of occasions that there would be no closure of those plants until alternate employment took place. In fact she indicated that her plans to close the two heavy water plants would not proceed before alternate employment could be found for displaced workers.
Since the closure of the two heavy water plants there have been no new jobs for those workers, absolutely none. There has been an agreement by the union representing the employees and by management representatives in regard to a severance package. That particular severance package goes beyond the collective agreement. It is certainly not a rich package, by any means; it is not rich at all. It fails to address a number of important measures. However, in view of the position of the union, which has attempted to represent those workers to the best of its ability, that was all that management and the Government was prepared to do for those employees. The bigger issue is alternate employment.
The Minister of Finance, the Prime Minister (Mr. Mul-roney) and the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion (Mr. Stevens) gave the impression to many media members that something great and specific would be done forthwith. All
September 9, 1985

that has been done by the Conservative Government in Ottawa and by the Conservative Government in Nova Scotia has been merely in the area of media news releases. Nothing concrete or specific has been done for that area of Canada by the Tory provincial Government or the Tory federal Government. There are things which they could have done and still could to in terms of relocating and allocating moneys, perhaps for automotive companies, whether it be Hyundai or other foreign manufacturers. There is no concern for the workers in that region of the country. It is the same old story-the theory of trickle down economics practised by the Conservative Government in Ottawa. The thrust of the thesis is very clear, that hopefully at some point in time when the wealthier regions of the country create even more wealth and more jobs, somehow, by some miracle, it will seep down into the less fortunate areas.
My Party and I believe that there is a major national role to be played by the national Government. I suggest to the Parliamentary Secretary that those workers should not be given a plane ticket or free fare on VIA Rail to leave those regions. These workers are highly qualified individuals with families, mortgages and commitments to those communities. By its very actions as a Government, it is suggesting that those well-trained individuals should leave. The Government is exporting competent individuals out of our region of the country. In the long run that does not make good economic sense for those individuals in Atlantic Canada. Nor does it make good economic sense for Canada as a nation as we know it.
It can be argued effectively that the Conservative Government of the Prime Minister is breaching the Canadian Constitution which talks about, in real terms, equal opportunity for all Canadians. Why can the Government not provide the needed jobs for those displaced workers at the heavy water plants? What is so different about that area of Canada? If the Government can afford to provide $1.3 billion to the multinational oil companies and if it can provide billions of dollars to the Canadian Commercial Bank, why can it not deliver on a promise made by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources on two specific occasions to the people of Nova Scotia?
The Premier of Nova Scotia ought to resign from office. He has said absolutely nothing with regard to the welfare of those workers. The Premier of the province has acquiesced to this conduct by the Conservative Government. I would ask the Parliamentary Secretary to rise today to make an unequivocal commitment that there will be jobs in place by the end of the year to compensate for the substantial loss of employment in Glace Bay and the surrounding communities, as well as the Town of Port Hawkesbury which has also been delivered a serious economic blow. That is the role the national Government ought to play with regard to economic development in the less prosperous areas of the country.


Geoffrey Douglas Scott: Mr. Speaker, in reply to the Hon. Member
Adjournment Debate
for Cape Breton-East Richmond (Mr. Dingwall), the federal Government has clearly stated its position on the closures of these plants on many occasions before various audiences. Indeed, the record shows that we debated this issue with the Hon. Member in the House as recently as June 18. Since then, our position has not changed.
The Hon. Member has been the sitting Member for Cape Breton-East Richmond for a number of years. He has been well aware of the problems related to AECL's heavy water plants on Cape Breton and how governments have long searched for an appropriate solution to these problems. Federal Governments have provided much support to this industry which has been historically plagued with problems linked to international marketing. The Government took decisive action in announcing the closure of these plants. It faced the hard fact that there existed a very major over-capacity in Canada's heavy water industry and that there were no immediate solutions to the marketing difficulties.
Under these circumstances, the Government could not longer justify continuing operations at the plants. It could not, in good conscience, keep these plants open at a cost to taxpayers of $100 million per year when there was not market for the heavy water being produced. We firmly believe that such action would have been irresponsible and it would have been unfair both to the Canadian taxpayer and to heavywater plant workers. Workers have known that these closures were inevitable and that the indefinite perpetuation of operations would only have delayed the time when thee plants could be replaced with viable long-term industrial activity on Cape Breton.
When the federal Government announced these closures in the May 1985 federal Budget, it was made quite clear that it had not abandoned the people of Cape Breton. As outlined in the Budget, workers have been provided with generous severance benefits, retraining and relocation assistance and financial and career counselling together with measures designed to facilitate re-employment. In addition, the impact on the affected communities' property tax revenues will be offset for a specific period. The Budget also introduced a special tax credit instituted to enhance private-sector investment and productive employment on Cape Breton. This will result in no federal income tax being payable by investors for 10 to 15 years.
Announcements made by the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion (Mr. Stevens) have significantly offset unemployment triggered by the plant closures. The Minister has stated that $1.5 million in federal funding has been designated to rebuild a burned-out fish plant; $4.1 million has been committed for improvements to the Point Tupper pulp and paper mill and $16 million has been earmarked for a new coal mine tunnel.
In addition, the Minister responsible for DRIE appointed an advisory committee on economic development measures for Cape Breton Island which is scheduled to submit its first report this fall. The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Miss Carney) has repeatedly indicated that she is ready to assist in bringing economic renewal to Cape Breton through reliable, sound employment creation.

September 9, 1985
Adjournment Debate
I would like to conclude by saying that this Government has recognized that a very difficult problem existed and we have taken action to ameliorate it. The Hon. Member is aware that AECL had first recommended the closure of its heavy water plants in 1982. However, the federal Government of the day believed it impolitic to act on such a recommendation. We gave considerable study to the problem and acceptable options before arriving at our decision. We believe that we have made the only sound decision available and have put into place responsible measures which will direct Cape Breton toward ecnomic renewal.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS-STORAGE OF LETHAL GASES. (B) TRANSPORTATION OF LETHAL GASES
Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Gurbin), whom 1 welcome back after the summer recess, some questions related to the protection of citizens who live in communities nearby plants or storage sites of lethal gases which are commonly used in the manufacture of pesticides, herbicides or other products. I would also like to ask him a question about the inspection of transportation arrangements for these lethal gases which, as we know, have horrendous consequences on human health.
By way of background, I remind the House that on December 6, 1984, I asked a question of the previous Minister from whom I received a rather inconclusive answer. This makes it necessary for me to pursue the matter further. My question is also intensified by the fact that last August, just south of the border, a spill in West Virginia at a Union Carbide plant occurred. This company was the cause of a very tragic event which occurred in Bhopal, India, in November of last year, where approximately 2,500 people were killed. In the case of Institute, West Virginia, where a Union Carbide plant had a leak of lethal gas, some 135 people were sent to hospital.
What struck me from the newspaper reports of a few days ago is the fact that the Chairman of Union Carbide was quoted as saying that the recent gas leak was "more damaging in a way" than the one that killed more than 2,000 people in Bhopal because it was preventable. When one reads a statement like that, one becomes rather nervous and uneasy.
Since last December, when the question was asked, and since the coming into force of the Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act on July 1, have there been any discussions or meetings with provincial and municipal authorities with respect to inspection services, both at the manufacturing plant and the storage sites of dangerous substances. As well, with regard to inspection procedures in the transportation of these goods when they are not a federal responsibility, have there been any discussions? If such discussions or meetings have taken place, I would like to know by whom they were initiated and what is the present state of achieving protection of communities which could be in potential danger in the case of emergency. Can the Parliamentary Secretary indicate whether
or not the inspection staffs in charge of these matters are adequate, both at the plant level, as well as at the transportation level of these goods? I also asked the Parliamentary Secretary how many provinces have on their own brought in or are in the process of bringing in complementary provincial legislation for the protection of Canadians with respect to lethal gases?
There is something very peculiar about this issue, Mr. Speaker, because there are contradictions one can find. I quote from an article in the New York Times in January of this year. A company spokesman for the Union Carbide Corporation is quoted as saying:
immediate attention had been given to an internal safety report warning of a possible "runaway reaction" in a tank storing a toxic chemical in West Virginia.
That is the one to which I referred earlier. He continued:
a simple change in operating procedures completely eliminated the concern-
Seven months later, in August, a spill takes place at that same plant despite these declarations on the part of a safety official of that company.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, I am brought to my feet on this matter after reading a report from the Canadian Press here in Ottawa in June wherein a spokesman for the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police is quoted as saying:
We cannot take on additional duties without dropping something else-
He indicated that the enforcement of the majority of these regulations is best left in the hands of highly qualified and thoroughly trained personnel and that the 258 Ontario inspectors employed across the province are in the same position as the police, they will not be getting any additional personnel. So there seems to be a shortage of people qualified to carry out this very important mandate.
I would like to conclude by saying that we are not talking of a situation which affects communities in Ontario and Quebec alone but in the West as well where we have learned there is a $3.4 billion plan to export Alberta gas-surplus of natural gas-to Japan and that the communities nearby the liquefied natural gas projects will have to be protected. In essence, it boils down to the fact that it is better to anticipate and prevent than to react and cure. I am sure that the Parliamentary Secretary looks at this matter in the same light and I am most anxious to hear his comments.


Mr. G. M. Gurbin (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, I would also like to welcome my colleague back from the summer recess. He look like he is in fine form and I can see from his comments that he is carrying on with vigour his usual approach to these important environmental matters. I congratulate him on that.
I believe all Canadians were struck by the tragedy which occurred in Bhopal. It caused the Canadian Government in December of last year to take specific actions which in fact address precisely the points raised by the Hon. Member for
September 9, 1985

Davenport (Mr. Caccia). At that time, and in the absence of having the information and the kind of perspective we needed, Canada's Minister of the Environment instituted a government-industry task force consisting of a steering committee and three working groups. The working groups were to examine, first, the potential in Canada for Bhopal like incidents and, second, to review the measures taken by industry and Government to date in order to prevent accidents, and third, to evaluate the ability of industry and governments to respond to accidents. Therefore, in fact, we have this task force which was initiated in December of last year, in the absence of the kind of information we needed to precisely answer the questions raised by the Hon. Member.
In July of this year that task force distributed a discussion paper amongst the provincial agencies and industry associations, such as the Canadian Chemical Producers Association, the Petroleum Association for Conservation of the Canadian Environment, the Canadian Labour Congress, and over 25 environmental organizations, including the Friends of the Earth, Pollution Probe, and the Canadian Environmental Law Association, in order to solicit their input on the paper. The final report of the steering committee will be available later in the fall. Follow-up discussions will then take place with agen-
Adjournment Debate
cies responsible for the various jurisdictional aspects of the issue.
I would also like to remind the Hon. Member of an activity which took place in the Department of the Environment over at least the last year. There has been issued what to me is a very important manual for the management of hazardous spills and wastes. I can inform him that there are two very specific papers subsequent to that, one for sulphuric acid and one for oleum, which describe in much greater detail all actions surrounding those two chemicals insofar as possible.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, all Canadians can look forward to the final report in the fall and the expansion of the work already done in Environment Canada on this subject. This will not completely replace the experience in other countries, and certainly we can do nothing directly about what has happened there, but it should put us in a position where we can look at the broad range of things involved in handling these materials competently and in a preventable, if you like, protective fashion.
[ Translation]


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 2(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 6.52 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
-3
[Stage Direction]
Tuesday, September 10, 1985