1986-01-23

GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Wednesday, January 22, consideration of Bill C-47, an Act respecting divorce and corollary relief, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs; and Motion No. 28 (Mrs. Finestone) (p. 10064).
Mr. Chris Speyer (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, I will be very brief with respect to the submissions that have been made regarding this motion. No one can disagree with the sentiments that are contained within the motion. As I understand it, if there is a demonstration by the custodial spouse of an unwillingness to comply with an order, then the motion provides that there will be some type of court plan with respect to access rights.
As the Hon. Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson) pointed out, the Hon. Member for Mount Royal (Mrs. Finestone) anticipated that there would be some amendments dealing with care and control. As Your Honour knows, the Divorce Act deals with custody and access. To date, it does not deal with the notion of care and control. Therefore, from a technical point of view, this amendment would be the only place within the Bill where there would be the new notion of care and control.
More important than that, when there is a question of custody, the issue is which spouse will have custody of the child and under what circumstances. As we indicated yesterday, the sole criterion is the best interests of the child. In that case, one of the factors incorporated into the Bill, one which I think is a very major advance, is that the non-custodial parent should have maximum contact. If one of the spouses is unwilling to give maximum contact, that may be taken into consideration in the awarding of custody.
It seems to me from reading her amendment that the Hon. Member for Mount Royal anticipates that when one party is granted sole care and control of the children of the marriage and manifests an unwillingness to comply in whole or in substantial part with the terms of the order, this Bill can deal with that but that will only occur after the award of custody. In other words, it will not be the focus of the debate at the custody trial. These are circumstances which may or may not
exist after the trial and may provoke an application to review the Order.
Although we totally agree with the sentiments expressed by the amendment that would have the court issue some type of plan if the non-custodial spouse so applies, it will in fact happen that if an application is made as a result of what one spouse believes is a violation of his rights, by provincial laws of evidence some plan will in all likelihood be asserted by the court if the custodial spouse is to remain the custodial spouse.
I would like to compliment the Hon. Member on her sentiments. In light of the legislation and for the technical reasons that I have stated, however, I do not think that the amendment is necessary.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Speaker:: The question is on Motion No. 28 standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Mount Royal (Mrs. Finestone). Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Speaker:: In my opinion, the nays have it. I declare the motion lost.
Motion No. 28 (Mrs. Finestone) negatived.


Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby) moved:: Motion No. 29
That Bill C-47, be amended in Clause 17 by striking out line 2 at page 14 and substituting the following therefor:
"may, on application by a former spouse or with leave of the court, by a child
of the marriage make an order varying, rescinding or".
He said: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this amendment is to ensure that in circumstances in which a child of the marriage is receiving support and the child's custodial parent dies, the child will continue to be able to receive that support. Indeed, the child would be able to apply for an order of variation on that.

January 23, 1986
Divorce Act
The circumstances in which this amendment would be necessary would, hopefully, not occur too frequently. Nevertheless, it is an important amendment. The Lesser decision on this point left open the question of whether or not a child in circumstances such as this could apply independently for variation of the support order. To make the illustration clear, what we are talking about in terms of this amendment is a child who is, perhaps, disabled, and is 24 or 25 years of age, unable to look after himself or herself and is living with a parent who has been divorced. In this illustration, the parent dies. The question which must be resolved is: What is the status of the child with respect to bringing an application for support or for variation of the support order? As members of the Justice Committee will recall, this point was raised by a lawyer from Toronto, Linda Silver-Dranoff. The purpose of the amendment is to make very clear the status of that child to seek an application for variation in the courts even though the parent with whom the child had been residing may have died.
It was suggested in committee by counsel to the committee that, in fact, the Bill would not change the status quo. In other words, that standing would be granted to the estate of the custodial parent to continue a support application which was already in progress. The decision in the Lesser case left open the question as to whether or not the application could be made independently, as opposed to just continued by the estate, if the application had been originally made.
As I have said, the purpose of the amendment is to make clear that children, such as those who are disabled, as well as other children, are entitled to apply in their own right for variation of support orders. If, in fact, it is the intention of the Government that this Bill should be interpreted in such a way as to ensure that that would be the case, I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will make the intention clear.


Mrs. Sheila Finestone (Mount Royal):: Mr. Speaker, I support the motion of my colleague, the Hon. Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson). Notwithstanding Section 10, which indicates that a solution to the matter might be found therein, 1 think Hon. Members would agree that there is some lack of clarity as to what will happen to young people between the ages of 16 and 17 who are not protected by this Bill, and also to those who are disabled or, as suggested by the Hon. Member for Burnaby, those who make a separate application for variation in respect of a court order. The Lesser case brought this matter to the attention of the committee and we had lengthy discussions with respect to it. The case involved a youth aged 23 whose custodial parent had died and who required a variation order. It is a good thing that the matter went before the court in order that a decision could be made which would allow for support by the non-custodial parent.
I think it makes not only good, sensible public policy but it is humane that if the non-custodial parent can pay for support of his or her child of the marriage prior to the death of his or her spouse then, instead of becoming wards of the state, the non-custodial parent should continue to pay maintenance. I
think there has to be some serious consideration given to this matter. I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will indicate to us that the Government will give the broadest possible interpretation to this measure so that we are not faced with children becoming wards of the state merely based on their ages when a parent is lost or the child is disabled.
Mr. Chris Speyer (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Justice): Mr. Speaker, although 1 understand the sentiments behind the amendment, we are unable to agree with it for a number of practical reasons. First, the Divorce Act deals with people who are attempting to dissolve a marriage. That is the essence of divorce. When it comes to children, some questions which arise are the following. At what age might a child make this application? What if a child wanted to come under the custody of another parent and that other parent did not want to assume the responsibility, then who will pay for the legal representations of the child? In our view, such a scheme would not be very practical. It would bring the child right into the midst of conflicting parents. I do not believe it is a real problem. As the Hon. Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson) accurately states, I believe the Department of Justice lawyers at the time of the hearings gave adequate answers with respect to the remedy for which a child in those circumstances could apply.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Speaker:: The question is on Motion No. 29 standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Burnaby. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Yes.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Speaker:: In my opinion, the nays have it.


Some Hon. Members:: On division.
Motion No. 29 (Mr. Robinson) negatived.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Motion No. 30
That Bill C-47, be amended in Clause 17 by striking out lines 17 to 28 at page 14 and substituting the following therefor:
"(4) Before the court makes a variation order in respect of a support order the court shall satisfy itself
(a) that there has been a change in the condition, means, needs or other circumstances of either former spouse or of any child of the marriage for whom support is or was sought occurring since the making of the support order or the last variation order made in respect of that order as the case may be, or
January 23, 1986

(b) that a change in the condition, means, needs or other circumstances of either former spouse or of any child of the marriage for whom support is or was sought, that was anticipated at the date referred to in paragraph (a) has not occurred."
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in support of the amendment which is now before the House as Motion No. 30.
I wish to indicate that this motion and the amendment go to the core of the philosophy which underlies the Divorce Act. Without any doubt, the change proposed in the amendment is absolutely essential if we are to ensure that the criteria for maintenance do not, in effect, seriously discriminate against older women.
First, I wish to indicate specifically and clearly what the purpose of this amendment is. As the divorce legislation is now worded, where a time-limited order for maintenance is made by the courts, an application to vary that order after the expiry of the time can only be made if the individual who is receiving maintenance can show that there has been a change in her circumstances, a change which is related to the marriage. In a number of cases, at the time of making a maintenance order, the judge is in the position of looking ahead to the future to try to determine whether or not, based on his or her best assessment of all the evidence, the individual in question will be in a position of being self-sufficient, financially independent, at the end of the fixed term, whether it be two years, three years, or whatever. I will speak about women in this case because the vast majority of cases deal with women. At that point in time the judge will have to make a prediction. He or she will have to determine whether or not this woman will be able to obtain retraining, for example and, if she is able to obtain it, whether she will be able to find a job during that period of time. The Supreme Court of Canada in Messier v. Delage made it clear beyond any doubt that the courts must not be permanently bound by those predictions. In other words, it should always be open to the woman to return to the courts and say: "Look, I have made an effort. I tried to find work but I was unsuccessful and I need to continue this maintenance; or I need a variation of the maintenance order".
We certainly all know that women continue to be the victims of discrimination in the workplace, and on average continue to receive wages which are 60 per cent or 62 per cent of the wages of men. As well, in these harsh economic times, it is even more difficult for women to find work. We are not just speaking of any women, we are speaking, in many cases, of women 50 or 55 years of age who have worked in the home for many years and who suddenly find themselves on their own and are told that they have to become self-sufficient within a fixed period of time.
The purpose of this amendment would be to change the criteria now contained in the Divorce Act to ensure that where the judge looked to the future and anticipated there would be a change in the circumstances of the woman, and that change did not take place, the woman in question would be entitled to say: "Look. You cannot cut me off. You cannot leave me high and dry at the end of two or three years without any support
Divorce Act
whatsoever". In many cases they have to go directly onto the welfare rolls and certainly, in many of our provinces, including my own, the amount one receives on welfare is well below the poverty level. That is what we are condemning women to in these circumstances.
My amendment, Motion No. 30, reads in part that where the judge anticipated a change in the condition, means, needs or other circumstances of either former spouse or any child of the marriage and that change did not occur, the individual in question would be free to return to the court and seek an extension of that order. In the Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs that amendment was rejected despite the very strong support of the National Action Committee on the Status of Women, the National Association of Women and the Law, and the Canadian Advisory Council on the Status of Women, all of which wre profoundly concerned that there was a great potential for serious injustice in this legislation.
I might say as well that what many of these national women's organizations and myself found particularly surprising and disturbing is that the amendment was rejected not only by members of the Government, the Conservative Members of the committee, but this fundamental and important amendment was rejected by a Liberal member of the committee. This amendment is essential to ensure that older women are not discriminated against in the provisions of the Divorce Act. At a time when we should be enhancing the protection of older women from economic hardship, the Government moves in the opposite direction. The representative of the Liberal Party said that she was really quite pleased to have cast her vote with the Government. She said: "I am voting against Mr. Robinson's amendment because I do believe that equal opportunity brings equal responsibility. If we want to promote equal opportunity for women and for men, then we have to also support the aspect of responsibility for self'.
That is an extraordinary position to take by the Liberal Party on an amendment as vital and as fundamental to the concerns of literally hundreds of thousands of Canadian women, particularly older women. I hope that having reviewed this matter carefully and having heard the very eloquent representations made by the National Association of Women and the Law and the National Action Committee on the Status of Women, the representative of the Liberal Pary will stand in her place today and acknowledge that the Liberal Party made a mistake and that now, having seen the light, it is going to change its position and support this amendment which is of such vital importance to Canadian women.
I could do no better in concluding my remarks on this important amendment than to quote from a submission which was made to the committee by Dr. Eila Lamb, from Swan River, Manitoba. She is a professional woman who wrote to the committee on the subject of time-limited maintenance wards. She said, and I quote:
Time-limited maintenance awards, which are supposed to encourage women to become financially self-sufficient, have inherent drawbacks. One of the greatest is that the factors which will keep her relatively poor in terms of ability to earn a decent wage or salary lie largely outside her control: lack of appropriate counselling retraining that could lead to good employment; sufficient money for

January 23, 1986
Divorce Act
both training and maintenance; long, costly, arduous training required for hope of access to the better-paying jobs; economic and other factors which will limit her access to these jobs providing greater remuneration and which hold the promise of advancement.
I might add to that as well, Mr. Speaker, that the lack of access to proper child care facilities is another barrier to women in the employment arena. Dr. Lamb went on to say:
For a woman like myself, not having an extended family to offer at the least psychological support in her struggles, the odds against her succeeding are far greater than for the general male population.
And she said finally:
For a judge to be accurate in predicting future employment opportunities and future remuneration is ludicrous. Government, with access to a greater range of skill sand resources than one mere mortal, in this instance a judge, failed to predict future employment opportunities accurately. To place the onus on the woman to correct a too-brief time limit is not only unfair but also Machiavellian, as my experience indicates.
It is essential that this amendment be adopted if we are to ensure that women are treated fairly in the divorce courts of this country. This Bill, as it is now worded, would effectively encourage the practice of jettisoning older housewives without any financial support whatsoever. It is the "sink or swim" philosophy; if they do not make it within two or three years, forget it, they will go right on to the welfare rolls. That makes no sense whatsoever.
I know that my colleagues want to speak as well on this amendment so I will conclude by saying that I hope that the Government, having reconsidered, will support this amendment. I would particularly hope that the Liberal Party will finally recognize the grave error it has made on this Bill and that those Hon. Members will stand in their place and say they are prepared to support older women and the amendment of the New Democratic Party.


Sheila Finestone: Mr. Speaker, I do not think it is necessaray for me to receive a lecture from the Hon. Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson).


Mr. Gauthier:: Hear, hear!


Sheila Finestone: I think my credibility with women and women's movements is well known throughout Canada, particularly in Quebec.

I was president of the Federation des femmes du Quebec- 150,000 women making up 48 groups-and those Canadian women supported me by appointing me president, and 1 have defended the cause of women for a number of years. Mr. Speaker, I had very good reasons not to endorse the amendments proposed by the Hon. Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson); the fact was that I had already proposed amendments which, in my judgment, would bridge the gap in this Bill. 1 would point out to the Hon. Member for Burnaby that he did not support my recommendation, instead he wanted to push his own motion No. 13 rather than support my motion No. 12. But with respect to this, Mr. Speaker, I suggested to the Government which was making amendments concerning the
age of the spouses that the marriage or its failure would be a case to bring before the court, and I proposed striking out line 46 at page 11 and substituting the following therefor:
"within a reasonable period of time, as determined by the responsibilities of each spouse for any child of the marriage, by the reasonable expectations of each spouse with respect to employment, and by economic conditions."
I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, but playing politics with the Divorce Act is something 1 find unacceptable.
That being so, Mr. Speaker, 1 would like to say that I support this motion, not because of the Hon. Member for Burnaby, but because I had some difficulty in attempting to promote my views in this session, first and foremost in the best interest of children, and then in the interest of older women, women half way through their working lives who made a decision to stay at home and raise their children instead of rejoining the labour market. The minute those women concluded that their marriage was on the rocks and decided to apply for divorce, with the best of intentions they wanted to rejoin the labour force and be financially independent, but they were unable to fulfil their wishes and become self-supporting because the labour market did not give them a chance to show what they could accomplish and do something in their own best interest.
Had the amendments I just referred to been accepted by the Government I would not be standing here supporting the Hon. Member. However, I do so because I have a very serious concern. The Government has assured us that the problem of economic deprivation affecting older women who want to go back to work and their inability to meet their financial commitments is covered in Clause 10. I do not think this is a one-sided society. It is a partnership society. Men and women should have the right to continue their lives or start new lives when their marriage breaks down. Therefore, we must find a way to address the economic deprivation in which women find themselves when this happens. Because economic self-sufficiency is so important, and because the gap between rich and poor has become so pronounced, we must look directly at the face of poverty in our society today. What is the face of poverty today? I tell the Parliamentary Secretary that the face of poverty today is that of women. Poverty has been feminized. A major reason for that is the impact of divorce and the resulting maintenance and support payments which are not met. Sometimes they are not met for good reason. The courts do not have a mechanism for ensuring these payments. At the same time, the requirements for access to the child by the non-custodial parent are sometimes also not met. In most cases this involves the father. These fathers were also loving parents. Perhaps they were in the delivery room during the child's birth. They looked forward to their future relationship with their child. However, when the marriage broke down, and even though they wished to maintain their relationship with their children, they had a problem gaining access to their children.
January 23, 1986

As a result, they did not pay their support money, indeed they would sometimes run away and it is difficult to find them. The end result of all this is poverty for women, particularly single mothers. Statistics show this to be true.
It was for that reason that my friend, Sidney Cutler, a well-known Montreal lawyer, brought the Messier-Delage case to my attention. He pleaded this case and did so with intelligence. It concerns an application to set aside an alimentary pension paid to the ex-wife. In this decison the court said:
The mechanism provided by the Divorce Act to take into account the conduct of the parties and changes in the condition, means or other circumstances of either of them is their right to apply to the court each time a change which is regarded as fundamental occurs. The judge must arrive at his decision on each occasion having regard to the actual circumstances, not in accordance with events which may or may not occur. Accordingly, the Court of Appeal properly intervened in the case at bar. The Superior Court erred in disregarding the actual factors submitted for its consideration, and hypothesizing as to the unknown future, which cannot be foreseen at this time. There was no reason to cancel respondent's pension eight months in advance on the assumption that she would no longer need or be entitled to it. If the situation arises, it can be dealt with.
What is important here is that we must leave an opening for the court to look at each individual case. We as a society believe in individual rights. None of us are soothsayers; we cannot foretell the future. Therefore, I support the amendment, notwithstanding the unnecessary politicization by my hon. friend.


Ms. Lynn McDonald (Broadview-Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, I want to speak to Motion No. 30 because it is an extremely important matter. Since the Liberal Party is now supporting the NDP motion, I will direct my remarks to the hard-hearted Parliamentary Secretary, who is going to be, I hope, susceptible to an appeal on grounds of justice and reason.
The National Action Committee on the Status of Women is the largest women's organization in the country. It has made very strong representations on this issue and I think it is important to listen to them. The NAC brief pointed out that the subclause as currently worded in this very misguided part of the Bill:
-would severely limit the right of an ex-spouse to obtain an extension of her or his time-limited support order after the original time limit specified in it had expired. In our view, this sub-section is by far the most objectionable feature of Bill C-47; its potential to do harm to divorced long-term homemakers is so great that we could not support the passage of this bill unless sub-section 17(8) were eliminated.
The problem with sub-section 17(8) is that it would make it impossible to obtain an extension of a time-limited support order, on an application made after the expiration of the period specified-
-when there has not been a change in circumstances. The brief continues to read:
This is totally unacceptable to us because it would make extensions impossible in the cases when it is most needed, which is when a court had judged, on the basis of scanty evidence concerning the capacities of a divorcing wife and the state of the labour market, that she should be able to become self-supporting within a given period of time and should therefore be awarded support only for that limited period. Should the ex-wife, who could be a 50-year-old woman who had been a lifelong homemaker, then find herself unable in spite of reasonable efforts to become self-supporting in the time limit prescribed, she would be unable to obtain an extension in her support payments because she could not demonstrate that her situation had changed.
Divorce Act
This is a classic catch-22 situation since the very problem that created her need for support is precisely the fact that nothing has changed in her situation, that she was unable to find employment during the period of time specified.
What the Bill as presently worded would require is for judges to make these decisions. Of course, the Government has already rejected an extremely important amendment to give criteria to judges to make sure that those orders are adequate. So judges will be making decisions, but how do they know what the labour market is going to be like two years, three years or five years hence? They do not know. We do know, however, that unemployment among women has now gone above that of men. There were some improvements but it is getting worse. Judges have always erred on the low side in making their awards. An Ontario study shows that the average award for maintenance for the spouse and children counts for but 20 per cent of the income-earning spouse's after-tax income. I think this is extremely relevant. We are talking about awards which are not very large at all. We now have new legislation which is going to emphasize self-sufficiency and make women go out and get jobs, perhaps after a very long period of time at home. There are no guarantees in the legislation that equality of living standards will be an explicit criterion, and it will be up to a judge, 95 per cent of whom are men, to decide that equality of living circumstances should be a criterion at all. We must be extremely concerned about the Government's failure to take into account the serious plight of the homemaker spouse, particularly the older homemaker spouse.
I would also like to make a few remarks about the mistaken impression of the Hon. Member for Mount Royal (Mrs. Finestone) on the situation of nonpayment of maintenance. She suggests that it is the fault of wives by not providing access to children which accounts for nonpayment. I think this is most unacceptable thing to say.


Sheila Finestone: That is one of the reasons.


Lynn McDonald: She says that it is only one of the reasons, but it is certainly not borne out by any analysis of the situation. The Province of Manitoba, with the wisdom of an NDP Government, has instituted an excellent maintenance collection system. It is now collecting 85 per cent of maintenance orders. Does this suggest that wives and husbands in Manitoba are that much more civilized than those in other provinces? Are people really that much different? Do Canadians change their behaviour across provincial boundaries? 1 do not think so. This certainly shows that a good system for collection is possible. I do not think we should slur Canadian women and make them responsible for their own victimization by the nonpayment of maintenance orders. We know that 75 per cent of them are not paid, and this is extremely unacceptable. Maintenance is a very serious problem.
This Bill has gone further than the previous Bill. The Government has taken the advice of the women's movement.

January 23, 1986
Divorce Act
has accepted representations, and has made some improvements in it. This is an extremely important motion and I would urge the Government to make the extension of time limited maintenance orders possible by accepting our motion.


Chris Speyer: Mr. Speaker, I am somewhat reluctant to enter into the obvious division of opinion between the opposition Parties. In committee I gave the fullest reasons why the Government rejected the amendment proposed by the Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson). The Government's position goes even further than either the Canadian Bar Association or the Quebec Bar Association recommended. The new statutory provisions in this Bill call for a fixed time order in certain circumstances. Prior to that, awards for support went on for an indeterminate period of time until there was a change of circumstances. With more young people becoming separated or divorced it was thought that, using the analogy used by the Member for Burnaby, a man might pay an increased amount over a fixed period of time so that he can, to use the words of the Member for Mount Royal (Mrs. Finestone), see the light at the end of the tunnel. He would be finished with his obligations with respect to support.
That is a good initiative of the Government. It has been recommended by everyone and is not objected to by the other side. What does one expect when a person gets married at the age of 22 and gets divorced at the age of 25, as so often happens today? The Canadian Bar Association said that in those circumstances, especially dealing with young people, once the separation agreement has been made it cannot be reopened. We said that there may be some circumstances in which it should be reopened. To that extent we differ from the Quebec and the Canadian Bar Associations.
The representations made by the Member for Burnaby are absolute poppycock. Marriages of a duration of 30 or 40 years will not be the subject matter of time limited orders. The whole purpose of the orders are for young or older people involved in marriages of short duration. As an example, it may very well be unreasonable to expect the wife of a dentist, after having been married for 25 years, to get into the workforce, keeping in mind the functions she performed during the marriage. Such a case would not be the subject matter of a time limited order. These orders have a specific design.
We have put two qualifications on the time limited orders. A variation is necessary to relieve economic hardship from a change described in Section 4, which is the change of circumstances related to the marriage, and the changes, had they existed at the time of the making of the support order, would likely have resulted in a different order. It is pretty simple. This is our philosophy. We certainly go further than the Bar recommended, and there is absolutely no injustice whatsoever.


Ms. Margaret Mitchell (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, I really did not intend to rise to speak. As Members probably know, I have not been our Party's representative on this committee. However, as the critic for the status of women, and being concerned about social issues, I was extremely concerned
with the response of the Parliamentary Secretary. It did not seem to me that he provided a guarantee for older women who are in desperate situations. There is no question about it. We had a task force on older women several years ago and talked to women all across Canada. The divorce and separation rate has gone up considerably since then. It is almost to be expected that 30, 40, or 50 per cent of women will find themselves on their own and in poverty in the years after their children are raised, and the maintenance arrangements related to divorce are not sufficiently flexible to provide for their circumstances.
I, therefore, wholeheartedly agree with my colleagues who prepared this amendment. I cannot, for the life of me, see why the Government would not support it if, as it says, it is concerned about older women and poverty as it relates to them. The remarks of the Parliamentary Secretary did not at all convince me that older women are protected in this regard.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Speaker:: The question is on Motion No. 30 standing in the name of Mr. Robinson. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


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


Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 81(11), the recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.


Sheila Finestone: Motion No. 31
That Bill C-47, be amended in Clause 17 by adding immediately after line 10 at page 16 the following:
"(II) for greater certainty, an application made before the period or
specified event referred to in subsection (8) but heard after that period or
specified event is not an application made after the expiration of a definite
period or the happening of a specified event pursuant to subsection (8)."
She said: Mr. Speaker, I would like to move Motion No. 31 which is a technical amendment which would serve to tighten up the legislation for greater certainty and clarity in its application. The amendment adds:
For greater certainty, an application made before the period or specified event referred to in subsection (8) but heard after that period or specified event is not an application made after the expiration of a definite period or the happening of a specified event pursuant to subsection (8).
I will not go through all the arguments that I have used prior to this. However, I feel that it is very important, when
January 23, 1986

considering an order varying a support order that provides for the support of a child of the marriage, to recognize that the former spouses have a joint financial obligation to maintain the child and to apportion that obligation between the former spouses according to their relative abilities to contribute to the performance of that obligation. The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that the law is clear with respect to term orders. It is to ensure that a variation for a term order can take place if an application is made before the term order is up but the court hearing has not been held before the term order expires.
I think the Parliamentary Secretary can appreciate that the courts are frequently jammed and a case cannot be heard before the deadline date. I want to be assured that all cases that have had a prior application will be heard subsequently, including the provision that one can vary at any time, not only at a given point within the course of the time accorded for varying a term order.


Chris Speyer: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I can alleviate some of the anxiety which the Hon. Member may have. The original draft of the Bill used the word "made" during the course of a fixed order. In other words, the apprehension was that an action may be instituted during that period of time but not heard, and therefore the person would be out of court. During the committee stage we changed the word "made" to "instituted" so that as long as the action is instituted within the fixed period of time there is no problem. It was cured at committee.


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


Sheila Finestone: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I thank the Parliamentary Secretary for that explanation and for bringing it to my attention. I would be pleased to withdraw that amendment.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the Hon. Member have the unanimous consent of the House to withdraw Motion No. 31 ?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion No. 31 (Mrs. Finestone) withdrawn.


Hon. Perrin Beatty (for the Minister of Justice) moved:: 
Chris Speyer: Mr. Speaker, this is the third amendment that has been agreed to by the Government as a result of the pre-study
Divorce Act
by the Senate. This amendment is proposed to meet certain concerns with the sufficiency of authority of the Governor in Council to create and maintain a central divorce registry.
The divorce regulations provide for the creation of a central divorce registry located in Ottawa, require court officers to make certain returns in relation to divorce proceedings and define the duties of officers of a central divorce registry. Doubts were expressed as to whether the existing legislation grants sufficient authority for the establishment of the registry.
The Government believes that Clause 26 of the Bill, contrary to Section 19(2) of the existing legislation, would allow the making of regulations for carrying out of the purposes and provisions of this Act. It is the view of the Minister that in this respect, the new regulation is more explicit and will provide sufficient authority for regulations under the Divorce Act.
The Government is not willing to accept or propose an amendment that would provide in the Bill itself for the establishment of a registry and the duties of its officers, but it does agree as a compromise that the regulations-making power, Clause 26 of the Bill, be amended so as to expressly allow the making of regulations for this purpose. It is proposed that Clause 26 be amended to give the Governor in Council the power to make regulations respecting the establishmment and operation of a central divorce registry. Such an amendment will, without being necessary, put the divorce regulations on a firm and clear statutory footing.


Sheila Finestone: Mr. Speaker, I am quite pleased. I spoke to this issue because it was of great concern to me from the outset. During the course of the hearings there did not seem to be any indication that we would be able to move in this direction due to finances. I am pleased that the Minister of Justice (Mr. Crosbie) has agreed to a report that was submitted to him and included this particular motion which, incidentally, followed my motion.
The Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs brought this to his attention and the Standing Committee on Regulations and Statutory Instruments also recommended its inclusion.
The House only needs to refer to Motion No. 34 to see that I had requested that we make such an amendment which would establish a central registry. I understand the dilemma involved with the certain costs that were ascribed. However, the aim to ensure uniformity in the rules, to have a central collection and clearing house, and the fact that one will be able to can determine where and how the cases should be heard will let us take great steps toward enabling eventual national enforcement and maintenance proceedings that I believe are vital.
This will include not only information responsibilities but action responsibilities as well. In other words, the decision of the court will be put into application. If they are not applied, there can be a potential for no recourse by the spouse who therefore will not be so well served as he should have been,

January 23, 1986
Divorce Act
based on what the court had said. Therefore, it is with much pleasure that I support the motion of the Minister of Justice.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, we in the New Democratic Party are in support of this amendment, particularly given the fact that it originated with the very distinguished Member for Mount Royal (Mrs. Finestone).


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


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Speaker:: The question is on Motion No. 35 standing in the name of the Hon. Minister of Justice (Mr. Crosbie). Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion No. 35 (Mr. Crosbie) agreed to.


Sheila Finestone: 
Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, 1 am pleased to rise in support of the amendment proposed by the Hon. Member for Mount Royal (Mrs. Finestone). The amendment would suggest that not later than five years after the Act is proclaimed and in force there should be a comprehensive review.
I do note, however, that the amendment would call for a comprehensive review of the provisions of the Act relating to reconciliation and to support orders, but it appears to be silent on a review of the provisions relating to custody. I find it somewhat curious that the Hon. Member is suggesting that we should not review the provisions of this Act with respect to custody. It is the provisions with respect to custody in many cases that raised serious questions during the course of our committee proceedings.
January 23, 1986

The five year review process is one that is important. Perhaps five years is an excessively long period of time, but there are a number of issues which I believe should be carefully studied. In some cases they should be reviewed well before the five year period.
The Hon. Member for Mount Royal made reference to the question of the Get, the requirement within the Jewish community that for a divorce to be finalized the partners to the divorce must observe a traditional religious requirement of obtaining what is known as a Get. We had representations with respect to this requirement during the hearings of the Justice Committee on the Divorce Act and amendments were proposed at report stage. They were, however, ruled out of order.
I want to make it very clear that we in this Party are prepared to support in principle the thrust of those amendments as my colleagues at the provincial level in Ontario supported similar amendments. While it has been suggested by the Member for Mount Royal that this might be one of the subjects of this five year review, I would hope that the Justice Committee would be prepared to hold hearings on this question much earlier than five years from now in order that the various views on this question might be given a proper and full hearing by the committee.
I suggest as well that there are a number of issues which should be reviewed by the House, if not during the course of the five year review, then well before then.
One of the regrets I have about the process of this Bill is that there was no national conference on custody and divorce such as was recommended by a number of groups. This would have brought together a wide range of individuals and organizations concerned about questions, such as joint custody, shared parenting and so on in order that they might have an opportunity to make submissions in an atmosphere of cooperation at a conference of that nature. This amendment, which proposes a five year review of a number of issues, should take that into consideration among other concerns.
We should look as well at the importance of mediation. Suggestions were made during the course of committee proceedings for mandatory mediation or a mandatory conference. Those suggestions were ruled out of order, Mr. Speaker. I suggest again that that is one of the areas that should be looked at seriously. If we can impose a scheme of mandatory mediation and if there are sufficient resources in our communities for that scheme to be effective, we may very well want to look at that.
I suggest that this five year process is an excellent opportunity for us to obtain statistics with respect to a number of the more important issues arising from the passage of this Divorce Act.
One of the suggestions the committee heard that could be reviewed during the course of this five year review is the tendency of courts to discriminate against fathers in the granting of access. We do not as yet have the statistics.
Divorce Act
It has been pointed out that 85 per cent of custody awards are made to mothers. As a committee we did not have the statistics in terms of the number of fathers who have actually applied for custody and been denied, as opposed to the number of mothers. I suggest this is one of the areas that should be reviewed during the course of the five year period, if not beforehand.
I support the amendment of the Hon. Member. I hope she might consider broadening it to include a review of custody provisions as well as provisions for reconciliation and support orders. If there is one outstanding area, one area that still remains of considerable concern to those who made representations on this Bill, it is the area of custody and the questions raised by suggestions of joint custody, shared parenting and the fact that fathers do not divorce their children, they divorce their spouses. Fathers do not divorce their children. We want to ensure that there are mechanisms for maintaining that contact and relationship between fathers and their children. To the extent this review process will facilitate that, we welcome and support the amendment.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I will not take much time. I have been sitting here for the last two days listening to this interesting debate. Since we have a common ground here, I would like to make an amendment to the motion to deal with the problem of custody orders and possibly add that in terms of the five year review.
Before I move that amendment, I would like to say a few words. All of us have had many constituents and people coming with personal problems regarding the very important and difficult subject of divorce. I had a letter this morning dealing with the problem of access from a father who feels very disturbed about this whole question. Our critic told me that the five year review which the Government will be doing would probably help to solve some of these problems concerning access and custody orders.
My letter comes from a Mr. Royal L. Gauthier, No. 231 -1965 Playfair Drive, Ottawa. He told me that he is divorced and has access to his child, but his child is now living with his former wife somewhere in Germany and she is giving him difficulty regarding access. I take it that the Government, in reviewing this whole question, will accept the amendment made by the Hon. Member for Mount Royal (Mrs. Finestone), which is supported by the Hon. Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson) and his Party. We could amend Motion No. 36 (a) which reads:
-review the provisions of this Act relating to reconciliation and support orders; and
By adding the words "and custody orders".
It would read as follows:
(a)	review the provisions of this Act relating to reconciliation, support and custody orders; and


Mrs. Pepin:: I so move.

January 23, 1986
Divorce Act


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: The House has heard the terms of the amendment. The amendment is in order, and debate on it will proceed now.


Sheila Finestone: Mr. Speaker, my original testimony as to why I felt that it was very important to include this amendment speaks for itself. I am pleased that the Hon. Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson) brought to my attention the omission of the words "custody orders", because it was meant to have been submitted in that way. When one talks about reconciliation and support orders, it is obvious that one hopes there will be a reconciliation within the family, that is, within the relationship between the father and the child or the mother and the child, depending upon the situation, and that would be reviewed very carefully. I should like to add to that a perspective which we sometimes forget. Very key to family relationships is the extended family. There are maternal and paternal grandparents; there are aunts and uncles on both sides; and there are cousins. The blocking of access to that lovely family relationship is of serious concern as well.
I heartily support the amendment. I thank all those who brought that absence to my attention. I hope Hon. Members of the House will take seriously their responsibility as legislators. Regardless, perhaps, of considerations by the Ministry, let us take the lead and indicate that we are serious legislators who want to improve wherever possible the content of the Bill. I hope we will allow for this kind of motion which will allow us to make changes at any time but with an obligation to do so within five years.


Mr. Roland de Corneille (Eglinton-Lawrence):: Mr. Speaker, I should simply like to add my words to those of the Hon. Member for Mount Royal (Mrs. Finestone) and urge that together we in the House look upon this amendment as a friendly one designed to alleviate suffering, to create harmony and, especially for children, to create a situation which will improve the atmosphere in their homes and will provide them with the best access to their parents and the advantages of that. I hope the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary and his caucus will also look upon the amendment as a friendly one worthy of support.


Lucie Pépin: Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this motion. I am a critic on the status of women and I think it is very important-naturally, women seek equality-to assume the responsibilities we must face. Most of the time nowadays the wife and mother gets to keep the children. If we take a closer look at divorce, when a father loses child custody, very often the children become a bargaining factor. That is why I fully agree with this amendment, and I hope the Government will support it because it is very important for a father to see his children regularly.
As we know, and this was mentioned earlier today, a man gets a divorce from his wife, not from his children. One of the problems in any divorce case is that children are involved. The law sees to it that they are financially protected, but I think
that emotions do come into the picture; they are just as important and perhaps more so, and in that respect the legislation may have been lacking. 1 think this amendment would protect our children against emotional upsets for it is very important that children get to see their father regularly. Bargaining does take place now and again because a father may forget about alimony payments or quite simply refuse to make them altogether. More often than not they are his wife's only source of income, so she will say: If you want to see your children, well it is too bad but alimony payments must be made first.
An effort has to be made, and if both spouses could agree and realize that they both have the right to see the children they would be able to avoid that problem and think only of the well-being of the children. If the children's well-being is to come first, then we must find a way to make sure that a father can indeed get to see his children. Therefore I hope that the Government will accept this amendment which, in my opinion, is absolutely essential if we want to live in a stable society and have well-balanced children. They must be able to see both parents.


Chris Speyer: Mr. Speaker, very briefly, I think Hon. Members on all sides of the House are trying to lay down within this Act principles of decency in dealing with children and the dissolution of marriage. There is no doubt that the Bill is not the final say in respect of legislation which will be coming before the House.
As a general policy matter, the Department of Justice is continually reviewing the Divorce Act. Certainly we will be monitoring the new provisions and their effect on society. The Whip of the Official Opposition read a letter from his constituent, and I should like to indicate that we all receive many letters on personal matters. It is a live issue on which people want some type of initiative. I suspect that before five years have elapsed there will be a reopening of this Act on a number of matters.
I will give an example which was raised by the Hon. Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson) and the Hon. Member for Mount Royal (Mrs. Finestone). It concerns the very serious difficulty which people within the Jewish community are undergoing in respect of what is known as a Get. It is a very substantial problem. It was brought to our attention on October 4. There were no hearings with regard to the solution which was proposed. However, 1 can tell the House that it is fraught with some constitutional difficulties and some family law and divorce policy issues which have to be resolved. 1 have met with members of the Jewish community in respect of this matter. The Minister of Justice (Mr. Crosbie) instructed his officials to establish an expeditious process of consultation with representatives of various interests in order to resolve outstanding issues. I confirm that discussions on this issue have already started. The Minister has indicated that the Government will give careful and sympathetic consideration to this
January 23, 1986

issue. We intend to find an equitable solution. The point 1 am making is that issues such as this one will not be put on the back burner. There will be a reopening of the Act. It may very well be that the Justice Committee will convene to deal with this issue and other issues as well.
Although 1 reject a legislative commitment to a review, I certainly know as a practical matter that the Act will be monitored by Justice officials, and indeed I think we will find future legislation to deal with some matters that are not included in this particular legislation. I sympathize with the sentiments that have been expressed but I do think we have made a very good start.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Is the House ready for the question?


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: The question is on the amendment to Motion No. 36 standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Outremont (Mrs. Pepin). Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: All those in favour please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: All those opposed please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: In my opinion the nays have it.
Amendment (Mrs. Pepin) to Motion No. 36 negatived.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: The next question is on Motion No. 36 standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Mount Royal (Mrs. Finestone). Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: All those in favour please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: All those opposed please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.
Divorce Act


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: In my opinion, the nays have it.
And more than five Members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Pursuant to Standing Order 81(11), the recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
Motion No. 16 was to have been disposed of or dropped as the Speaker had indicated.

The House will now proceed with the recorded divisions deferred at the report stage of Bill C-47, an Act respecting divorce and corollary relief.
Call in the Members.
And the division bells having rung:


Mr. Speaker:: The first question is on Motion No. 3A. Mrs. Finestone, seconded by Mr. Gauthier, moved:
Motion No. 3A
That Bill C-47, be amended in Clause 2 by striking out line 17 at page 1 and substituting the following therefor:
"of education, illness, disability or other cause, to".


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion lost.


Mr. Gray (Windsor West):: Mr. Speaker, with the unanimous consent of the House, I propose that the vote just taken be applied and recorded as such to the amendment to Motion No. 9 standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Mount Royal (Mrs. Finestone), Motion No. 13 standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson), and Motion No. 36.


Mr. Hnatyshyn:: 30 and 36.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: 30 and 36? I think we will have to have a separate vote on the main motion, No. 9.


Mr. Speaker:: Do I sense agreement to that?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I am not quite clear as to whether consultations on the opposition side have taken place. However, one possibility is to reverse the vote on the main motion, No. 9, standing in the name of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Crosbie). If the Opposition is voting on the main motion on the assumption it is defeated, then it will not be necessary for us to take another vote. I would simply ask the Opposition if it is agreeable to that proposition so that we can save ourselves another vote.


Mr. Speaker:: I have a feeling that the matter will be decided by the voice vote on the main motion. Therefore, the next question is on the amendment to Motion No. 9.
I take it that it is understood we are dealing with the amendment to the motion of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Crosbie) standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Mount Royal (Mrs. Finestone), and that it should be negatived on the same recorded vote that was just taken on Motion No. 3A?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Mrs. Finestone, seconded by Mr. Gauthier, moved:
That Bill C-47, an Act respecting divorce and corollary relief, be amended in Clause 11 by adding immediately after the word "of' in the first line of the motion, the words "either spouse and".


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion lost.
Therefore, the next question before the House is on Motion No. 9 standing in the name of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Crosbie). Mr. Crosbie, seconded by Mr. Hnatyshyn moved: Motion No. 9
That Bill C-47, be amended in Clause 11 by striking out lines 18 to 24 at page 8 and substituting the following therefor:
"arrangements have been made for the support of any children of the marriage and, if such arrangements have not been made, to stay the granting of the divorce until such arrangements are made; and"


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion No. 9 (Mr. Crosbie) agreed to.


Mr. Speaker:: The next motion before the House is Motion No. 13. I take it that it is the pleasure of the House to adopt the same recorded vote on that motion as was adopted on Motion No. 3A and the amendment to Motion No. 9?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Mr. Robinson, seconded by Ms. McDonald, moved:
Motion No. 13
That Bill C-47, be amended in Clause 15 by striking out lines 31 to 46 at page 11 and substituting the following therefor:
(7) an order made under this Section that provides for the support of a spouse shall be directed to one or more of the following objectives:
(a) subject to paragraphs (b), (c), and (d) to promote the economic self-sufficiency of each spouse within a reasonable period of time;
(b)	to recognize any economic advantages or disadvantages to the spouses arising from the marriage or its breakdown and to relieve any economic hardship of the spouses arising from the marriage or its breakdown;
(c)	where the marriage is of long duration and where one spouse worked full-time in the home and was financially dependent on the other spouse during the marriage, to provide support for the dependent spouse throughout his or her lifetime and to equalize the standards of living of the spouse awarded support and the supporting spouse;
(d)	where there is a child of the marriage and the spouses had agreed before divorce proceedings were commenced, that one spouse should stay at home full-time to care for the child, to fulfil the terms of that agreement insofar as it is economically practicable.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion lost.
The next question is on Motion No. 30 standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson). 1 take it the same recorded vote would be applied as was applied earlier?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Mr. Robinson, seconded by Ms. McDonald, moved:
Motion No. 30
That Bill C-47, be amended in Clause 17 by striking out lines 17 to 28 at page 14 and substituting the following therefor:
"(4) Before the court makes a variation order in respect of a support order the court shall satisfy itself
(a) that there has been a change in the condition, means, needs or other circumstances of either former spouse or of any child of the marriage for whom support is or was sought occurring since the making of the support

January 23, 1986
Divorce Act
order or the last variation order made in respect of that order as the case may be, or
(b)	that a change in the condition, means, needs or other circumstances of either former spouse or of any child of the marriage for whom support is or was sought, that was anticipated at the date referred to in paragraph (a) has not occurred."


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion lost.
The next question before the House is on Motion No. 36 standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Mount Royal (Mrs. Finestone). Is it the intention of the House to apply the same recorded vote to that motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Mrs. Finestone, seconded by Mr. Gauthier, moved:
Motion No. 36
That Bill C-47, be amended by adding immediately after line 43 at page 23 the following:
"28. Not later than five years after this Act is proclaimed into force, such committee of the House of Commons as may be designated or established for the purposes of this section shall
(a)	review the provisions of this Act relating to reconciliation and support orders; and
(b)	within a year after the review is undertaken or within such time as the House of Commons may authorize, submit a report to the House thereon, including a statement of any changes the committee would recommend."


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion lost.


Hon. John C. Crosbie (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada) moved: that the Bill, as amended, be concurred in.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Speaker:: When shall the Bill be read a third time? At the next sitting of the House?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, there have been consultations between the Parties. I think you will find there is unanimous consent to proceed with third reading. 1 have a draft order which I have given to opposition Members and I think you will find a disposition to accept this order as well concerning third reading. It reads as follows:
That, notwithstanding any Standing or Special Order of this House, when the Order for the third reading of Bill C-46, an Act to amend the Divorce Act is called, the orders for third reading of Bill C-47, an Act respecting divorce and corollary relief, and Bill C-48, an Act to provide for the release of information that may assist in locating defaulting spouses and other persons and to permit, for the enforcement of support orders and support provisions, the garnishment and attachment of certain moneys payable by Her Majesty in right of Canada, respectively, shall be deemed to have been called at the same time.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Hnatyshyn) have the unanimous consent necessary for his motion?
Divorce Act


Mr. Speaker:: Therefore, third reading of Bill C-47 stands deferred until third reading of Bill C-46.


FAMILY ORDERS ENFORCEMENT ASSISTANCE ACT
[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-48, an Act to provide for the release of information that may assist in locating defaulting spouses and other persons and to permit, for the enforcement of support orders and support provisions, the garnishment and attachment of certain moneys payable by Her Majesty in right of Canada, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.
Mr. Speaker:: There are two report stage motions on the Notice Paper in amendment to Bill C-48. Motion No. 1 standing in the name of the Hon. Member for York Centre (Mr. Kaplan) seeks to create a National Maintenance and Custody Orders Enforcement Agency. The creation of such an agency would entail the expenditure of moneys from the Consolidated Revenue Fund, which would require a Royal Recommendation signed by Her Excellency. 1 would draw the Hon. Member's attention to Citation 773 of Beauchesne's Fifth Edition, which reads in part:
(7) An amendment is out of order if it imposes a charge upon the Public Treasury-
In addition, the motion goes beyond the scope of the clause it seeks to amend. In this regard I would refer the Hon. Member to a ruling made by Mr. Speaker Lamoureux on March 28, 1969, Journals pages 862 and 863. For those reasons I must rule the motion out of order.
Motion No. 2 standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Mount Royal (Mrs. Finestone) also seeks to create an agency which would oversee the enforcement of maintenance and custody orders. However, its members would serve without remuneration. While this would circumvent the problem of infringement on the financial initiative of the Crown, the motion does present the Chair with other problems. As with Motion No. 1, it goes beyond the scope of the clause it seeks to amend. I must therefore rule it out of order.


John Carnell Crosbie: that the Bill, be concurred in.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to the order adopted earlier today, Bill C-48 will be read the third time when third reading is called on Bill C-46, which may be later this day.

January 23, 1986
It being one o'clock, I do now leave the chair until two o'clock later this day.
At 1 p.m., the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.

Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) misinformed the House yesterday when he denied that Simon Reisman's office had issued a statement on water. According to Don Whitely of the Vancouver Sun, Mr. Reisman said: "In my judgment water will be the most critical area of Canada-U.S. relations over the next hundred years", and, regarding water export: "My views on water were developed when I was a private citizen. I believe in it then, and I believe in it now".
The chief negotiator for Canada in announcing his personal views on water and implying that water might be a main factor in up-coming trade negotiations, thus obliquely putting on the table an item that should never be dealt with as a tradeable commodity by Canada.
Who authorized Mr. Reisman to make such a statement? Can he be an independent thinker on water matters, if, in the past, he did business with the Grand Canal Company interested in water diversions and exports? Should Canada's negotiator be someone with former ties to such an enterprise? In view of his self-proclaimed interest in water exports to the U.S., what credibility does he have in the eyes of Canadians? Should Canada's negotiator engage in making public statements about the possible content of the negotiating process without authority from his Government?
If trade negotiations are to proceed, Mr. Speaker, the Government should replace Mr. Reisman with a Canadian who understands that water and sovereignty are two sides of the same coin.


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


CANADA POST CORPORATION
Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, I have been informed by both Canada Post and the Letter Carriers' Union in Winnipeg that there are more than 700 homes and businesses in the urban part of my constituency which lack door-to-door letter carrier service. This number is constantly growing as new housing is constructed, and residents are justifiably angry that they cannot receive the mail service that they previously enjoyed. This same anger is felt in most urban areas across the country. These residents had always been led to believe that the green mailboxes they must use were temporary, but now we learn that Canada Post is proposing "community mailboxes" which are intended to be permanent.
Canada Post is clearly wrong in telling urban dwellers that there will be two classes of residents and two classes of mail delivery in our cities. Thousands of petitions have been signed protesting this discriminatory treatment. The Marchment Commission found that Canadians are willing to pay in order that daily home delivery service in urban areas be maintained. Clearly, Canada Post must maintain its service and expand its revenue producing activities if it is to gain the confidence of the Canadian public.
Canada Post must realize that better service brings with it more use of the mails and more jobs. The alternative of service cut-backs makes huge rate increases as inevitable as all the Canadians who are angry about the postal service they are not getting. I call on the Government to direct Canada Post to provide door-to-door mail service to all urban homes.


GOVERNMENT PROGRAMS AND GRANTS
Mr. John Gormley (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address the subject of federal Government grants. There presently exists a long menu of discretionary grants made through many Government agencies, including Regional Industrial Expansion, Employment and Immigration, Secretary of State, and Indian Affairs, to name a few.
It is often the case that communities, local non-profit groups, and local entrepreneurs have ideas which they believe will merit Government support. However, these people are sometimes intimidated by the vast array of programs and simply do not know where to begin. As a result, they hire the services of a consultant to research Government monies and prepare proposals even before a project has matured to the point where such an initial expense is justified. This is not to say that professional advice does not have value in the success of projects that ultimately require expert assistance. However, information from the Government Departments involved is often quite adequate to provide initial advice and direction at little or no cost. Going first to the responsible Government
January 23, 1986

agencies may ultimately save the applicants both time and money.
In this regard Members of Parliament can and should serve as the first point of contact. MPs can provide an overview of Government initiatives and can assist local businesses and organizations in gaining better access to the system. I encourage Members of all Parties in this House to make it clear to their constituents that MPs are here as sources of information on grants and local economic development.


FISHERIES
Mr. George Henderson (Egmont):: Mr. Speaker, the policy decisions of the Government will ruin the Atlantic fishery. Inshore fishermen and small processors will soon be wiped out if the Government continues to sweeten the pot for large companies at the expense of the small inshore operators.
Here are a few examples of the Government's policies. Fisheries Products International of Newfoundland was given $105 million, with no guarantee of not closing fish plants. The Nordick Group was given an offshore licence after it had paid lobbyists to buy an audience with the Minister. Three factory freezer licences were granted. National Sea Products was granted permission to increase the length of six of its trawlers. Dr. Art May, a man who understood and respected inshore fishermen, was fired from his job as Deputy Minister. The 1986 Groundfish Management Plan cut the inshore quota and increased the offshore quota.
Those examples smack of the Government's bias toward big business. If the Government is counting on small business to create tomorrow's jobs, it need not by-pass the Atlantic fishing industry which is a source of hundreds of jobs. Inshore fishermen and processors are small business operators. However, they are in danger of being wiped out because of the Government's policies. The 1986 Groundfish Management Plan is a testimony to that. The small community-based inshore fishery is being swallowed up by large fish companies.
I call upon the Government to redistribute the quotas immediately. Inshore fishermen want their fair share.


TOURISM
Mr. Ken James (Samia-Lambton):: Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to note that the Minister of State for Tourism (Mr. Murta), the Minister of Communications (Mr. Masse), and the Minister of State for Multiculturalism (Mr. Jelinek) have recently announced a series of federal initiatives in support of the Canadian tourism and cultural industries. This
was done via an agreement recently released after months of consultation.
The Government recognizes the link between tourism and Canada's wide variety of cultural attractions. We have made multiculturalism, tourism, and culture a definite priority for the Government.
To illustrate the commitment of the Government, these three Departments will jointly contribute over $1 million toward a series of pilot projects. These projects are intended to evaluate the tourism impact on select Canadian cultural and multicultural destinations that will be promoted throughout the United States.
As well, the three Ministers will host a national conference on tourism and culture in the fall of 1986. To the Ministries of Tourism, Multiculturalism, and Communications, and to the Ministers responsible, I want to say: "Well done".


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Maurice Tremblay (Lotbiniere):: As you know, Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise) announced yesterday our party's new long term dairy policy, thereby formally committing the federal Government to this major industry in Canada's overall economy.
I, for one, am delighted with this new policy, in view of its direct impact on my riding which depends heavily on the dairy industry, but especially because our party is keeping one more promise made during the last election campaign.
Need I remind the House of the total indifference of the previous Liberal administration to the needs of Canadian farmers which accounted for a 12 per cent reduction in the number of farms, a 2.5 per cent decrease in farm population, a 800 per cent increase in farm bankruptcies, a skyrocketing increase in interest rates, as well as a nearly 400 per cent increase in operating costs.
Our Government, through the Department of Agriculture, will inject in the farm industry more than $1.5 billion over the next five years, which will give at last the dairy industry a stability it had not known since 1980.
This, Mr. Speaker, is another demonstration of the constant concern of our Government for the farm producers of this great country.

January 23, 1986


INCOME TAX ACT
Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops-Shuswap):: 
Mr. Speaker:: I regret to advise that the Hon. Member's time has expired.


INSURANCE
Mr. Bill Attewell (Don Valley East):: Mr. Speaker, last week I asked the Minister of State for Finance what action she would take, along with her provincial colleagues, to curb the astronomical liability claims which are threatening the very survival of many property and casualty insurance companies. Many companies have withdrawn completely from certain liability risks. As a result, many school boards, municipalities, truck lines and others are without liability coverage.
Just this morning I learned the local St. John Ambulance Association is without liability insurance. They have never had a claim yet they have seen their premiums go from $36,000 to $205,000 a year. They simply cannot afford it. As a result, they have no liability insurance for their hundreds of volunteers.
Clearly the outrageous size of claims and the unaffordable rate increases are the responsibility of the provincial Governments.
I applaud this Government for its swift action to meet with various interest groups which have been so hard hit by these developments, and for taking steps to strengthen the solvency and capital base requirements of insurance companies.
However, as my colleague, the Hon. Member for Mississauga South (Mr. Blenkarn), has pointed out, the Government should also take a leadership role in establishing a Canadian reinsurance facility. The reinsurance industry, largely located in Europe, is vacating the North American market, creating chaos of crisis proportions. The time for action is now, Mr. Speaker.


STATUS OF WOMEN
Lucie Pépin: Mr. Speaker, I would like to bring to the attention of the House the findings of a Statistics Canada survey of wages and salaries of Canadian men and women. This survey confirms what we already knew, but it is useful at times to remember that discrimination against women on the labour market is very widespread.
In Canada, men on the average earn $3.00 more per hour than women. The survey shows that the wage differential between men and women decreases as the number of years of schooling increases. For instance, women with grade school education earn 36 per cent less than men, while women with university degrees earn 19 per cent less than their male counterparts.
The discrimination areas noted are totally unacceptable. They show that women must fight on many fronts, including employment, equality, equal salary for work of equal value, entry in non-traditional trades, and higher education for our daughters.
Mr. Speaker, finally, I would like to point out the toothless nature of Bill C-62. It will certainly not help women take their rightful place on the labour market. The Government's refusal to impose fines for non-compliance, its refusal to integrate time-tables and objectives into the Bill unfortunately show that this Conservative Government is much less concerned with women than its rhetoric would have us believe.
January 23, 1986


PUBLIC SERVICE
Mr. Don Ravis (Saskatoon East):: Mr. Speaker, much unfounded concern has been generated recently over so-called lay-offs in the federal public civil service.
I want to reiterate our Government's intention to accomplish this goal through attrition and not massive lay-offs. We have committed ourselves to reducing the size of the federal civil service, which the previous Liberal Government allowed to grow much faster then the economy.
Like Canadians across the country, my constituents in Saskatoon East told me that they want to see a lean, efficient Government working for them here in Ottawa. We indicated our intention to reduce the size of the federal civil service during the campaign of 1984. We introduced the current policy in the May, 1985, Budget.
It has never been our intention to eliminate all positions overnight. We have committed ourselves to decreasing Government expenditures and reducing the size of the federal public service by 15,000 positions all across Canada by 1990. Canadians also told us that they do not want us to lay off 15,000 people to reach this goal; nor do we. That is not the way to go about attaining our objectives. Rather, we intend to reduce the size of the federal Government wherever possible through attrition.
To illustrate just how realistic and effective is this goal, I would like to cite the most recent figures released by the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. de Cotret). Figures from all Departments show that of 5,000 federal employees across Canada whose jobs will not be renewed after March, 1987, a maximum of only 700 could possibly face lay-offs. Special measures have been implemented to ensure that they are given jobs and/or retraining priority. So let us hear no more scare tactics-


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



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Right Hon. John N. Turner (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. When she was the energy critic sitting on this side of the House, she complained regularly about the fact that American motorists were getting a better deal than Canadian
Oral Questions
motorists. As late as January 31, 1984, she said that it was costing our tourist industry about $2 billion in revenue, and that is cited in Hansard. I want to ask the Minister, as she and I both represent adjacent ridings in Vancouver, why it is that it costs the average family in Vancouver $13 more to fill the tank in an average car than it does across the border in Seattle.


John Carnell Crosbie: Ask Marc Lalonde.


Hon. Pat Carney (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, the Right Hon. Member refers to prices in Vancouver. I would just like to point out that under the figures which he used in the House the other day, gasoline prices have actually fallen, using the 47-cent per litre price which he used, from the 50 cents per litre that occurred in Vancouver when he was Prime Minister.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


WESTERN ENERGY ACCORD
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, let us be absolutely a little more direct here.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Napier Turner: When the Minister announced her Energy Accord in March, prices were $7 less per tank in Vancouver than they are today. How does she explain that one?


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, the Right Hon. Member knows that we have deregulated the industry and that we should give the industry and consumers the opportunity to benefit from the price changes which are in the system. I would like to point out that when the Liberal Government brought in the National Energy Board-


An Hon. Member:: You mean "program".


Pat Carney: -Canadian consumers were slapped with an 80 per cent increase in the price of gasoline.


INQUIRY WHY GASOLINE IS MORE EXPENSIVE IN MANICOUAGAN THAN IN EASTERN UNITED STATES
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, the Minister is not too good at comparing prices in Vancouver and Seattle,
Could the Minister explain to the House why people in the Prime Minister's riding of Manicouagan are paying for gasoline $13 more than the people in the Eastern United States, just across the border?


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, we have said many times in the House that Governments do not set the price of gasoline, that

January 23, 1986
Oral Questions
market forces set the price of gasoline. They reflect transportation and distribution costs and competition in market regions.


INDUSTRY
Mr. Jacques Guilbault (Saint-Jacques):: Mr. Speaker, I had a question for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, but, in his absence, perhaps the Prime Minister could answer in his place. Following the closing of the Gulf refinery, six NDP Members asked yesterday for an investigation under the Combines Investigation Act, claiming that the major oil multinationals might have agreed to reduce competition. In view of the great many complaints from across Canada about the high costs of oil products, could the Prime Minister tell the House just how many other groups will have to ask for such an investigation before the Government decides to make public the results of this investigation on competition in the oil industry?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, may I be permitted simply to reject the premise of the Hon. Member's question, but to say that I will bring the question to the attention of the Minister who will respond to the Hon. Member on his return to Ottawa.


PRICE OF GASOLINE-PROTECTION OF CONSUMERS- GOVERNMENT POSITION
Jacques Guilbault: Mr. Speaker, the question has been directed to the Minister a great many times. That is why I should like the head of the Government to tell us when his Government will assume its responsibilities and protect Canadian consumers who are paying exorbitant prices for gasoline, especially in Montreal where only two refineries remain following the closing of the Gulf refinery.


Right Hon. Brian Mulroney (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I assume this representation will be submitted to the responsible Minister. In my opinion, however, it is clear that Canada has experienced enormous difficulties following the implementation of the National Energy Policy which has stifled the oil industry in Canada. We are already witnessing major improvements for consumers in this area.


CROWN CORPORATIONS
Mr. Mike Cassidy (Ottawa Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to put a question to the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion.
Last night I attended a meeting in the region of Montreal. Despite opposition from thousands of Canadair employees, the municipality of Saint-Laurent refused to change the regional development plan to ensure the survival of Canadair.
Is the Minister now prepared to assure the city that the Government intends to request from any potential Canadian buyer a guarantee that Canadair will remain on its Saint-Laurent site for years to come?


Hon. Sinclair Stevens (Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, let me assure the Hon. Member, other Members of the House and the public at large, that there is no intention to have Canadair move from its present location. I do not think the Hon. Member serves anyone well by making such alarmist comments.


LOCATION OF CANADAIR-REQUEST FOR GOVERNMENT COMMITMENT
Michael Morris Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, the Minister should be aware that a thousand Canadair workers are not reassured by those comments and that is why we are asking if the Minister will inform the City of St. Laurent that it is not the Government's intention to allow Canadair to move, and that it will be a condition of any sale of Canadair that it will stay for a very long period of time on its site in St. Laurent next door to the Cartierville Airport.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member would do a great service if he would tell not only the thousand workers to whom he has referred but Canadians in general that there is absolutely no intention of that. Certainly any discussions we have had with would-be buyers anticipate Canadair staying exactly in the area in which it is now active.


REQUEST FOR COMMITTEE REFERRAL
Michael Morris Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, now that the Minister has admitted that discussions have been held with prospective Canadair buyers, can he assure us that, as in the case of de Havilland where we had constructive and positive proceedings, we will have parliamentary committee meetings before the sale is finalized so that Parliament can discuss and consider any prospective sale of Canadair?
^hhhh
January 23, 1986


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member has gone back to a refrain that we have heard in these halls many times. I can only answer him by saying once again to date we do not have a would-be purchaser with money in hand indicating that he has a deal he would like us to accept. The Hon. Member's question is dealing with a hypothetical situation and I cannot answer it.


FINANCE
Hon. William Rompkey (Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. Last September the Government raised the tax on gasoline, and again this month the Government raised the tax on gasoline. It is due to go up again. Why is it that a trucker in British Columbia has to pay 80 cents more per gallon than a trucker in Washington? Why is it that western farmers will pay $84 million more this year because of the increase in federal taxes? Will the Minister move to end pricing gas by federal taxes?


Hon. Michael Wilson (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, when the Hon. Member is speaking to the trucker to whom he has referred, perhaps he should tell him why it was that under the NEP gasoline prices went up 80 per cent, and gasoline prices, since we took office in September, 1984-


John Napier Turner: World prices are going down. We are not getting it.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: The Leader of the Opposition is-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Go ahead.


Bill Rompkey: Mr. Speaker-


Michael Holcombe Wilson: It's still my turn.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Michael Holcombe Wilson: The Leader of the Opposition has said that prices are going down now. If the National Energy Program had stayed in place, prices would still be going up since they were being set by arbitrary decree of Government. Under the deregulation program which was brought in by the Government last June, prices are designed to reflect the market-place. However, the Hon. Member knows that a period of time amounting to approximately two months will be needed to allow the crude oil to go through the pipeline to the refineries and to the consumer.
Oral Questions


John Napier Turner: How are the American prices now?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: The Leader of the Opposition has learned-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: -and he agrees with exactly what-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Supplementary question.


REQUEST THAT TAX BE REDUCED
Bill Rompkey: Mr. Speaker, it is the Minister's turn now. I wish to read to him a question he asked in the House on June 3, 1981, in which he stated:
The world price of oil has been level over the last four months, and it looks as if it will be going down ... Surely this means that there is less need for a tax increase-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Bill Rompkey: That was his question then and it is his turn now.


Mr. Speaker:: Question, please.


Bill Rompkey: Will the Minister guarantee that there will be a tax increase-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Deans:: A decrease!


Bill Rompkey: Will the Minister guarantee that there will be a tax decrease-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Clark (Yellowhead):: Make up your mind.


Bill Rompkey: -and now that he has signed the Western Accord and the Atlantic Accord will he sign a consumer accord?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, since September, 1984, the price of gasoline in Toronto, if 1 can use my own town as an example, has gone up 6.5 per cent from 45.2 cents a litre to 48.2 cents a litre during the roughly 14 months that we have been in office. That is a great deal less than the 80 per cent which the National Energy Program decreed the price of gasoline would go up under the previous Government. No one on this side of the House needs any lessons in gasoline pricing from the Liberal Party after that record.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

January 23, 1986
Oral Questions


Ms. Copps:: There is more to Canada than Toronto, Mike. You may not know it.


PRICE OF GASOLINE IN VANCOUVER
Mr. Ian Waddell (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Is the Minister aware that since her Government took office in September, 1984, that while world oil prices have continued to drop gasoline prices in her own riding of Vancouver Centre have risen-and if I can use the gallon figure-by 28 cents a gallon-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Ian Gardiner Waddell: -this reflecting an 11 cent per gallon tax hike and a profit hike of 17 cents a gallon? Why does the Minister refuse to stop this price gouging of the Canadian consumer when the market system is obviously not working for the consumer?


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, I can point out the fact that the Hon. Member represents a Party which supported a NEP which resulted in an 80 per cent increase to consumers, during a time when the NEP was in place-


Ian Deans: We did not!


Pat Carney: -and did not provide any mechanism at all for price decreases if market prices dropped.


PETRO-CANADA PRICING PRACTICES
Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the Minister of Finance. Is the Minister aware that in his own riding of Etobicoke Centre Petro-Canada is, in fact, a price leader and that it charges 1.4 cents per litre more than the neighbouring Shell station on Renforth Drive? Will the Minister recommend to his cabinet colleagues that Petro-Canada be directed to take the lead in reducing gasoline prices for consumers rather than raising them?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, Petro-Canada has something in the order of 4,200 service stations right across the country.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: I'm talking about the one on Renforth Drive.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: They are vigorous participants in the market-place at each of those 4,200 locations. To give the Hon. Member an example of how vigorous a competitor Petro-Canada is, after this Government removed the Canadian Ownership Special Charge to reduce the price of
gasoline in July of last year, Petro-Canada was one of the first off the mark to reduce its own prices.


NUCLEAR ARMAMENTS
Mr. Len Hopkins (Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Defence. It concerns yesterday's off-target landing of the unarmed Cruise missile at Cold Lake. Can the Minister tell us what malfunction occurred? Will he be giving a full report to the House, and hence to Canadians, when investigations are completed?


Hon. Harvie Andre (Associate Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, the Cruise test yesterday, in fact, was successful. The Cruise completed its mission perfectly and it
was-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Axworthy:: It just crashed a few minutes early, that's all.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Lloyd Axworthy: If you ignore the fact it crashed, that's fine.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Hon. Members who ask questions might want to stop and hear the answers.


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, it was during the recovery phase when the Cruise was flying a figure eight in preparation for parachuting down-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Lloyd Axworthy: You should ask Otto Jelinek about that.


Harvie Andre: -that in fact it failed. It was-


Mr. Nunziata:: Try again. We want to take you seriously.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Is there another question?


Leonard Donald Hopkins: I will give the Minister a chance to complete his answer, if he wants to.


An Hon. Member:: He has nothing to say.


Mr. Speaker:: I take it the Hon. Member does not have a question? Does he have a question?


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Do it again!

January 23, 1986


Leonard Donald Hopkins: Mr. Speaker, I must say that answer sounds like Tory perfection in boxcar letters.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An Hon. Member:: What's wrong with that?


COURSE FLOWN BY MISSILE
Leonard Donald Hopkins: My supplementary question is directed to the same Minister. Will the Minister explain why the missile is reported to have passed within three kilometres of Wandering River, Alberta, when strict assurances were given to Canadians that no Cruise missile would pass within eight kilometres of any community?


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, I am informed that in fact the Cruise flew within the test corridor as defined and published, and so on, which is well known to everyone. It did not wander outside the corridor and it did not crash outside the corridor.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Harvie Andre: It crashed, rather than parachuted to the ground, within the target area. That is all that happened.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


PRICE OF GASOLINE-EFFECT ON TOURISM
Mr. John Parry (Kenora-Rainy River):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. This week alone the Canadian Automobile Association, the Tourism Industry Association of Canada, and the Canadian Food and Restaurant Association have all stated that high gas prices are a cause of Canada's $2 billion a year tourism deficit. I would like to ask the Minister if she is unaware of the view of the tourism industry, if she believes it is wrong, or if she simply does not care?


Pat Carney: I am glad the Hon. Member asked that question about the alleged damage which has been done because I have just been given some job-creation figures for my province under the Conservative Government.


Mr. Murphy:: Come on. Answer the question.


Pat Carney: I would like to point out to the House that under the Liberal administration in British Columbia-


Rodney Edward Murphy: Shame!


David Orlikow: Answer the question.


Pat Carney: -the monthly average of job creation was 473 jobs as compared to 1,933 jobs under the Conservative-
Oral Questions


An Hon. Member:: Five times as many.


Pat Carney: Five times as many. So those industries are not suffering under this administration.


John Edmund Parry: It would appear that that Minister knows as little about job creation as she does about the rule of relevance.


GASOLINE PRICE REDUCTION-GOVERNMENT POSITION
John Edmund Parry: My supplementary is as follows: Does the Minister intend to take her responsibility and use her authority to reduce the price of gas for Canadian consumers, tourists and native people in the North, who are now paying up to $1.80 a litre?


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, when it comes to relevance, I suggest that the NDP look at its Party.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. McCurdy:: Pitiful. Even your boss thinks it's pitiful.


Pat Carney: I have made the point in this House-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Mr. Fulton:: Settle down.


Howard Douglas McCurdy: It's perfectly okay to refuse to answer the question.


Pat Carney: We have made the point in the House that, under the National Energy Program, prices to consumers rose 80 per cent, from 30 cents a litre to 52 cents a litre and, under this administration we have set in place a deregulated system where savings can be passed on to consumers.


Howard Douglas McCurdy: When?


Ian Deans: When?


Howard Douglas McCurdy: Pitiful.


CROWN CORPORATIONS
Mr. David Berger (Laurier):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion and it concerns Canadair. Up until now we have gotten precious little information about the Government's plans so I will try to get back to basics. It has already been mentioned that yesterday evening 1,000 Canadair workers attended a public meeting about the future of the company because of the fears which
10092

January 23, 1986
Oral Questions
have been aroused by the Government. The Minister said again today that he has no-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. With great respect, that is three statements. May I just have a question?


David Berger: Will the Minister end the fears of the workers and customers of Canadair by giving an absolute and unconditional commitment by the Government that Canadair will be continued whether it is sold or not?


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, let me assure the Hon. Member that there is no intention on the part of the Government of Canada to "discontinue"-to use his language-Canadair. In fact, if the Hon. Member just waits a few days he will hear of some very interesting announcements with respect to Canadair and its future employment increases.


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


REQUEST FOR MEETING WITH EMPLOYEES
David Berger: I have a supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Can the Minister promise that he will initiate immediately a dialogue with the union and employees of Canadair who have been kept in the dark by this Government, to avoid a situation similar to what happened at de Havilland, where the workers were ignored completely in the plans of the Government?


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, as I am sure most Hon. Members in this House realize, we, in the case of de Havilland, have done the most significant thing for those workers. We have assured their jobs for many years to come.


John Carnell Crosbie: Right on.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: And let me assure the Hon. Member that we will also keep, as a paramount consideration, job security for the workers of Canadair for many years to come.


DISARMAMENT
Ms. Pauline Jewett (New Westminster-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister who will know quite well that agreeing to test the Cruise missile in Canada was one of the most controversial and unpopular decisions of the previous Liberal Government. In view of the dangers to public safety revealed in yesterday's test, and particularly in view of the new hopes for arms reduction talks in Geneva-massive reductions in arms-will the Prime Minister now commit Canada to participate in the process of arms de-escalation and end Cruise missile testing in Canada?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, it is not our view that the breaching of an agreement by Canada would contribute to the de-escalation of arms build-up in the world. As the Hon. Member knows, I will be making a statement later today indicating some practical steps which Canada takes. We think it very important, if we want to make real progress on these questions, that we focus on practical steps which can be achieved by a country like Canada.


Pauline Jewett: In a way I am glad the Minister answered because the Prime Minister does not know what to say on the issue.


Mr. Nystrom:: As usual.


REQUEST THAT MINISTER REWRITE PROPOSED STATEMENT
Pauline Jewett: May I
ask the Minister, however, in light of what he has just said, if he will now rewrite the statement he is going to make and include in it a positive Canadian contribution to de-escalating the arms race, which would be to give notice now that we are going to end Cruise missile testing?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, no.


ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
Mrs. Mary Collins (Capilano):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Solicitor General. Is the Minister aware of a letter which was sent yesterday by the Hon. Member for York South-Weston and the Hon. Member for Hamilton East to the Chairman of the Human Rights Commission, which was released to the press, and in which the Hon. Members requested the Commission to undertake an investigation into charges of sexual harrassment allegedly made by a female officer of the RCMP in British Columbia? If so, can the Minister inform this House if he believes the charges and demands made in this letter are justified?


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, I am indeed aware of this letter which was distributed to the news media by those two Hon. Members yesterday. I can indicate to the House that I spoke in the last few minutes with the constable in question who tells me the following things. First, that neither Member, either before or after sending their letter, has spoken to her.


Some Hon. Members:: Shame!
January 23, 1986


Henry Perrin Beatty: Second, that the views expressed in the letter-


Sheila Maureen Copps: That is an outrage! That's a lie! I was-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Henry Perrin Beatty: -that the views expressed in the letter did not represent-


Sheila Maureen Copps: Don't make these statements in this House. You're a liar!


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Charles Joseph Clark: Send her back to kindergarten.


Some Hon. Members:: Shame!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Some Hon. Members:: Out, out!


Mr. Speaker:: Will the House come to order, please?


John V. Nunziata: He should be-


Mr. Speaker:: Will the House come to order?


John V. Nunziata: He should be-


Mr. Speaker:: Order! The Hon. Member for York South-Weston will come to order, and the House will come to order, now!
The Hon. Member for Hamilton East knows full well that I have no choice but to ask her to withdraw immediately and unequicovally what she has just said. I therefore invite her to withdraw the statement she has just made now.


Sheila Maureen Copps: The smear campaign by the Minister-


Some Hon. Members:: Order!


Charles Joseph Clark: Where is the Leader of the Opposition?


John Napier Turner: This is sub judice.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Okay, Mr. Speaker, under the circumstances, because of my respect for the House, I will withdraw to the Speaker.


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker-


John Napier Turner: What else are you going
to say?


Henry Perrin Beatty: Secondly, the constable indicates that those two Members of this House have no authority to speak on her behalf, and that the allegations which they make in their letter are false.


Some Hon. Members:: Shame!
Oral Questions


John Napier Turner: Why don't you let it be
investigated?


Henry Perrin Beatty: Third, the constable herself asks that the letter be withdrawn-


John V. Nunziata: You're trying to influence the decision.


Henry Perrin Beatty: -a request which I think the Hon. Members, in honour, should meet, along with extending their apologies for this gross invasion of a distinguished member's-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Carnell Crosbie: Withdraw.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry.


Mr. Rossi:: Everybody knows it's fixed. It's a fixed question and you know it.


CANADA-UNITED STATES NEGOTIATIONS-REPORTS ON COSTS AND BENEFITS
Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I have a question-


Carlo Rossi: Fixed.


Some Hon. Members:: Quiet.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. Yesterday his Secretary of State for External Affairs, in something of a religious confessional, said that no one understood him or his Government's trade policy, which is not surprising.


John Carnell Crosbie: Why don't you have your Leader explain it again?


Lloyd Axworthy: Does the Prime Minister not think that if there is some misunderstanding it is because his Government has been very secretive about the facts relating to the trade strategy? It refuses to reveal any of the reports prepared by it on the costs and benefits, jobs, and other economic impacts. So I would ask the Prime Minister-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I take it the Hon. Member has asked a question?


Lloyd Axworthy: Pardon me?


Mr. Speaker:: I take it he has asked one question?


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I am asking the question.


Mr. Speaker:: I take it he has asked the question?


Lloyd Axworthy: No, I am asking the question now.

January 23, 1986
Oral Questions


Mr. Speaker:: You mean this was all preamble? The Hon. Member has one question, then.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, will the Prime Minister now commit to releasing all the reports prepared by his Government relating to the costs and benefits of free trade negotiations with the United States?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend is right. We probably owe a further explanation to him, given the powerful clarity of the statement on trade by the Leader of the Opposition on the weekend.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Martin Brian Mulroney: -which eliminates any doubt as to where the Liberal Party stands-


John Carnell Crosbie: They stand everywhere.


Martin Brian Mulroney: -on both sides of the issue.


Jacques Guilbault: That is better than where you stand.


Martin Brian Mulroney: I can tell my hon. friend that we will undertake, and have, with the distinguished assistance of people like Ambassador Reisman, negotiations designed to enhance trade between our two countries and create new riches and new jobs. In the process we will be forthcoming and ask for the full co-operation of my hon. friend who, I know, would seek the same objectives.


Mr. Speaker:: Short supplementary.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I would certainly be glad to co-operate if we had the information, which we do not have.


WATER RESOURCES-STATEMENT ATTRIBUTED TO CANADIAN NEGOTIATOR
Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct my supplementary question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Yesterday he denied in this House that Mr. Reisman had made a statement on water resources.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question.


Mr. Blaikie:: That is not a supplementary.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member had a very long preamble. Does he have an immediate and short supplementary?


Lloyd Axworthy: Yes, I have. I would like to ask the Minister if he will retract the statement he made yesterday in view of the fact that Mr. Reisman's office has said that he somehow forgot the fact that he had issued an official statement relating to his position on water resources? What does he intend to do
about the statement because it is greatly confusing the negotiations on water resources and exports to the United States?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, as the House will know from reading the newspapers, yesterday, I had a chance encouter in the corridors with Mickey Mouse and Minnie Mouse-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Clark (Yeilowhead):: -who indicated to me that they were here in their capacity as policy advisers on international affairs to the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Walter Leland Rutherford (Lee) Clark: So, they told me, is Goofy.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


NATIONAL REVENUE
Mr. Simon de Jong (Regina East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Revenue. Since the Conservative Government's moratorium on the Scientific Research Tax Credit scam a further $1.5 billion to $2 billion has been lost to the Public Treasury. Included in this is $2.7 million to a group of arms dealers and drug runners who were going to build miniature submarines in Kitchener, Ontario.
Can the Minister explain how, after his Government's moratorium, con artists like those in Kitchener were able to rip the Government off for $2.7 million on such an implausible scheme?


Hon. Elmer M. MacKay (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, first, I am surprised at the tenor of the question from the Hon. Member opposite who is a very responsible and knowledgeable critic. He knows it would be improper for me to give any information on something as specific as that because of the terms of the Income Tax Act.


Ian Deans: That is a great portfolio; you don't have to say anything.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: If he would like to provide me with further details I would be pleased to discuss it with him later, if that is proper. However, under the circumstances I can say nothing at the present time.


COST OF AUDITING TAX CREDIT PROGRAM
Simon Leendert de Jong: Mr. Speaker, most of the facts are already public. I was hoping the Minister would

explain how, after the moratorium, they tightened up the process of granting these research tax credits. I wonder as well if the Minister can confirm that it will take a minimum of $12 million and some 90 auditors just to audit this tax credit scheme?


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member points out a very relevant problem with which this Government has had to come to grips. There is no doubt that the SRTC program has been an embarrassment and caused difficulties. It is not an embarrassment for our Government because it is something we inherited, and we are doing the best we can. I think the Minister of Finance ought to be congratulated for the promptness with which he acted to close off this program which has caused so many difficulties and problems for the taxpayer. I appreciate his help in this regard.
To the extent that I can be forthcoming with information, I will. However, I repeat that I cannot give information in an irresponsible way in the House of Commons which affects the rights of individual taxpayers or companies.


NATIONAL SKI TEAM-INSURANCE COVERAGE
Mr. Alan Redway (York East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Fitness and Amateur Sport. He is well aware of the very significant role which the Canadian Ski Team has played in developing our national spirit and pride. Will he advise the House what progress, if any, has been made in solving the liability insurance crisis of the team and saving the rest of the ski season?


Hon. Otto Jelinek (Minister of State (Fitness and Amateur Sport) and Minister of State (Multiculturalism)):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to announce that the insurance industry has responded positively to our challenge and is today presenting a proposal to the Canadian Ski Association. I am confident that this initiative will enable the Canadian Ski Team to complete its season as planned. In the meantime we are actively pursuing other options in order to develop a long-range, comprehensive solution for all amateur sports affected by these insurance difficulties.


CANADA-UNITED STATES NEGOTIATIONS-POULTRY AND DAIRY MARKETING BOARDS
Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs who is responsible for the free trade negotiations with the U.S. Ambassador Niles said yesterday that Canada must place everything on the negotiating table. Yet many farmers in the
Oral Questions
poultry and dairy industries are concerned about the loss of marketing boards in these negotiations. Can the Minister assure these farmers who want to buy quotas and expand that the marketing boards will not be negotiated away in these negotiations?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, the Government has made clear for some time that it regards the system of marketing boards which is in place in the country as part of the distinctive fabric of the country. We do not intend to change the distinctive fabric of our country.


GOVERNMENT POSITION
Maurice Brydon Foster: Does that mean that the Government is withdrawing marketing boards for agricultural commodities, such as we have in poultry and dairy, and the Canadian Wheat Board, from the table in negotiations with the United States?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, we cannot withdraw something that was not there.


PUBLICATION OF STUDIES
Mr. Steven W. Langdon (Essex-Windsor):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. I want to start out by saying that the petty, partisan answers of the Minister of External Affairs debase this House-


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, order! Order, please! I interrupted the answer of the Right Hon. Minister of State for External Affairs for the same reason I am interrupting the Hon. Member's preamble. Could he just put his question?


Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, I have a serious question which must be put in the House. It is the following. How can the Government persist in criticizing the studies that other Governments, such as those of Ontario and Manitoba, make public, and yet keep all federal studies secret? How can the Government be taken seriously when it follows that course?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, as the Hon. Member would know, he is incorrect when he suggests that all federal studies are secret. He, the House, and anyone seriously interested in the approach being taken with these potential negotiations, would know that one of the signal accomplishments of the First Ministers' Conference, presided over by the Prime Minister, was an agreement between federal and provincial Governments that we would work together on the establishment of common facts and a common data base as a prelude to any negotiations. That process is now well advanced.

January 23, 1986
Oral Questions


Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, I have listed 42 studies that are still secret.
[Translation\


REQUEST THAT GOVERNMENT PUBLISH STUDY ON CLOTHING AND TEXTILE SECTOR
Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is as follows: Can the Minister immediately make his study on the clothing and textile industry public so that we may find out whether this report confirms the Quebec study which estimates the loss of jobs in Quebec at 30,000?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, first, I am certain that there will not be that many jobs lost in Quebec or elsewhere. Second, I shall take this question under consideration.


FISHERIES
Mr. Russell MacLellan (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. Can the Minister tell us how it is possible to issue a fishing licence to Mother Snow's Fine Foods Ltd. for a test fishery when it does not have any vessels with which to carry out this fishing, as was confirmed by Mr. Bob Nicolay of American Original, the company from which the vessels were supposed to be leased?


Hon. Thomas Siddon (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans):: Mr. Speaker, the answer to that question is very simple. The entry permit that will have been issued by my Atlantic regional officials to this particular company would be for the purpose of allowing entry of the necessary vessels. I take it from the Hon. Member's question that he personally does not favour the development of this important clam resource off the coast of Cape Breton in Nova Scotia.


Russell Gregoire MacLellan: What I do not favour is a hoax on the people of Cape Breton.


BLANK LICENCES INQUIRY
Russell Gregoire MacLellan: Is it
not true that on January 10 the Minister's office requested the Atlantic'regional office to issue two licences in , blank to Mother Snow's so that they could market them in the United States and fill in the names of the vessels when they became known?


Thomas Edward Siddon: Mr. Speaker, this Minister has invited applications for entry permits for vessels equipped to fish for the clam resource, from a number of participants. When those vessels meet the necessary conditions as prescribed, which are fair and equitable and primarily concerned with the development of an economic opportunity in Cape Breton, such licences and permits will be issued.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Howard Douglas McCurdy: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of the Environment, and because of the urgency of the question, I will direct this question to the Prime Minister. Is he aware that southwestern Ontario faces what experts agree may well be the worst flooding catastrophe in modern history, with devastation, not only to shoreline property but to whole towns, as well as public health danger which may result from the effect on sewage systems?
Will the Prime Minister direct his Government to do at least as much as the United States federal Government has done and provide federal help to the hard-pressed municipalities in their efforts to prevent the devastation, instead of waiting to pay the costs after the damage is done?


Mr. G. M. Gurbin (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to respond on behalf of the Minister of the Environment. I can inform the Member that the Minister of the Environment, as recently as last Friday, met with the Minister responsible in Ontario, the Minister of Natural Resources, had fruitful discussions, and is anticipating further discussions to consider that subject.


REQUEST THAT TASK FORCE BE ESTABLISHED
Howard Douglas McCurdy: Mr. Speaker, does the Government agree that there is a long-term problem at issue here and that it would be appropriate, at this stage of the game, to take long-term action such as the formation of a task force to look at the issue of lake levels and flood problems around the lake? Will the Canadian Government consider how it can, with the American Government, address that broader, long-term issue which will be with us for a long time?


Gary Michael Gurbin: Mr. Speaker, the Government is very aware that this is a long-term problem that has existed for some time and will exist into the future. It is prepared to approach it on that basis. We hope that our discussions with Ontario will be fruitful.
January 23, 1986


EXTERNAL AID
Donald Paul Ravis: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister for External Relations. In light of her recent trip to Africa and the excellent results obtained on behalf of contributors to African relief, can the Minister assure the House and all Canadians that the vital relief carried out by the famine relief program will be maintained until such time as concrete recovery is in place?


Hon. Monique Vezina (Minister for External Relations):: Mr. Speaker, Mr. David MacDonald should present his report to me on March 31, which report should contain recommendations to guarantee that the Canadian Government will provide assistance and take action so that such a tragedy will not happen again.
This report will have been the fruit of many consultations between Canada and the African states. We are looking for answers, ideas and advice. I shall therefore examine this report carefully in co-operation with the parliamentary and departmental sub-committees, and 1 trust that we shall be able to develop a policy enabling Canada to take effective action when we want to provide assistance to those who need it.


INSURANCE
Mr. Alfonso Gagiiano (Saint-Leonard-Anjou):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of Finance. The insurance critic for the Consumers' Association of Canada said: "They will pay more for insurance, they will pay more for products, they will pay more for services, they will pay more in property tax. In the end, the individual pays it all". Can the Minister assure us that the consumers of Canada will not have to pay for his mismanagement of the insurance industry?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, we have gone over this particular issue in the House before. I think the Hon. Member should understand that this is not just a Canadian problem. It is an international problem because of the major accidents that have taken place, including the air accidents last year and some of the shipping accidents, as well as the general world-wide trend to larger settlements.
My colleague, the Minister of State for Finance, is meeting with the industry and some of her provincial colleagues in order to address this problem. As I have said before, this problem must be balanced between the provincial responsibility for premiums and contract law, and the federal responsibility for solvency and capital adequacy. That is the approach we are taking.
Petitions


LIABILITY COVERAGE FOR SMALL BUSINESSES
Alfonso Gagliano: Mr. Speaker, we all know that insurance companies make a good profit on property insurance. Will the Minister meet with the insurance industry and ask it to provide liability insurance to small businesses as a short-term solution until the Government finds a long-term solution?
,


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I believe the Hon. Member is asking the federal Government to step in and order the insurance companies to do something that falls within provincial jurisdiction. For that reason I say to the Hon. Member that I will bring his concerns to the attention of my colleague, the Minister of State for Finance, and possibly she will raise that point with her provincial colleagues.


Mr. Speaker:: One question, the Hon. Member for Nickel Belt.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


AIR CANADA
Mr. John R. Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport. In light of the fact that Air Canada has announced that it intends to move its operations from Gander to St. John's, will he assure the House and the people of Gander that no decision will be made to move Air Canada from Gander until he has checked all the necessary information?


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, of course I will undertake to check all of the available and pertinent facts. I had the privilege of meeting with representatives of Gander yesterday, including the Mayor and other interested representatives from that community. I intend to consult further with parties. I am sure the Hon. Member knows that the request was made by Air Canada to make the transfer and it was based on a commercial decision.


CLERK OF PETITIONS' REPORTS
Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that the petitions, with the exception of three, presented by Hon. Members on Wednesday, January 22, 1986, meet the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.
Petitions presented by the Hon. Members for Abitibi (Mr. St-Julien) and Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis) do not meet the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.

January 23, 1986
Privilege-Mr. Nunziata PRIVILEGE


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege because, for the second time in two days, the Solicitor General (Mr. Beatty) has made misstatements in the House with respect to the performance of my duties as a Member of Parliament. I feel that his misstatements have abridged, and prevented me from performing, my duties.
I would ask you to consider this as a question of privilege because when he stands up and makes statements which are untrue or which attempt to cast aspersions on my carrying out my responsibilities as a Member, I feel that that is a breach of my privilege.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member clearly feels that there is a grievance. However, I believe she understands that she is raising a matter that is a question of statement of facts, and whether or not it is a misstatement, she has the right to correct it under Standing Order 22 or in future statements.
It would be difficult to find that it constitutes a question of privilege. However, I think she has used the opportunity to make her point.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) gave the House false information, perhaps unwittingly, or without wit. However, the fact of the matter is that it was false information which I ask to have withdrawn today so that the record of the House can be properly corrected.
We received a description of a family reunion he had yesterday in the halls of Parliament and I think it is a major abridgement of the privileges of the House. The records of the House should be set straight by the Secretary of State for External Affairs so that we be given proper information and not descriptions of a family reunion.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member is again presenting a dispute as to facts as a question of privilege. I believe he knows full well that that simply is against all of our practices and traditions.


John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Hon. Member for Hamilton East (Ms. Copps) and I filed a complaint with the Human Rights Commission under Section 32 of the Human Rights Act which gives the right to any Canadian to file a complaint before that Commission.
The Human Rights Commission is a quasi-judicial body.
We recognize, of course, that the Solicitor General (Mr. Beatty) is not a lawyer. Today, during Question Period, the Solicitor General-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Hon. Member knows that our practice is to require him to put his question of privilege that he wishes to raise early in his comments.


John V. Nunziata: During Question Period today the Solicitor General commented on a case that is before the Human Rights Commission. My rights as a Member of Parliament have been affected by the Solicitor General's comments on a case and attempting to influence the course of justice-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John V. Nunziata: -and attempting to influence a possible decision by the Human Rights Commission.
1 would ask that the Solicitor General stand in his place this afternoon and withdraw whatever remarks he made with respect to the merits of the case.


Mr. Speaker:: I take it that the Hon. Member is arguing that his privileges have somehow been breached because of a statement made by the Hon. Minister. That clearly cannot be a question of privilege because every Member is entitled to state his or her opinion. There is clearly no question of privilege.


Sheila Maureen Copps: It is interference with the system of justice.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have yet to hear anything put to me that sounds like a question of privilege.


John V. Nunziata: A separate point, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Is the Hon. Member raising a second question of privilege?


John V. Nunziata: Yes, Mr. Speaker. It is my understanding that we in the House are bound by the sub judice rule. Therefore, if a particular Member-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Will the Hon. Member please resume his seat.
The Hon. Member is clearly trying to argue again the question of privilege upon which I just ruled. He knows, 1 believe, that he cannot do that. Therefore, I have heard no question of privilege.
[DOT]<>-

January 23, 1986



POINT OF ORDER


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Citation 335 of Beauchesne says that Members are expected to refrain from discussing matters that are before courts or tribunals which are courts of record. If I am not mistaken, the Human Rights Tribunal has the status of a court of record. It can issue final decisions that can lead to penalties and affect the rights and status of invididual Canadians.
If I am correct, Mr. Speaker, I respectfully submit that you consider whether the Solicitor General (Mr. Beatty) has breached that convention by what we consider to be his quite inappropriate remarks during the Question Period. I will not repeat the remarks, they are on the record, but I submit that there is a basis for finding that the Solicitor General has breached the convention through those quite inappropriate remarks and, at the very least, should withdraw them.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same point of order. I am glad that the Opposition House Leader has raised it. I want simply to make three points. First, the letter which has been widely distributed by the Hon. Members for Hamilton East (Ms. Copps) and York South-Weston (Mr. Nun-ziata) with respect to this matter clearly indicates that they are appealing to the Human Rights Commission in its investigative capacity, as opposed to having a resolution of the matter.
The legislation is clear and Your Honour will know that the Human Rights Commission has two functions. One is to investigate a matter and, if it subsequently finds there is a prima facie case, to have an adjudication on the matter.
My second point with respect to the remarks made by the Opposition House Leader is that the Human Rights Commission is certainly not a court of record. The Hon. Member is a distinguished lawyer and should understand the meaning of that term.
Third, if there is any basis upon which the Hon. Member can rely, I would ask him to speak to the Member for York South-Weston who breached his own point yesterday when, after having filed this complaint, he got up and referred to it in the House of Commons. He is complaining about the very thing he did himself yesterday.


John V. Nunziata: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Will the Hon. Member for York South-Weston please resume his seat. I am now dealing with a point of order. First, questions with regard to the sub judice rule are not a rule of the House but a time honoured convention of the House. The Hon. Member will know that it has been a tradition of the Chair to intervene if the Chair believes that the convention has been breached.
With respect to questions that are before the Human Rights Commission, I know of no previous case that comes to mind. However, I am guided by the request by the Hon. Member for Windsor West (Mr. Gray) that I examine the matter.
Business of the House
I am also grateful for the comments and advice of the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Hnatyshyn).
I do not know the facts with regard to the question of the status of the courts.


An Hon. Member:: Neither does the Government House Leader.


Mr. Speaker:: Heckling is a honourable and noble art and 1 respect it. However, all of the interventions all of the time on every matter are not helpful, Sir.
What I propose, as I think I should, is to reserve on the matter and determine the facts of the case.
The Hon. Member for York South-Weston (Mr. Nunziata) is claiming his right to present another case of privilege.


John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Hnatyshyn), a few moments ago indicated that I had commented on the case yesterday. During Question Period yesterday I put a question to the Solicitor General (Mr. Beatty) advising him I had filed a complaint. 1 asked him whether he would co-operate and facilitate the investigation.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. This is becoming a debate about what was or was not said by whom in Question Period. That is clearly not a question of privilege.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, 1 want to ask a question of the Government House Leader which I think will not turn out to be particularly controversial, and that is, to ask him to state the business the Government wishes to present to the House for the coming week.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, today we will continue consideration of the divorce legislation. I am hopeful we may be able to conclude consideration of those Bills by the end of today.
In any event, tomorrow I would take up Bill S-6, the tax convention Bill. There may be a disposition to deal with this Bill at all stages, Mr. Speaker.
We would then proceed with Bill C-59, the Senate amendments with respect to the Customs Act which are of a technical nature and which I have discussed with the Opposition House Leaders, and Bill C-76 regarding the Toronto Island Airport. On Monday and continuing into next week we will take up the following Bills: Bill C-82 respecting the PGRT; Bill C-86 respecting CDIC; Bill C-85 respecting the Petroleum Incentives Program Act; and Bill C-90 respecting pensions plans.

January 23, 1986
Statements by Ministers
I will be monitoring the progress of the Bills and will continue to consult with Opposition House Leaders in the event there are any changes to this agenda.


POINT OF ORDER
Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, might 1 prevail upon you to take under advisement the possibility that you may at some point in the not too distant future make a statement to the House with regard to what you, as the Speaker in this House, consider to be both proper questions and answers in terms of the relativity both of the preamble and the question itself, the acceptance of preambles and the appropriateness of answers to be given.
I think it would be very helpful for all Members of the House if it could be clearly understood on both sides what the Speaker would deem to be appropriate and acceptable given that those things have to be flexible, and what you, Sir, would deem to be appropriate and acceptable from those who question and from those who answer.


Mr. Speaker:: I thank the Hon. Member for his representation. Most Speakers have at some point in their tenure delivered such an opinion, and I intend to do so.
The Hon. Member will have noticed that I had to smile slightly when he asked me to consider what are proper questions and answers. I do not think he meant quite what those words might imply. I certainly take his meaning, and will be glad to respond as quickly as possible.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, for Canadians, no duty is more challenging than to contribute constructively to peace among nations. In a world threatened by the spread of arms, we are one country which, decades ago, chose deliberately not to acquire nuclear weapons. We had the capacity. We made the choice, not as a gesture but as a practical contribution to the control of arms. That is part of the character of Canada.
One of the first acts of this Government, Sir, was to reconstitute the Consultative Group on Disarmament and Arms Control Affairs. On October 31, meeting with that group, the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) spelled out six Canadian goals in arms control and disarmament. First, negotiated radical reductions in nuclear forces and the enhancement of strategic stability. Second, maintenance and strengthening of the nuclear non proliferation regime. Third, negotiation of global chemical weapons ban. Fourth, support for a comprehensive test ban treaty. Fifth, prevention of an arms race in outer space. Sixth, the building of confidence sufficient to facilitate the reduction of military forces in Europe and elsewhere.
[ Translation]
In a statement to Parliament a year ago I expressed the Government's satisfaction about the fact that the United States and the Soviet Union had agreed to resume negotiations in Geneva. Their decision to meet again and broaden the scope of the agenda to include the prevention of a space arms race and its suppression on earth was an act of confidence and political responsibility. Those negotiations have been going on for the past nine months.

As I said last year, we should be under no illusion that the course at Geneva will be an easy one. It will be long and arduous. We are encouraged by the signs of progress, in particular, the tabling last fall of detailed American and Soviet proposals which contained some important common features; a 50 per cent reduction of nuclear arsenals, limits on warheads as well as launchers and sublimits on ICBM warheads. We hope that in this international year of peace the experienced negotiators of both sides will be able to enlarge significantly on this common ground. Agreement on an equitable formula for the radical reduction of nuclear forces and on the appropriate relationship between offensive and defensive strategies and systems will remain the key challenges.
We welcome the broad-ranging proposal issued last week by General Secretary Gorbachev and its reaffirmation of the Soviet Union's commitment to nuclear disarmament. That is the most recent in a long history of suggestions by both superpowers on how to achieve general and complete disarmament.
In this context, Sir, conventional arms, where the Soviet Union has an overwhelming superiority, will also have to find their place. The Soviet Union has the opportunity to address this imbalance in its response to the western proposal, tabled in Vienna last month, at the talks on mutual balanced force reductions.
The Soviet Union does not address the issue of missiles deployed in Asia. But we take satisfaction from the fact that Mr. Gorbachev seems to be moving closer to President Reagan's 1981 zero-zero proposal on the elimination of intermediate-range missiles in Europe. The explicit Soviet recognition of the importance of verification in the negotiations of arms control is gratifying, as is the apparent movement toward long-standing western positions on the need for on-site inspection. The exact nature of what the Soviets will accept in this regard will have to be determined. We also note potentially constructive references to issues before other arms control forums.
January 23, 1986

It is, of course, too early to offer more than this tentative assessment of the proposals. They contain some intriguing new elements alongside well-worn positions and some disturbing preconditions that could hamper negotiation. They clearly warrant very serious consideration, but there are also many aspects that require clarification in the on-going negotiations. The real test of the Soviet Union's commitment to radical and verifiable arms reductions will come when it moves from the stage of public diplomacy to the confidential confines of the negotiating room.
The Geneva Summit and the decision to hold regular high level talks do improve our chances of progress in arms control. Besides getting the leaders together, these regular meetings pave the way for annual assessments of progress made in arms control and encourage the leaders to settle matters which cannot be resolved by their negotiators.
Through avenues open to us, Canada will actively promote the holding of serious and meaningful negotiations. The House should note that the United States made it a point to inform and consult its allies since negotiations resumed in Geneva. Meetings and discussions between the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and President Reagan have enabled Canada to influence the positions of the Americans on arms control.
In Brussels last December I called a special meeting of Canadian ambassadors on arms control with a view to pinpointing specific fields where Canada might contribute to the achievement of concrete results. One such means consists in requesting more frequent NATO meetings focused on the status of the various arms control negotiations and their impact on the policies of the Alliance.

We will not, however, be talking only among ourselves. This Government is committed to promoting a more active and meaningful dialogue with the countries of the Eastern bloc. In September, the Prime Minister wrote to General Secretary Gorbachev outlining Canadian views and priorities in respect of arms control and disarmament. Last month I sent a team of Canadian officials to Moscow for consultations on arms control with top Soviet experts, Ambassadors Petrovsky and Karpov. Similar consultations are planned with other East European countries this year. We are ensuring that the key players in international security affairs are made directly aware of Canadian views.
It is important that the House consider what else Canada can do. What specific practical contributions can we make to arms control? This Government's activity will be focused in three directions-first, encouraging compliance with existing treaties; second, developing verifications mechanisms; and, third, building confidence between East and West.
To deviate from a policy of full compliance is to threaten the credibility and hence the viability of arms control. Canada
Statements by Ministers
firmly supports the regime created by the AMB treaty and the existing SALT agreements on limiting strategic forces. Our stance toward SDI research is rooted in the need to conform strictly with the provisions of the ABM treaty. We will continue to urge the parties to these treaties to do nothing to undermine their integrity but, rather, to work to reinforce their status and their authority.
Effective verification provisions can help ensure compliance with arms control treaties as well as facilitate their negotiation. Verification is an area where Canadian expertise and diplomacy come together. At the UN this fall, a Canadian initiated resolution on verification was unanimously adopted. We are second to none in ouir activity to develop verification procedures and technology which meet the practical requirements of arms control agreements actually under negotiation or envisaged.
To cite only the most important projects recently completed or under way, let me note first the Peace Satellite or PAXSAT project which examines the technical feasibility of a satellite-based system for monitoring potential arms control agreements covering outer space or conventional forces in Europe; second, research into seismic technology for detecting low-yield nuclear tests which pose a major obstacle in the way of agreement on a nuclear test ban; third, the elaboration of operational procedures for effective investigation of incidents or alleged chemical weapons use, the results of which have recently been handed over to the UN Secretary General; and, fourth, the tabling at the Conference on Disarmament in Geneva of a working paper on the nature of the legal regime governing outer space.
We must not forget that the prospects for progress on arms control are clearly linked to an improvement in the general East-West relationship. Confidence can be gradually generated through political actions which promote East-West consultation and co-operation.
The enhancement of the political dialogue with the Soviet Union and the countries of Eastern Europe, and the inclusion in it of a healthy element of people-to-people contact, are major objectives of our Government. This past year has seen an impressive number of high-level visits between Canada and Eastern bloc states.
Canada was host to the human rights experts' meeting of the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe and is playing an active part in the other CSCE mandated meetings which are working to realize the principles of the Helsinki Final Act. Canada believes the CSCE can be an important vehicle for advancing our security and humanitarian goals.
So, as the fourth round of Soviet-American nuclear arms talks get under way in Geneva, this Government will assist, in every way possible, the process of negotiation toward an equitable agreement. By encouraging compliance with the fundamental arms control treaties, by developing practical solutions to verification problems, and by supporting an improvement in the East-West political relationship, Canada can make a distinctive and significant contribution to achiev-

January 23, 1986
Statements by Ministers
ing the critical objectives of the Geneva negotiations. That is our goal, our duty and our Canadian tradition.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hon. Jean Chretien (Saint-Maurice):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on this occasion because I think it is a very important subject which is not often debated in the House. I thank the Minister for making a statement at this time. It is a policy area where we have to try not to be partisan and to try to find a proper solution in our contributions as a nation to peace.

In 1982, at the second Special Session of the United Nations on Disarmement, then Prime Minister Trudeau stated: "You would have to be deaf to remain untouched by the clamour which is now rising all over the world against the arms race. Millions of men and women around the world are addressing a most pressing appeal to their leaders."
Today, four years later, the clamour is the same because, while the climate has improved between the major powers these last two years, no new disarmement agreement has been signed and the arms race unfortunately continues.
What we are discussing today is the implementation of this political will or impulsion on which Mr. Trudeau focused his peace and security initiatives a few years ago.
With its plan to eliminate arsenals, to reduce conventional forces and to develop measures related to chemical weapons, the proposal made last week by Mr. Gorbachev could be a very important step leading to a breakthrough between the two super powers. This gesture seems to express a renewed political will. For this reason and because of the novelty of some of its elements, the Soviet proposal deserves serious consideration. The offer made by Moscow certainly justifies some optimism, but it should also be viewed with caution.
We know that, as concerns arms control and disarmement, like the Minister said earlier, the road to success is always very rocky. The Gorbachev proposal must be carefully examined and it will call for a very reasonable reply. However, preliminary analysis already shows that the plan submitted by the Soviet leader contains new and encouraging elements.

It is a good opportunity for us that this proposition has many elements which are extremely important. As the Minister mentioned a few minutes ago, the willingness of the Russians or the Soviets at this time to permit site inspection- and they have affirmed that they will accept that-is very important. In that field we cannot rely only on satellite verification. It will always be there, but it is a great confidence builder when both sides agree that there might be and will be some site verification.
There is a new sign of flexibility that I welcome. It is something we should all applaud. There has been somewhat of
a move away from the insistence that the disarmament negotiations between the U.S. and U.S.S.R. be different from the negotiations that should occur with France and Great Britain. I do believe there was a very difficult political problem there and I see the new disposition of the Soviets to put in the second phase or have later on discussions with the British and French Governments as a positive sign that there will be more flexibility and early progress in the negotiations. I do think that is very positive.
There is a problem to which the Minister did not refer and that disturbed me a bit. I think he should have referred to it. Everyone recognizes that the main obstacle to progress at this time is SDI. I do not know, but some say that SDI was developed and put forward because it would put pressure on the Russians to return to the negotiating table after they had quit. On tactical grounds, I felt that that was a valid argument. Now that the Soviets have returned to the negotiating table and are willing to put forward some new propositions, 1 think that the NATO nations should talk to the Americans and try to do something positive regarding SDI. It should not necessarily be put aside forever, but perhaps the point should be made that it slow down or be frozen for a period of time in order to give a chance for talks to make progress. I believe that that is the main obstacle to progress.
The Minister did well to point out at this time the issue of conventional arms control. That is a very important point. Everyone recognizes that it might be possible to debate nuclear armaments and have some kind of equilibrium depending on the way one looks at it. However, the Eastern bloc has a great advantage in conventional arms and it should be pointed out very clearly to the U.S.S.R. that this should be reduced as quickly as possible while not necessarily linking the two. In my mind I tend to make a big distinction between the grave danger of nuclear armaments and the conventional arms, which are of a different nature.
What can we do here to help? Of course, there is not much, but I think we have to make Canada's point of view known. The point of view of my Party, at least, is that we should press the Americans on SDI as I think it is a crucial point that must be put forward by Canadians. I would urge the Minister to reconsider his position on that.
In 1982 when Mr. Gorbachev came here, it was in a different context. He came to lead a parliamentary delegation and he created a big impression on Canada. I think we used that occasion to create an impression on him. I remember that when he came before the committee, which was then chaired by the Hon. Member for Saint-Denis (Mr. Prud'homme), he was the first senior officer of the Soviet Union to speak to Parliamentarians. That helped us to understand some of their positions. When Gorbachev made his great tour of Canada with the then Minister of Agriculture, I think it was the first opening up that there was for this leader who became a leader of a great power. It allowed him to know what the western world was all about. When Mr. Gorbachev went to Great Britain last year as the head of his Government, we saw that he was already acquainted more closely than anyone else who
January 23, 1986

had come from the Soviet Union in the past with our thinking and our way of living and to the desire of the western world for peace. I am glad we have been informed that in the month of June, there will be another delegation of Russians coming to meet Canadian Parliamentarians. I think we should encourage that type of thing because it helps when people who are perhaps not in a position of power but who have contacts and access to people in positions of power bring about more understanding and comprehension between the people.
As the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) said, political contributions and dialogues are extremely important. We never know if a dialogue is making a contribution, but it is a fact that when we talk to each other, there is a chance of doing something. However, when we do not talk but live in complete isolation, we live in a very narrow corridor which sometimes leads to confrontations. However, when we talk, we can always find a corridor that will lead to solving the problem. I think what we should do is to help improve the dialogue, but we should put some pressure on the Americans to show the Soviet Union that the Americans are not living in isolation.
I do not know whether or not we should at this time reconsider our position on the Cruise missile. This was an issue during the period of time when the Alliance wanted to see solidarity and wanted to see if, in a period of crisis, we would stick together. We are all democracies and want to show that we can participate in decisions and not only follow those that come from Washington.
As the Secretary of State for External Affairs pointed out, there was a meeting of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and the other leaders with Mr. Reagan after he met with Mr. Gorbachev in Geneva. Showing that we can talk together and that we can influence each other might be a good way of creating a better climate for peace.
[Translation)
Mr. Speaker, I think that Mr. Gorbachev's proposal deserves serious consideration: without being naive we should keep in mind that it does include some questions which-we would not have believed that a few months ago-might be raised around the negotiation table and which are there now.
Peace must be given a chance, and we ought to tell our American friends that they must take this proposal seriously- the ball is in their court, so to speak-so that later on we will not be accused of having missed a good opportunity.
I urge the Minister to continue along those lines and I think he should now give special consideration to the Strategic Defence Initiative issue, Star Wars, to show that if nuclear disarmament is possible then there is no need for a defence against a weapon that will disappear. In any case, the problem I am raising will not be an easy one for him, but I think it deserves every consideration.
I also urge him to promote exchanges so as to prevent a cold war climate such as we had two years ago. We should resume political, cultural and economic exchanges with the Soviet
Statements by Ministers
Union because, that is the way it is, if our interdependence with them grows stronger we will inevitably be forced to live in peace and reject war, particularly nuclear war which in fact would end in world-wide destruction, and that is what we want to avoid at all costs.


Pauline Jewett: Mr. Speaker, I too would like to thank the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) for making a statement in the House today on the U.S./U.S.S.R. nuclear arms control negotiations. I agree that there were some very significant elements in the Gorbachev proposals, and the Secretary of State for External Affairs has mentioned several of them including a genuine reaching out for on-site verification and a willingness to put off until Phase II the inclusion of discussions of French, British, Chinese and other nuclear weapons. I also agree that it was disappointing that we did not see the question of SS-20s in Soviet Asia raised by Gorbachev.
I recall the meeting to which the Hon. Member who just spoke referred which occurred when Mr. Gorbachev was in Canada in 1983, I believe. In committee, I asked him in very brief detail about what at that time were 110 SS-20s on the Chinese border. Indeed, I found his answer to be somewhat hopeful even then in the sense that it was an embarrassment to have this being brought up constantly. The sheer numbers are mind-boggling. Even at that time, as I recall, the matter was not immediately dismissed as being one which could be legitimately included in discussions and negotiations. Perhaps 1 was looking at the matter in my ususal optimistic way and it may not have been as strong as that. However, I certainly received the impression that it was not out of the question in terms of being discussed. It was not rejected out of hand.
With respect to the Gorbachev proposals, surely the Minister has missed what I found to be the most exciting aspect of them, that is to say that there is a timetable. To my knowledge it is the first time that either major power has said more than that they are simply working toward total disarmament, or total nuclear disarmament, but have actually provided a timetable with respect to it. Of all the Gorbachev proposals 1 found that one to be the most innovative.
Phase I deals with strategic weapons which are capable of attacking the other power's homeland, although there will be some difference of opinion with respect to the definition of that particular strategic weapon. Phase II, which would begin in 1990, proposes that other nations join in the elimination of nuclear missiles and nuclear battlefield weapons. The third phase, which would take us up to 1999, calls for the elimination of all remaining nuclear arms.
The idea of setting a timetable is not only innovative but it gives us all something to look forward to down the line. It gives a measure of hope even greater than the hope we are securing from the fact that negotiations are now taking place in Geneva. It makes one feel as if we might make it to the end of the century. I would have liked the Minister and his Depart-

January 23, 1986
Statements by Ministers
ment to have seen that measure as the key to the Gorbachev proposals. Although I am one who basically tends to think that proposals and negotiations should take place at the negotiating table as opposed to in the public forum, I thought there was very good reason for putting the idea forward publicly for the very reasons I have given. The idea that we might see an end to nuclear escalation by the end of the century certainly gives one hope.
The Secretary of State for External Affairs referred to the six points spelled out by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) last October. I would like to mention two of them, since 1 feel they deal with an area in which the Government is not taking the type of concrete steps it could take and which would be more than simply symbolic. If taken they would show how strongly Canada feels in this respect. I would like to deal with the fourth point first, which is that Canada supports a comprehensive test ban treaty. The previous Government also supported such a test ban. I think what the Minister and all of us were assured of last August was the fact that the Soviet Union placed a five-month moratorium on nuclear testing. One of the Gorbachev proposals of the other day was to extend that moratorium for another three months. This is a unilateral moratorium.
The evidence I was able to secure from the Americans showed that they had finished some rounds of testing but that there was no increase in testing during the first half of 1985. If Canada truly believe in supporting a comprehensive test ban treaty, then I just cannot understand why the Minister did not say today that the unilateral proposal of the Soviets with respect to the three-month extension is admirable. It is something that we are happy to see. It is something we would like to see the United States and other nations, in particular, France, undertake. Will we not say publicly that this is a valuable step which Moscow has taken and one which should be emulated by the United States and France? Only in that way can we reach a comprehensive test ban sooner. I am disappointed that this Government, as did the previous Government, says that Canadians support this move and then does not mention the initiatives which have been taken. I am disappointed that the Government will not say whether or not it supports them and publicly and privately urge the United States to follow the same example. Of course, France should also be encouraged in this respect, until it ceases testing.
With regard to the fifth recommendation, we wish to prevent an arms race in outer space. I do not yet feel reassured that the Government is dedicated to preventing the weaponiza-tion of space and an arms race in space. The Minister said that our stance to SDI research is rooted in the need to conform strictly with the conditions of the ABM Treaty. I do not feel that there is an enormous amount of evidence right now which shows that the Americans, and to a lesser extent the Soviets, are distinguishing between research, testing and development. To this end we sometimes hear President Reagan include everything short of deployment as part of research. The other day in Washington there was an announcement from the Pentagon that the Americans are now calling the testing of the
airborne optical adjunct a demonstration. It is a funny world in which we live when a test becomes a demonstration. The reason the Americans call it an adjunct is that they do not want to use the word "component". It is a component of the SDI.
We need a clear statement from the Government with respect to how it interprets the question of research and the tremendous intermingling of research, testing and development. Perhaps this is not the time for the Minister to undertake to do that, but we certainly need something to that end. Similarly, we need a real commitment, which I had hoped we would have received from the Government today, with respect to the ABM clause being reinserted into the NORAD Agreement. I was disappointed that the Minister did not mention anything in that regard.
Anti-satellite weapons give me as much concern as does star wars. The reason they do is that they take away your eyes and your ears. When we strike down satellites we lose our eyes and our ears. The Minister mentioned the Peace Satellite or PAXSAT project which will examine the technical feasibility of a satellite based system for monitoring potential arms control agreements covering outer space or conventional forces in Europe. What on earth is the point of our going ahead and developing a peace satellite if we do not also take a very strong position opposing the development of ASAT weapons, opposing it today and saying publicly that we do? So 1 would hope that the Minister on the next occasion he has in the House will delineate more fully Canada's position on the real meaning of star wars research, Canada's position on reinserting the ABM Treaty clause, and Canada's position on ASAT weapons. If he also says, at last, that we will stop Cruise missile testing, I will be the first to applaud.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: I wish to inform the House that, as a result of the ministerial statement, today's sitting will be extended by 35 minutes.
Therefore, the hour allotted for Private Members' Business will begin at 5.35 p.m.


PETITIONS
Mr. Bill Vankoughnet (Hastings-Frontenac-Lennox and Addington):: Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to present to this House two petitions from the citizens in my riding of Hastings-Frontenac-Lennox and Addington requesting this House to support Bill C-258, an Act respecting International Peace and Goodwill Day. This Bill will change the name of Boxing Day, December 26, to International Peace and Goodwill Day and will demonstrate to the rest of the world Canada's continued commitment to world peace. The first petition is from
January 23, 1986

members of the Marmora Village Council. The second petition is from citizens of the Denbigh area.


Carlo Rossi: Mr. Speaker, I have here four petitions signed by Montreal residents who strongly object to Bills C-47 and C-48, and ask the Government to support Ricardo Didone's efforts to ensure the child's rights to the parent who does not have custody.
And as in duty your petitioners will ever pray.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition with quite a number of names on it from both Edmonton, Alberta, and Montreal, Quebec. It is from the organization for the protection of children's rights of Canada. It proposes to implement a new law in Canada involving automatic joint custody of children unless individual circumstances warrant otherwise.


Roland de Corneille: Mr. Speaker, I am presenting a petition on behalf of a number of people from the Province of Quebec who are deeply concerned and are expressing their concern in a petition to the House. Their concern relates to the rights of children to be able to have adequate access to their parents who are divorced or separated. I present this petition to the House which calls for access for young people to their parents.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, I have the pleasure of presenting a petition which was gathered by Mr. William Pierce and other retired members of the International Woodworkers of America which is based in Vancouver. The petitioners say that the telephone is vital in meeting the health and communication needs of the elderly and handicapped. They pray and call upon Parliament not to deregulate the present telephone system in order to keep local call costs within people's means.


Jacques Guilbault: Mr. Speaker, I too wish to present a petition on behalf of hundreds of residents from the Montreal area who object to Bills C-47 and C-48 because they do not improve the situation of children of separated or divorced couples, and ask the Government
Petitions
to support Ricardo Didone's efforts to ensure the child's rights to the parent who does not have custody.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, 1 have four petitions which protest to this House Bill C-47 and Bill C-48. They support the aims of Mr. Ricardo DiDone, which are the education of new generations in school on the responsibilities of marriage, compulsory mediation prior to divorce and so on. These four petitions represent Canadians from Cowansville, Granby, Montreal and other places in Quebec.


Sheila Finestone: Mr. Speaker, I have in front of me several thousand names and hundreds of petitions. I do not intend to read all the names-do not get frightened, Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to do that. However, as I was looking at these petitions which arrived in my office over the five or six days, I thought it would be of interest to note that there is not just one language, English, represented, or one language, French, but a multitude of languages such as Italian, Greek and Arabic. I found that so fascinating that I would like to bring to your attention that the lack of the kind of humanizing changes in our divorce Bill is creating great anguish among many parents, particularly-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Order. 1 am sorry to call the Hon. Member to order but the tradition is that we present the petition, the nature of it, and then conclude.


Mr. Turner (Ottawa-Carleton):: Read the Arabic.


Sheila Finestone: I wish I could. Every language is a new window on the world, Sir, and if 1 could read it, 1 would, with pleasure.


An Hon. Member:: Right on.


Sheila Finestone: As a result of that particular suggestion, Mr. Speaker, I will read the petition. We protest Bill C-47 and Bill C-48 dealing with divorce and children of divorce where two parents are forced to attack one another in order to win a child, an act that is totally inhumane and unacceptable. Wherefore the undersigned, your petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to support the aims of Mr. Ricardo DiDone which are, the education of responsibility in marriage in school for new generations, to require compulsory mediation prior to divorce, to support shared parenting as a concept, to ensure the right of children to communicate with the non-custodial parent, that both parents have access to anything that is pertinent to the wellbeing of the child, and last, but not least, if not respected with valuable reason that custody may be reversed when it goes back to the court.


George Roland Henderson: Mr. Speaker, 1 have two petitions here, the first from a group of residents of Shefford, Quebec, and the second from a group of residents of the Montreal, LaSalle area. The petitioners now avail themselves of their ancient and undoubted right to present their petition to protest Bill C-47 and Bill C-48 dealing with divorce and

January 23, 1986
Divorce Act
children of divorce where two parents are forced to attack one another in order to win a child, an act that is totally inhumane and unacceptable. They support the aims of Mr. Ricardo DiDone which were enumerated by the last speaker. I, therefore, present these petitions to the House.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Mr. Paul Dick (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Agreed?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


John Carnell Crosbie: that Bill C-46, an Act to amend the Divorce Act, be read the third time and passed.


DIVORCE AND COROLLARY RELIEF ACT
John Carnell Crosbie: 
FAMILY ORDERS ENFORCEMENT ASSISTANCE ACT
John Carnell Crosbie: that Bill C-48, an Act to provide for the release of information that may assist in locating defaulting spouses and other persons and to permit, for the enforcement of support orders and support provisions, the garnishment and attachment of certain moneys payable by Her Majesty in right of Canada, be read the third time and passed.
He said: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak on third reading of these Bills. 1 am only going to speak for a few
minutes because I have had ample opportunity at second reading and in committee, both in this House and in the other place, to speak on this Bill and I know there are other Members who have comments to make. It is hoped that we will conclude consideration of these three Bills this afternoon.
I want to thank my Parliamentary Secretary, the Hon. Member for Cambridge (Mr. Speyer), who has been absolutely outstanding in looking after the legislation now before the House, both here and in committee. It was a long, intricate and difficult task. We heard from many different groups with different interests; this is only natural because this involves a very important part of human social relations. He has done a marvellous job. He is a man of great ability and it is a pleasure to have him associated with me. I only hope that so long as 1 am Minister of Justice 1 will have him labouring at my side.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Carnell Crosbie: I also want to thank Members of both opposition Parties who I think, by and large, have been most co-operative and responsive and responsible in connection with this legislation. Not quite as responsive and responsible, of course, as we, but almost. In any event, both opposition Parties have been quite helpful. The fact that we are going to conclude this today I think demonstrates their helpfulness with respect to the legislation now before us.
Reform of our divorce laws was made a priority in the Speech from the Throne. Of course, the fact that it was a priority is seen by the attention it has been given in the last 12 months. It is true, of course, that our predecessors in Government were also interested in this subject matter, but the legislation they proposed was never dealt with. We have given it priority and we have met the commitment made in the Throne Speech when this Parliament began. I am very pleased that this is the case.
The proposals for reform I think have been very well received. There are of course many compromises in this legislation. It is a controversial area we are dealing with. As I said, there were many people and groups with different and opposing viewpoints and I think we have a most acceptable compromise in many of these areas. However, I will make this commitment. We will be watching carefully what happens over the next two or three years. If we see any inadequacies, or if any of the fears which have been expressed with reference to the question of maintenance for women who have not had careers or whose career has been a marriage turn out to be true, if we find there are still inequities after this legislation has been in effect for several years, then I will certainly be receptive to further changes which might be needed.
This Bill addresses a long-standing question concerning the objectives of maintenance and they are outlined in our legislation. The judges will now know what our objectives are: Recognition of the advantages and disadvantages which arose from the marriage or its breakdown; sharing the economic burden of child care; relieving economic hardship; where practical, promoting economic self-sufficiency within a reasonable time. These objectives are not mutually exclusive. They have
January 23, 1986

no special order of priority and henceforth, once the legislation comes into effect, maintenance orders should address all those objectives unless one of them does not apply.
The legislation will not impose hardship on those who cannot attain economic self-sufficiency. If, as I just mentioned, we were to discover that, contrary to our intention, this does occur, then I will certainly consider changes. That is, once it is proven, if it ever does happen to be proven.
We have to encourage those who are capable of attaining self-sufficiency to do so, so that the supporting spouse can continue on with his or her life. We cannot forget that approximately three-quarters of all divorced persons eventually remarry and we should not unnecessarily hinder remarriage. As well, during consideration of this Bill in committee, representations were made about barriers to remarriage which may apply to a conscientiously religious wife under Jewish religious law if the applicant for a divorce refuses to co-operate in the religious formalities required to permit her remarriage. Regrettably, the issue was raised late in the day.
There are a number of complex questions about the nature of this problem as well as matters of constitutional law which have to be resolved. I can advise the House that we have met with representatives of the communities affected. I have instructed my officials to establish an expenditious process of consultation with representatives of all the various interests in order to resolve those outstanding issues. We will give sympathetic and careful consideration to this issue and an equitable solution will be found if at all possible, as soon as possible.
The Bill recognizes that all arrangements regarding children should be made solely according to their best interests, having regard to all the circumstances. The Bill provides for that. We provide the power to award custody or access in favour of either or both spouses. Any award has to take into account that a child should have as much contact with each spouse as is consistent with the best interests of the child. The legislation stresses that maintenance of the children is a joint responsibility of the parents. I believe that fathers are being given some reasonable consideration as parents in this legislation and we will also be watching to see what happens in the future with respect to custody of children and how the system operates.
I think it is plain that there are many cases of unfair treatment with reference to fathers as parents in the previous situation. We are actively promoting reconciliation of spouses. I will not go into the details because the House is familiar with them. We are encouraging mediation of custody and support issues and will continue to do that. We are requiring that spouses be informed of any mediation facilities. I support voluntary mediation. We are supporting family mediation in Canada and we will continue to do that. We are distributing to family law practitioners a research report describing mediation services available in Canada. This will help the practitioners inform their clients of mediation services as required by the Act.
Bill C-48, an Act to provide for the relese of information that may assist in locating defaulting spouses complements the provisions of the Divorce Act. Her Excellency the Governor
Divorce Act
General has been informed of the purport of that Bill and has given her consent, so far as Her Majesty's prerogatives are affected, to the consideration by Parliament of the Bill. She has said that Parliament may do therein as it thinks fit.
This is going to be a most useful Bill because of the two remedies which will assist in enforcing family orders and agreements. The first will allow a limited release of information from designated federal information banks to locate a missing spouse or child where there has been a breach of a support, custody or access provision. The second remedy will allow the garnishing of designated federal moneys where a support provision is in default. We have had a scandalous situation in this country for years with reference to maintenance orders, some 60 per cent to 80 per cent of which are not enforced, although statistics show that 80 per cent of all those involved have the ability to make the payments required. This tragedy and national scandal is going to be ended within a year when this legislation is fully operative. Due to the complications of computer systems and the like, it may well be the end of March, 1987 before we have both the tracing and garnishing provisions of this new legislation in full force and effect. However, once they are in full force and effect this national scandal and tragedy will be ended. I believe there will be a considerable saving to the taxpayer who spends at least $1 billion annually to support dependent spouses and their children today, in part because maintenance orders cannot be satisfactorily enforced.
Finally, the new Divorce Act and the Enforcement Assistance Act are a humane step forward in handling the problems that beset the Canadian family. They provide opportunities for spouses to reconcile, to reduce the confrontation and dispute that surrounds divorce, and to concentrate on what is best for their children. That is what they should be concentrating on. It is up to each divorcing person, with the assistance of their lawyer and, hopefully, mediators and conciliators to take advantage of the opportunities that this legislation will provide to reduce the trauma of divorce for themselves and their children.
This legislation represents an important part of the commitment of the Government to social justice. I believe it to be one of the great social and, certainly, familiar pieces of legislation of this century. It compliments the steps that were taken in 1968 and helps to complete a social revolution. I believe that the legislation will result in women, children, and men all receiving better, fairer, more just, and more humane treatment in this area than has been possible in the past.
That is why I am pleased to have initiated this legislation by the Government with the willing support and backing of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) who, 1 would like to add, is very much interested in this, and who was very supportive on several occasions when support was needed. The Prime Minister believes in social justice. He gave his firm support when it was needed and I would like to thank him for that.

January 23, 1986
Divorce Act
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I believe that this legislation will decrease the sum total of human unhappiness, sorrow, tension, and frustration which now exists in the area of divorce and maintenance. I cannot say that it will add to the sum total of human happiness, although perhaps it will, because I think it will make it easier for remarriage and the more satisfactory care of children of a broken marriage. All in all, Mr. Speaker, I am more than happy to be associated with this legislation. I would like to thank all Members of the House who have been helpful in connection with it.
Finally, I want to thank my Parliamentary Secretary and the Members of the House of Commons Justice Committee who were very diligent and conscientious in handling the legislation that was put before them. I move third reading.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Pursuant to Standing Order 46, it is my duty to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: The Hon. Member for Halifax West (Mr. Crosby)-Children-Convening of conference on missing children; the Hon. Member for Don Valley East (Mr. Attewell)-Young Offenders Act-Introduction of amendments; the Hon. Member for York West (Mr.	Marchi)-Visible minorities (a)
Government's negotiations with representatives of Japanese Canadian interned during World War II (b) Request for further negotiations.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Crosbie (St. John's West): That Bill C-46, an Act to amend the Divorce Act, be read the third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Crosbie (St. John's West): That Bill C-47, an Act respecting divorce and corollary relief, be read the third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Crosbie (St. John's West): That Bill C-48, an Act to provide for the release of information that may assist in locating defaulting spouses and other persons and to permit, for the enforcement of support orders and support provisions, the garnishment and attachment of certain moneys payable by Her Majesty in right of Canada, be read the third time and passed.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: The Hon. Member for Broadview-Greenwood (Ms. McDonald).


Lynn McDonald: Is it possible to put a question to the Minister? It is in order.

I would like to raise a couple of questions with the Minister apropos his remarks.


Chris Speyer: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I had understood the rules of the House to be that with respect to the initial speaker there were no questions allowed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: I am informed that it was a speech for an unlimited time and, therefore, there are no questions afterwards. We will now resume with the reply by the Hon. Member for Mount Royal (Mrs. Finestone).


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same point of order. For the sake of clarification, so that we all understand what the rules are, in today's Order Paper it says:
-unlimited time-Prime Minister, Leader of the Opposition, Minister moving motion and Member replying immediately after the Minister.
It goes on to say:
-20-minute maximum-all other speakers
-Speeches are subject to a 10-minute question and comment period.
I take it that you have just ruled that there will be no questions asked of the Minister or the Member speaking after the Minister. Unlimited time has been accorded to both of them. Is that your ruling?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: 20-minute speeches that come afterwards. Therefore, the Hon. member for Mount Royal may now start.


Sheila Finestone: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak on a subject so close to the daily lives of all Canadian families. Divorce law relates to all of us, whether directly through personal experience, or indirectly through a family member or friend. There are very few places throughout Canada where personal lives have not been touched by divorce or separation in some form or another. We all acknowledge that it is a painful and difficult experience which requires very sensitive care.
I think we all acknowledge that the time had come for change in our divorce laws, but change in, of, and for itself is just not enough. When children are involved and two adults can no longer get along living together and agree to a divorce, it is important that the adults are able to remain as caring, concerned parents, that access to their children is accommodated, and that the children are traumatized as little as possible as a result of the marriage breakdown. We must endeavour as well to ensure that the continuity of their lifestyle be maintained. Wherever and however possible the use of children as pawns to settle scores, to punish or to reward, must be minimized. There is enough unhappiness, sorrow, and frustration without manipulating our children. That is totally unacceptable.
Over all, Mr. Speaker, Bills C-46, 47, and 48 introduced by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Crosbie) resemble the proposals of the previous Liberal Government in January of 1984 with some exceptions which, regrettably, are serious. However, I do not wish to say that this is not a good Bill in that it is needed in today's society. It is a good step forward. I am pleased that the Minister brought it in and I felicitate him and the Chairman of the Committee, and, in particular, his Parliamentary Secretary, for their hard work. I think that this Bill will bring about increased social justice malgre all its warts.
With respect to the measures the Minister has addressed, and in that he is prepared to be open-minded and hear new arguments, I would say that we have moved forward and I am pleased with this Bill. However, I think it is important to reiterate those areas with which I have concern and those principles which our Party believes are concrete proposals for change within the divorce legislation.
These are, first, to accommodate reconciliation by requiring, where possible, a neutral third party rather than legal counsel of either spouse, who are certainly not unbiased parties, to convene a conference. This mandatory conference should take place in a neutral environment to explore all the possibilities open to these families which include mediation, reconciliation, and the introduction of a lawyer to represent the children's interests. There are many, many options with regard to reconciliation or the termination of a marriage. These are very important issues.
Divorce Act
Second, to reduce recrimination by eliminating those sections of the Bill dealing with grounds for divorce based on fault in favour of marriage breakdown as the sole ground for divorce. That has been a major plank of the Liberal view of how divorce should proceed in this country when we are close to the 21st Century.
My third point with respect to the Liberal stand concerns the elimination of the language of "custody" and "access" and replaced these confronting words with the principle of "shared parenting". The shared parenting or co-parenting principle is a much more human approach which we should be considering. I wanted to change the language because it is a vehicle of culture. We know that language can impact on a society and, particularly, direct the courts and the parties who are reading this Bill.
The Bill is not written only for legal counsel, it is written for people upon whose lives it will impact. For that reason I and my Party recommended and defended as best we could the use of language such as "care and control" when talking about custody and "contact" when we refer to access. Unfortunately, that was ruled out of order. Care, control and contact are soft words that indicate we want a non-confrontational, less adversarial approach in this Bill. It would consider the privileges, rights and responsibilities of the mother and father and keep in mind the grandparents and the rights of children to maintain a healthy, balanced relationship with all members of their family. We know that there is nothing stronger than a strong family unit.
The fourth point we want to stress is the strengthening of Bill C-48, the related Bill regarding maintenance enforcement by creating the National Maintenance and Custody Orders Enforcement Agency as a central repository for enforcement of maintenance and custody orders. The Government's move to have centralized information is only one step toward the action that will be required in order to relieve the personal anguish and suffering due to the lack of contact with one's children as well as-
[ Translation]
-the hunger one feels in the stomach-

-because we do not get the money we require to support our families.

Mr. Speaker, there are rather serious deficiencies in this legislation, and I hope that the Minister, who has shown some openness of mind this afternoon, will reconsider at the last minute his refusal of our amendment proposals and will accept to open up this legislation to make it more humane and better able to meet the needs of Canadian men, women, and especially children.

Presentations to the committee by groups such as the National Action Committee on the Status of Women, the Canadi-

January 23, 1986
Divorce Act
an Advisory Council on the Status of Women and The National Association Of Women And The Law have emphasized the grim statistics regarding marriages that end in divorce-a frightening figure of 40 per cent in Canada. Of those divorces, 50 per cent involved children.
The trauma for Canadians involved in divorce is great and frequently represents a first contact with the legal system. That is why I want the Bill to read in clear English that can be understood rather than legalese that can only be understood by counsel. I am not a lawyer and I would like the language to be clear so that I can understand all of the ramifications without constantly having to check it with legal counsel. The Bill should be understandable to Messieurs, Mesdames, tout le monde at all times, in all language, in all Bills.
While the best interests of the parties must be guaranteed, it has traditionally been women and subsequently their children who have borne the economic and social hardships resulting from divorce. Figures show that 49 per cent of female-headed single-parent families had incomes below the poverty line in 1983. That is unacceptable in a country as rich as ours. Regardless of our overwhelming debt, we are still a land of plenty. One only needs to travel throughout the world to recognize that there is no need for poverty in this great land of ours.
The question of poverty among our older single, separated and divorced women was addressed on the question of spousal allowance. My only comment is that it indicates the malaise we are living with in this society.
As the National Action Committee pointed out, 10 per cent of divorcing women are aged 50 and over. Few of these women are in a position to go back to the workforce. After working in their home they are being asked to go back to work in the market-place which is an impossibility. We know that society is in an active stage of evolution from industrial, to post-industrial to a high-tech society. We are faced with a new language in the country and it is unrealistic and unconscionable to expect these women who worked at home to find work in the workplace. We are protective of such women but I raise the issue in the hope that the law is made clear on the matter.
The significance of the Divorce Act for women and children is overwhelming and not in any way to be ignored. The welfare of women as the most vulnerable group must be addressed and it is in this context that we emphasize the importance of strengthening Bill C-48 to create a federal-provincial enforcement mechanism respecting custody, access, support and maintenance orders across the country.
Once again, the Conservative Government has broken its promise to the Canadian people. On May 1, 1985, the Minister of Justice (Mr. Crosbie) issued a news release in which he promised that the Conservative Government would: "Humanize the process of divorce and at the same time safeguard the family relationship". That promise has been broken in a number of ways.
The Government would have Canadians believe that marriage breakdown represents the sole grounds for divorce while
the fact is that the new Act retains fault grounds such as adultery and cruelty which exist in the current Divorce Act.
It disturbs me that I would have to bring to the attention of the House that from January 13 to January 17, 1986, a national forum on youth and the law was held. The issues according to this document that were addressed included family law issues, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, cultural minorities, access to justice and youth and crime. This was sponsored by the Department of Justice and it prepared and approved the report. It circulated a very attractive and interesting brochure, with a blue maple leaf. I do not know who has see blue maple leaf on God's trees, but there is a blue maple leaf on the folder. In the context of this particular colloque-

-forum. Have you ever seen blue maple leaves? Or are they red where you come from? Red and green. However, in this regard-

Let me point out what was in that document because it is rather mind-boggling. It states with regard to family law who can marry and the impact of the Criminal Code if one takes certain actions. It discusses divorce and the reform of the divorce law and related matters. It states that at the time of its writing a new Divorce Act, 1985 and the Family Orders and Agreements Enforcement Act are awaiting final reading by the House of Commons and may very well be passed by the date of this youth and law forum. That is correct, for these laws could have been passed but they were not brought back on time. It says the proposed Divorce Act, 1985 will provide that marriage breakdown be the sole basis of divorce. Marriage breakdown would be established when the spouses have lived separate and apart for one year, and where one spouse has committed adultery or cruelty, in which case immediate divorce may be granted. I do not call that marriage breakdown as the sole cause.
Then it says the proposed Divorce Act should also recognize that support provided by one spouse to the other should promote economic self-sufficiency. That is true. Then we arrive at the last of these paragraphs which 1 will read and which I find fascinating:
Mediations would be conducted by an independent third party, such as a social worker, with the goal of having the spouses come to an agreement on the issues of support, custody and access, instead of fighting them out in court.
That is exactly the amendment I proposed which the Government turned down, and which was supported by my friends in the Opposition. The Government uses a public document and a public national forum to promote an issue that it is not prepared to support in this House. That is rhetoric, unacceptable and mind-boggling, as I said before.
Contrary to the Conservative promises that they would promote economic self-sufficiency of spouses where practicable, the new Bill severely limits the financial protection given to spouses, particularly to women. The new Bill provides
January 23, 1986

insufficient direction to the court as to which factors must be taken into account in awarding support orders, a weakness that represents a step backward rather than promised progress, the promotion of term orders as a major focus in this Bill. 1 find that regrettable. There is a place for term orders. There should be an end, and there should be an end to the long tunnel with a light that indicates where we are going, but not a directive that you cannot, in essence, really have preferential treatment for a term order.
The Conservatives promised to assist the many spouses who fail to receive the support for themselves and their children to which they are entitled through court orders. Unfortunately, these spouses will still be required to spend needed income to hire lawyers in order to access federal information resources and to pursue complicated legal channels so as to get the support they deserve for themselves and for their children.
I think we have gone a good first step, but we did not go the step further that would be helpful. I have another area of serious concern, that is, the question of the definition of the child of the marriage. If you will recall, we addressed that issue. The age of a child 16 and 17 is not covered. These young people are at a very vulnerable stage. There should be some assurance of continuation of support. The key concern is that responsibility for children should not terminate when they reach age 16. That youth is our future. Why should they be sitting wondering where they sit. Why put them in limbo? It is unconscionable to have done that. The argument of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Crosbie), and the legal counsel to the Minister of Justice was not supportable.
One of the reasons we are here as legislators is to change what is unacceptable. If other provinces have not had enlightened change or have not been able to move in their laws, then we should set the guidelines, set the road and set the marker. The Province of Ontario has done so. The Province of Quebec has done so.
It is clear that age 18 is the age of majority. It applies in the Elections Act and in the Young Offenders Act. There is no excuse not to have age 18 apply here and lead the way. Further, not knowing where they stand by the time they are going to hit their sixteenth birthday creates such hardship on young people who have already gone through the trauma of a divorcing family. What kind of a birthday present is that? It is supposed to be sweet 16. How sweet will it be if you do not know if you are going to continue receiving maintenance support and you do not know whether your college will be assured? If that was the lifestyle which you as a young person were ready and able to carry on, I cannot see why you should not be allowed to have that carried on through the support of the non-custodial parent. I think of the very sad case of dependent young adults who are handicapped where there might be a death of the spouse receiving the custodial support funds which puts a whole situation into jeopardy. That ought to be reconsidered.
We agree that education is the key to success in today's society; then the potential for jobs in a highly competitive industrial society must be considered. This human capital,
Divorce Act
which is our youth of tomorrow, with so many tens of thousands in society who are living in a divorced situation, must be considered. I would say the Bill is flawed in that area.
It is hard to ask, as the Minister said, for the mothers or the fathers to concentrate on raising their children, and the children may have other concerns too, when they do not know what is going to happen to their future. The argument is weak from the ministry. I believe the attitude of the Ministry has been all pervasive. In my own view it has been constrained.
We as legislators in this House should move to adopt some of the more sensible and humanizing changes to this legislation which were recommended, not only by my Party, not only by the New Democratic Party but also by members of the Conservative Government itself.
I am concerned about the inclusion of fault grounds in this Bill which emphasize the attachment of blame and lead to a vindictive adversarial process. It is my position that by eliminating the direct opportunity for mud-slinging, which fault grounds provide, the focus of divorce will shift from an unproductive ground of accusations and counter accusations to the more important issues at stake in a marriage breakdown, namely, the restructuring of the family so that everyone suffers as little as possible, both emotionally and financially.
There are a number of tools that could be put in place to ensure the least negative, psychological impact on all parties involved. One such example would be the filing of a plan with the court assuring maximum contact between the child of the marriage and the non-custodial spouse with a mechanism to ensure that this is respected.
The Government's goal to make divorce less confrontational and more humane are seemingly at odds. The Government's position underscores the difference between laudable, high-principled, rhetoric and reality in fact. It all seems so pointless and inconsistent.
The parties to a divorce can now get a divorce after one year of separation instead of waiting for three years. Fault grounds are not to be considered under this law in making decisions with respect to maintenance and custody orders, and through provincial channels immediate interim orders are available upon separation and prior to actual divorce. Why do you need to keep fault-adultery, physical and mental cruelty-in there?
With regard to spousal and child support, Mr. Speaker, I am concerned about the impact this will have upon women who end up economically disadvantaged after divorce. In Ontario, as an example, according to Statistics Canada in 1983, the amount awarded for both child and spousal support averages approximately 20 per cent of the husband's after tax income. That is really not very much money.
Further, as found by a Vancouver study, support awards are not only extremely low in relation to needs but they remained constant in the seventies. They have not kept pace with the rise in the cost of living and the general wage structure in our society.

January 23, 1986
Divorce Act
The situation not only drastically affects ex-wives, but the children of the broken marriages as well. Fifty per cent of divorcing couples have children and in spite of the media attention to increasing custody awards to fathers, which I think is important, the wife still gets custody 85 per cent of the time.
Census figures show that single parent families are the fastest growing family type in our society. The view of husband, wife, picket fence, house and tow children is not reality. I would like us to remember that when we are developing social policy.
In the period from 1971 to 1981 there was a 50 per cent increase in the number of single parent families. Add to this the fact that from two-thirds to 75 per cent of fathers are in default of their support payments and the serious consequences this had on family life becomes then apparent.
What all this means, Mr. Speaker, is that the marked reduction in a custodial mother's income has potentially negative psycho-social effects on the children. A sharp decline in their mothers' standard of living often forces residential changes, moves; changes in their schools and in their teachers, and changes in the neighbourhood and their friendship circle. When the discrepancy between the children and the fathers' income and lifestyle become so different, children tend to feel angry and resentful and to share their mothers' feelings of deprivation and injustice. This does not set the stage for a happy home environment nor to future productive citizens.
When support and maintenance orders are not obeyed, and when unemployment rates are high, many of these families become dependent upon the welfare system. They are not welfare bums; I would like that to be quite clear. This situation means that the federal and provincial Governments are presently sharing a budget line-that is the CAP line-of $1 billion annually. It could be the big bankruptcy of the year. The cost recovery which could be found in this particular cost item in a budget where we could save big dollars is vital and could protect our human capital.
I am upset today that the Government has not seen fit to address the concerns of fathers across the country who have limited access to their children. Groups such as Fathers for Equality in Divorce, Fathers Fighting Back and the Association des hommes separes ou divorces de Montreal, which brought in the thousands of petitions that I read into the record today, are concerned over their lack of contact with their children. With custody being awarded 85 per cent of the time to mothers, for men, their contact with their children is accorded most often only every second weekend. When this limited access is denied, there is an impact upon the lives of the children. This is very painful not only for the fathers but for the children of the marriages who need the love and support of both parents in their lives.
We have recommended that maximum contact-that is called "access" in the formalized Bill-between the child of the marriage and the non-custodial spouse be made with a
mechanism to ensure that it is respected. Several proposals were made to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs regarding mediation. The Minister mentioned the research which they are doing on mediation, the support they have given toward it and the fact that they have published a list of mediation facilities, yet the Bill does not provide for mediation. It is my hope that we will not have to wait too long for mediation to become part of divorce legislation.
A growing body of research indicates the benefits of mediating disputes which arise on divorce rather than litigating them. Canadian and American research conducted to date indicates benefits for the spouses of increased satisfaction over the outcome of their divorce, reduced costs and increased adherence to the mediated agreements. Also they indicate that mediated agreements are more likely to result in arrangements for shared parenting or at least for broader access in comparison with judgments awarded by the courts.
On this last point, the number of days of access awarded to non-custodial parents was almost twice as high for mediated as opposed to litigated or negotiated settlements. Mediated settlements average 9.2 days per month whereas litigated or negotiated settlements average 5.6 days per month for access.
My Party is concerned about the criteria the courts will be using in determining support orders. Undue hardship must not result, so it is vital that the Bill reflect all appropriate circumstances which might be used in making the judgment to award a support order.
I know there was not great receptivity on the part of certain members of Government to looking at what they perceived as my shopping list. My list was not a shopping list; my list was a guide, a guideline or a check-list which indicated some of the areas that should be considered.


Lynn McDonald: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. It is quite correct that the Hon. Member has unlimited time, but there is an agreement that we will dispose of this Bill today. There are other speakers who wish to speak and, if she takes unlimited time, no one else will have the opportunity to speak.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Nicholson):: Your point is noted, but that is not a point of order.


Roland de Corneille: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I should like to point out for the record that this is a time during which a speaker may give an unlimited time reply to a Bill that is of very great importance to a large percentage of the population. In view of a Minister's statement today, we will carry on for a longer period of time. I am quite sure Hon. Members of the New Democratic Party as well as those of the Government will have opportunities to speak.


Sheila Finestone: Mr. Speaker, I understand the Hon. Member's concern, and I promise that I will not be much more than a few more minutes.
When I said that I had presented a check-list, it was not an exclusive list; it was to be a guideline and there were other criteria as the court saw fit. However, 1 am still determined
January 23, 1986

that some day there will be laws which can be read and understood by laymen in society. That is the kind of law I would have liked, particularly in a family issue such as divorce.
Turning to a new matter, I believe that determination of when a spouse can reasonably become self-sufficient following marriage breakdown is a key factor and must not be restrictive. No one should view marriage as a life-time contract for support. I would hope that people view marriage as a life-time contract but not necessarily only for financial reasons. Economic self-sufficiency is a goal toward which all of us strive. Just as it is unrealistic today to expect support from one spouse to continue forever following a marriage breakdown, it is also equally unrealistic to believe that any time limit can be set on self-sufficiency. Each situation is unique, and that must be combined with a volatile and currently gloomy employment picture. Circumstances can create situations whereby self-sufficiency looms farther than closer on the horizon. That is the case which many women are facing today.
Other factors must also be considered in determining when a spouse can be expected to be determined self-sufficient. For example, older women who have never worked outside the home need ongoing protection orders under the law. Time limited orders for younger women could fail to recognize that their potential for self-sufficiency is dependent upon external forces of the market-place and the economy. These factors must be considered in the quest for economic self-sufficiency. The goal toward equality of opportunity in society and individual economic independence is desirable and one which I support, but it is not always realizable. A balance must be struck between the need to support women at different ages and at different stages of life and the need to allow the other spouse, generally the men, to get on with their lives, to see a light at the end of the tunnel and to resettle their lives without unnecessary heavy financial burdens. However, they cannot desist if there is no other option.
The National Action Committee on the Status of Women and The National Association of Women and the Law pointed out the unfairness of jettisoning older housewives without financial support as well as young women who may face unexpected restraints, not out of malice or ill will. The courts need freedom to consider extenuating circumstances in each case.
I hope, and indeed anticipate, that judges will interpret their support order decisions in a humane yet realistic way, awarding orders in a manner reflective of the unique situations of each family. Neither spouse should have to experience economic hardship because of marriage breakdown. This is therefore important in circumstances in which a spouse remained at home, did not accrue any pension or retirement benefits and would have had no opportunity to save independently or be self-supporting during the marriage. To suggest that she become independent immediately after a marriage breakdown is unrealistic and even if the goal of breaking the financial dependence or her spouse is admirable, the improbability of such a change occurring quickly is high. It is for those reasons
Divorce Act
that I have taken this position and am disappointed that the Bill does not reflect this reality.
With the release of the report by the Commission on Equality in Employment, the Abella Report, Canadians have become increasingly aware and supportive of the need to redress systems like the system for the collection of support payments which are woefully inadequate and economically punitive and debilitating.
Last, I would like to address my Party's belief in the establishment of a national maintenance and custody orders enforcement agency as the central repository for maintenance and custody orders. It would monitor all accounts due, provide prompt notification of default and provide vigorous pursuit of defaulters by, among other things, attachment of federal and provincial payments due to the debtor spouse. It would also act when the rights of non-custodial parents are abridged.
The main obstacle to maintenance enforcement in Canada today is the fact that it is the maintenance creditor who is obliged to initiate and pursue enforcement at his or her own expense. These maintenance creditors are usually women. Given the increasing number of Canadian lawyers who refuse to act in legal aid family matters and the inadequacy of current provincial mechanisms for enforcement, the likelihood of obtaining default maintenance payments is minimal at best under the law. The proposed agency would provide a streamlined process which removes the potential for confrontation because the enforcement is done through a third party which is not merely an information receiving and delivering agency. The lack of enforcement of court orders is not just a matter of money but is contrary to good social, public policy.
It is a sad fact that children become pawns in the struggle between two former spouses. The result is that custody and access orders are being ignored. With the creation of this national maintenance and custody orders enforcement agency, such orders will be enforced and disrespect for court orders will not be tolerated. Statistics available from Manitoba and other jurisdictions reveal that the cost of such a system is more than offset by the amount saved on income support payments to sole-supporting women and their children.
I am aware that a national maintenance and custody orders enforcement agency requires the co-operation of the provinces but the inequities and emotional and economic hardships being felt now as a result of defaulters must be rectified quickly. It is imperative that the federal Government show leadership in setting up this agency. The Minister had plenty of time to consult with his provincial counterparts. It has been years since our divorce laws have been changed. New circumstances, new ideas and new procedures form the substance of this legislation. It is important to keep on top of change and make certain that the legislation is reflective of the times, particularly when we are dealing with legislation as important as this, legislation which touches the lives of all Canadians.

January 23, 1986
Divorce Act
We cannot always be sure the judicial interpretation will be as expected for these new measures. Despite our best intentions and those of the courts, it is important that we review and revise the changes in the law. For these reasons, my Party supports the built-in review mechanism which fulfils this need. It will also afford an opportunity for a Liberal Government to humanize divorce procedures.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Don't hold your breath, Sheila.


Sheila Finestone: I felt a great deal of regret yesterday when Mr. Speaker ruled Motions Nos. 11, 11 A, 32B, 33 and 33A out of order on the grounds that they proposed to add concepts to the Bill which would expand the scope of the Bill beyond that on which the House had agreed in principle at second reading. 1 think the House had had time to address that issue. It was raised by my colleague, the Hon. Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson), very early on in our discussions.
I would like to explain a problem which involves the dissolution of a marriage under Jewish law, something which results from an act of free will by a man and a woman under the supervision of three rabbis. However, only the husband has the authority to give a Get. The refusal by a spouse to accord the Get is arising with alarming frequency. This has led to the Get being used in some cases as leverage to obtain financial and custodial considerations. It is of particular concern because without this religious Writ of Divorce, a person of Jewish faith is barred from remarriage under Jewish law.
I have attended committee meetings of the Canadian Jewish Congress and sub-committees which have addressed this issue. I am well aware of the role the B'nai B'rith League for Human Rights has had in this area. I know there was division within the community and I recognize the problem that was faced, but it could have been dealt with earlier. The Jewish community has now proposed a solution which was accepted by the Ontario Legislature in its recent family reform package. However, I am glad to learn from the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary that Justice officials are now considering that amendment. I can only hope that they will act quickly and that the proposals will be brought to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs for expenditious consideration.
I am pleased to speak on behalf of my Party. I accept the fact that we have taken a very positive step forward. I simply wish it had been a more giant step.
[ Translation]


Lynn McDonald: Mr. Speaker, the bills now under consideration are an improvement over the previous bill introduced by the Liberal Government. However, there are still some deficiencies to correct, and very important ones. I am proud of the way that the NPD has fought to change the law to provide better protection for women and children, and especially to develop a better system to collectmaintenance payments.

Unfortunately, the Government has refused some important amendments that would give much better protection to the homemaker spouse. The previous Bill would have permitted only Fixed-term maintenance. Now indefinite maintenance is possible and I am very pleased by the very strong Fight members of the NDP put up to see improved maintenance written into the legislation. However, the Conservative Government has refused amendments to permit reconsideration of maintenance orders when a judge might have guessed wrongly, the Fixed term is up and the conditions have not changed.
Some changes have been made to deal with this unfortunate situation, but not enough. It remains that a woman who has been a homemaker-spouse for many years might not be able to get a job in the time a judge expected. How can she then return after her fixed-term maintenance is over with the argument that her circumstances have changed, something which the law requires, when her circumstances have not changed? She does not have a job and that is precisely the problem. We proposed an amendment which would have taken care of this situation. Unfortunately, while it was supported very broadly by the women's movement and urged by many women's organizations, it was not accepted by the Government.
We know the circumstances that divorced women face. On average, a year after a divorce, there is a 42 per cent increase in the standard of living for the husband but a 73 per cent decrease in the standard of living for the wife and children. This is unconscionable. While this low level of support is actually the case, the Government is not taking these facts of life seriously enough. The levels of maintenance are too low.
We proposed that very specific criteria be written into the law to ensure that there be some equality between the spouses after the divorce. In the case of a family that has lived together for many years and has had shared expectations of their standard of living, the wife at age 50 or 60 might indeed be able to get a job and become economically self-sufficient as the law requires. She may just be able to make ends meet, but having been in a marriage for 30 years, perhaps to a professional spouse, and having led a different kind of lifestyle, it seems very unfair that she should lose the standard of living to which she had become accustomed. Nowhere is it stated that equality of conditions should be made the object. They may be made the object by a judge, but that is not absolutely clear. When we consider the type of awards which are being made, and when we consider the decline in the standard of living, which is the result of court orders at the present time, we have to be worried, indeed. In fact, women are losing some of their negotiating power as a result of the one-year separation provision becoming grounds for divorce in most cases. So one might even worry that these awards could be lower still.
For those who might be worried about the problem concerning the husband not being able to pay adequate maintenance, and presumably there are some such cases-we expect they
January 23, 1986

are few indeed-we must consider that Manitoba is able to collect 85 per cent of awarded maintenance. Clearly, husbands are able to pay. The old myth that they cannot is just a convenient excuse, and one which is certainly unfair. In fact, studies for Ontario show that the average award for spouse and children amounts to only 20 per cent of the after-tax income of the income-earning spouse. That is not a great deal of money. Yet, we do not see anything to ensure that there will be greater fairness. We know that maintenance awards have not been keeping up with the cost of living and that even while wages were rising-and they are not right now-they were not keeping up with those rising wages.

Bills C-46, C-47 and C-48 include very important amendments to the existing legislation. However, there are still deficiencies. Because of this, there will be cases of extreme hardship. Let us think about the woman who has stayed home to take care of the children of the marriage. The woman does not want a divorce. She has no opportunity at this time in her life to become economically independent. She has nearly reached the age of retirement. Unfortunately, such cases exist. If she finds a badly paid job without any experience on the labor market, it is very unlikely that she will ever have a pension because you have to contribute to a plan for years before being entitled to a pension.
What is even worse, a great many women are employed by small businesses which have no pension funds at all. A deficiency of the Bills under review is the lack of any automatic sharing of pension funds.
It is true that a majority of Canadian men and women are employed by corporations under provincial jurisdiction. But it would be quite possible to require the automatic sharing of pension funds under federal jurisdiction: The Public Service of Canada, Members of Parliament, judges, the Armed forces, banking establishments, airlines, insurance companies, which account for about 10 per cent of the work force. This sharing would be fair and a good example for the provinces to follow and adopt similar measures for situations under their jurisdiction.
It is a fact that most divorcing women are faced with a difficult situation. Without a right to half the pension funds, these women are forced to accept less. If they are in danger of losing custody of their children, they may be forced to give up their share of the pension to have access to their children. There have been cases where women had to negotiate between the conjugal home and the pension or between a maintenance and pension. Under theses circumstances, women generally choose on the basis of their immediate needs and give up their half of the pension, so that they will be poor when they reach retirement age. That is an unfair situation when we realize the contribution women make to their dependent children, their families, their marriages and the incomes of their husbands. It is clear that their husbands could not have earned high wages
Divorce Act
and obtained both promotions and pensions without the help of their wives at home.
It should be emphasized that the financial situation of women following divorce is generally very sad.
One year later, most women have seen their living standards lowered by 73 per cent, while their husbands' have improved by 42 per cent. That is under the present conditions where women have more negotiating power.
With the amended legislation, a financially dependent woman may be divorced against her will after one year of separation. She will no longer have the same means of negotiation.
It is the Government's responsibility to prepare very quickly a new bill to fill this gap. Justice demands an automatic sharing of the benefits of marriage, including and especially the pension.

Governments should move speedily toward creating a system for the collection of maintenance in co-operation with the provinces. We have seen some progress toward this end in the amendments which have been brought forward with respect to the divorce and maintenance legislation. However, they do not go far enough. In the Criminal Code, responsibility for the administration of justice is provincial. Yet, we have national statistics on computer Tiles listing criminals because it is important that a criminal not be able to use provincial boundaries to escape his responsibilities. These criminals could have committed some trivial crime such as pickpocketing or shoplifting. Yet, those who fail to pay maintenance are not included. I think it is sad that we have such a high priority for those types of matters and such a low priority for the needs of a family. We know it can be done. Manitoba has an excellent system. Quebec also has a system of collection in place.
What this Government should do, and what it is being urged to do by numerous women's organizations, is bring in a full system for collection of maintenance in conjunction with the provinces. Part of the responsibility is federal and part is provincial. However, the Government should not use the excuse of there being partial provincial responsibility for its failure to act. It is true that it has acted in some respects. We are pleased to see the possibility of garnishment of federal moneys and the possibility of the establishment of a repository for names. These moves will facilitate the additional collection of maintenance. However, they simply are not enough. We need a system which will be automatic. We also need some type of organization. It should not be up to the dependent spouse to have to hire a lawyer in order to go to court and go through all types of complicated and expensive procedures. We know that the system can be taken care of because we have these successful examples in place.
It is with mixed feelings that I support passage of this Bill. There have been improvements. There has been a simplification in procedure with respect to uncontested divorces. The acceptance of marriage breakdown as a criterion for divorce is

January 23, 1986
Divorce Act
there. It is not as complete as we would like to see it but it shows a step in the right direction. It is a step toward removing the adversarial way of approaching marital difficulties. We think it will promote reconciliation and facilitate better relations with children and better relations between spouses who must continue to interact even if they are divorced for the sake of the children.
Reconciliation is dealt with in the Divorce Act. There is a recognition of the rights and needs of both parents to access. There is also recognition of the rights and needs of other relatives, in particular, grandparents, who were previously ignored. There have been some improvements with respect to putting in place an adequate maintenance collection system but we have not gone the full way yet. There have been improvements, as I have said, but there are also dangers with this legislation. Now, there is the possibility of a one-year divorce. For couples in which one partner does not want a divorce, and for the partner who is economically dependent, this could be extremely difficult. The protections are not adequate in the case of the long-time, economically dependent homemaker spouse, that person who has contributed so much by raising the children, who has contributed so much to the family.
I am pleased that the Minister has said that he will look into the situation with respect to the Get and the possibility of taking some action on it. It is a complicated matter but an important one.
I am also pleased to see that the Minister of Justice has said that he will be looking into the operation of these new laws and that he will consider making changes as problems arise. I do not think he has to wait with respect to the issue of pension splitting. We know what justice is and we already know where the problems are. So while I welcome the Minister's willingness to make further changes, I would urge him to act in those areas where we know action needs to be taken. The Minister of Justice has a responsibility to act for justice. That means justice for the dependent person as well as for those who are independent. I would call upon him to make that criterion of justice his guidance as he reviews further revisions to our divorce laws.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Questions or comments? Resuming debate.


Mr. Rob Nicholson (Niagara Falls):: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to make a few comments on Bill C-47, the Divorce and Corollary Relief Act. This has always been a very difficult subject for Canadians. We do not have to go too far back in Canadian history to find that divorce for most people was simply impossible. I think that stems from a cultural and religious belief we have in the strenght of the family and of marriage. There was a tendency on the part of Canadians not to move forward in the area of divorce because it was felt that somehow we might cheapen the institution of marriage or it might lead to a breakdown of the family unit.
I remember as recently as 1974 when I was in law school being told point blank that divorce was against public policy in Canada and that while we have an absolute right to get married, we do not have the right to a divorce. That is something we had to establish to the satisfaction of a judge by means of a trial. So this is what we have come to and I must say, Mr. Speaker, that I had the same prejudice myself every time I heard Mr. Trudeau putting legislation before Parliament which would make divorce easier. I had the same reaction as many Canadians. I felt that it should be resisted.
However, we must come to the realization, and I think we have as Canadians, that marriages in many instances cannot and do not work and that the federal Government must use its legislative powers in that area.
Unfortunately, there are many people with religious convictions who perhaps misunderstand the legislation which is presently before this House. I would suggest to them, as I have stated to many of my clients, that the federal Government in this area is not threatening the jurisdiction of the church. There is a duality to marriage. For many people there is a sacramental or religious component. There is also the civil component in which the state is interested. But this confuses people. I have had clients of mine ask me: "I am proceeding with a church annulment. Will it be necessary for me to get a divorce?" I have to explain to them that, yes, it would be necessary. Just as the church cannot alter the marriage estate as far as the state is concerned, it also works in reverse. I suggest to them that they have nothing to worry about. The federal Government is just exercising its jurisdiction as it must, in coming to the realization that sometimes marriages just do not work.
The most important section with respect to the subject of divorce is Section 8 of the Act. That is the Section which establishes marriage breakdown as the grounds for divorce. It is a change in the Act. It shortens the period of time from three years to one year in which a person can apply to the court for a divorce on the basis of separation. I think that is a good thing. I think that is ample time to establish that a marriage is at an end and it is ample time for people to get their affairs in order. But it is not too long a time so that it serves as an impediment to people getting on with their lives. That was one of the unfortunate aspects of the old legislation. The three year and five year rules in the legislation meant that many people, because they did not qualify under that heading, had to go the fault route which produced, I think, some unfortunate consequences.
What it did by forcing people to go the fault route is make a difficult situation even worse. I have seen cases where divorce might have gone through very easily had it not been for many of the allegations which were contained in the petition for divorce. I have noticed in my short time in practice that many times lawyers, particularly older practitioners familiar with the rules prior to 1968, used to fill up the petition for divorce with as much dirt and as many accusations against the offending spouses as they could. Again, I always believed that this just made the situation much more difficult.
January 23, 1986

I think the one year route, however, to a large extent, gets around that problem. 1 do not believe that the arguments for leaving it at a three or five year period are really justified when we see what happens in the divorce courts.
I remember being in Welland County Court along with 30 other lawyers with our clients for the uncontested divorce list. In that jurisdiction the practice was that everyone was present in the court and then each case preceded with one after the other. I remember a case which was ahead of mine where the woman had to get up on the stand and indicate to the court in detail how her husband had beaten her. The final incident was that he had taken her by the hair and pulled her down the stairs. My client leaned over to me and said: "Is this necessary? And if so, why is it necessary?" My answer to her was that I did not know why it was. It seems to me that any arguments we might give as to the sanctity of marriage or the strengthening of the family unit would seem to be very hollow at that point.
I was very pleased when the Minister of Justice (Mr. Crosbie) came forward with these amendments, and I hope this House will take the opportunity to pass this legislation on third reading. Many people in my riding are waiting for the news of what this Chamber is doing and I urge my colleagues to expedite this Bill in order to make it the law of the land as soon as possible.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Questions or comments? Resuming debate.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to take part in the debate on this very important piece of legislation and to underline one of the comments made by my colleague, the Hon. Member for Niagara Falls (Mr. Nicholson). There are many pieces of legislation which pass this Chamber that go largely unrecognized by the Canadian public. However, I am sure that I, as well as all other Hon. Members of Parliament, have been the recipients of many phone calls and letters asking when Parliament is going to pass these long overdue changes to the Divorce Act. Certainly, we in the New Democratic Party are prepared to co-operate fully in the House, as we were in committee, in ensuring speedy passage of these long overdue changes. For that reason, I will certainly not take the full time available to me. I know that my colleague, the Hon. Member for Vancouver East (Ms. Mitchell) would like the opportunity to put a few remarks on the record as well, particularly in view of her responsibilities as the spokesperson for our Party on the status of women.
I want to make it very clear initially that we welcome this Bill as being a significant step forward in the current divorce legislation. Indeed, it is an improvement on the previous predecessor Bill, Bill C-10, the Bill tabled by the previous Government. At the same time, I want to pay tribute to my colleagues from all Parties who were on the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs, which was and is ably chaired by the Hon. Member for Lethbridge-Foothills (Mr. Thacker). Certainly, he and his colleagues, including the Hon. Member for Capilano (Mrs. Collins), who I see in the House, and the
Divorce Act
Hon. Member for Niagara Falls, the Hon. Member for Mount Royal (Mrs. Finestone), my colleague, the Hon. Member for Broadview-Greenwood (Ms. McDonald), and other Hon. Members. They all worked hard in committee to improve this Bill. I know there were a number of amendments which were adopted that certainly had that effect.
I would like to indicate as well that while we support the thrust of this legislation-and I am speaking now about all three Bills-there certainly remain serious concerns in two or three key areas. The first concern is with the decision of the Government to retain certain fault grounds for divorce. It would be our submission and it certainly has been our submission and, indeed, the submission of many witnesses who appeared before the committee, that it is a serious mistake to retain the fault grounds of adultery and cruelty in this Bill. The retention of those grounds will add to the pain, suffering and hardship which results at the time of divorce.
I would like to emphasize as well that we are dealing with marriages which have broken down, which have failed, and to those who argue that somehow the passage of this legislation is going to erode the sanctity of the institution of marriage, I would underline this fact. The fact is we should not be adding to the trauma and pain of a divorce. We should have it in our power to make that difficult situation less difficult and, to the extent possible, less costly. The Catholic Women's League made representations to both this Government and the previous Government with respect to the inclusion of grounds. I could do no better than to quote from their very strong and eloquent statement as to why grounds should not be retained. They said:
The present system of having to "air one's marital laundry" in a public courtroom seems both demeaning and time-consuming.
It is obvious that at a point of time where the matter is being heard by a Divorce Court Judge, any possibility of reconciliation has long since dissipated. The present system appears to lend itself to a good deal of mutual disrespect and disposes of any possible future friendship the spouses may have. Furthermore, the accusations and counter-accusations of the present adversarial system seem to do a great deal of harm to the familial relationship which often-times must survive the dissolution of a marriage because of children.
We strongly support elimination of the fault grounds in this Bill. Indeed, as long ago as 1966-67 Members of the NDP proposed precisely that. This was at the time the Divorce Act was initially adopted.
There are some who say that the retention of fault grounds is necessary because people want to get out early. Studies have shown clearly that where fault grounds are retained they will be used by those partners who want to end the divorce quickly. However, not only does that cause additional pain and hardship for the partners in some cases, it also causes hardship for the children and it can bring the administration of justice into disrepute. We all know, particularly those of us who have practised law, of instances in which evidence of adultery is effectively fabricated or constructed. The plainclothes detective is hired, appears in the window, files his affidavit and of course the divorce is granted on the grounds of manufactured

January 23, 1986
Divorce Act
adultery. Certainly the continuation of that system is not one which we can support.
The second major area of concern we have with respect to this legislation is the weakness in the area of support and maintenance. I spoke earlier today about the very severe problems caused by this Bill with respect to time-limited maintenance orders. The Government deliberately decided to overrule the Supreme Court of Canada decision in Messier vs. Delage which said that judges cannot gaze into their crystal balls and infallibly predict who will and who will not require support at the end of a fixed term of two or three years. That is why we in the NDP propose an amendment which would give discretion to the judiciary to continue an order if indeed the spouse was unable to find work or be suitably retrained.
I would note as well that it is important that in a time of economic and social instability the Government should be doing all it can to encourage and strengthen the family. For example, there is a need for more accessible child care, shelters for battered women, and enactment of measures designed to achieve full economic equality for women.
In this regard 1 would point out the very serious importance of laws which would overhaul Canada's pension system and ensure that the current discrimination against elderly women be ended. As well, the Government, by proposing measures such as the deindexation of family allowances and the child tax credit, is simply adding to the economic stresses faced by families today. Indeed, those stresses can themselves contribute to the breakup of families. So we believe that the criteria for support should have been significantly improved, as well as in particular, with the concerns already expressed with respect to time-limited maintenance orders.
In conclusion I want to underline the fact that we are supporting this legislation as a significant step forward. Certainly with respect to the question of maintenance, as my colleague from Broadview-Greenwood said earlier, we support the concept of national enforcement. The Province of Manitoba, under an NDP Government, has led the way in showing how such orders can effectively be enforced through a provincial enforcement agency. We believe that the constitutional arguments raised against this proposal by the federal Government are without substance. We would support the creation of a national enforcement agency so that women do not continue to be the victims of unpaid maintenance orders.
As well, the committee itself made a number of significant improvements in response to the concerns raised by witnesses appearing on behalf of fathers' groups. Time is limited and I am not going to outline each of the improvements, but certainly the committee took seriously its responsibility in this area. I know that fathers' groups feel that in some cases, particularly on the question of the presumption of joint custody, the committee did not go far enough but certainly there were improvements made and I think the House should recognize and support those improvements. Finally, I want to again commend the members of the committee who played an active role in improving this legislation and indicate that we in this Party are not going to wait five years for improvement. Both
myself and my colleague from Vancouver East, as well as my colleague from Broadview-Greenwood, will be bringing forward in the very near future Private Members' Bills to improve this legislation and to ensure that the grounds are eliminated and the economic hardship facing older women in particular will not be aggravated by this divorce legislation.


Hon. Allan B. McKinnon (Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, I take great pleasure in supporting this Bill in the few minutes remaining. It has been a long time coming and many tens of thousands of people have been waiting to see it pass through the House.
My concern relates to the predicament of wives, some of them of longstanding, who, after being deserted by a husband, find themselves after a period of one year in a divorce situation through no choice or fault of their own. Whether or not they will be fairly treated will depend on this Bill and some of the regulations which will flow from it.
I sympathize with the Minister of Justice (Mr. Crosbie) in trying to bring in a Bill which will cover all the different Acts in effect in this area. We have paid particular attention to widows and divorces. 1 do believe we have missed out badly in looking after divorced widows. When they draw a pension there is no guarantee that on the expiration of their ex-husband they will continue to draw that part of the pension. That is what I wish to address myself to.
It is generally accepted now in our more civilized society that a spouse has an express interest and equity in pensions earned while she is sharing a household and doing her share of the family duties with a person qualifying for a pension. I was pleased to note the recent order took into account a case which is all too familiar to many of us in our constituency offices. It involved a wife who worked while she put her husband through school. When he got a much higher education and was able to move into a professional status, he then decided to get divorced. There is now a precedent for the divorcee to be considered to have an earned share in the increased ability of the husband to earn money. Surely the same thing applies to servicemen and civil servants who draw pensions.
In the case of widows, the budget papers indicated that pension plans would be required to provide benefits to surviving spouses of plan members who are retired at the time of death. The benefit to the survivor will be no less than 60 per cent of the amount payable had both spouses lived. Survivor pensions will no longer be terminated if the survivor remarries.
In the case of divorcees the budget papers indicated that the value of pension credits and pensions already being paid will be split equally between spouses upon marriage breakdown to reflect the pension credits earned during the period of the marriage.
There is obvious concern in the proposed reforms to private sector pensions that provision be made to ensure fair treatment of women who are divorced or widowed. My plea is that we
January 23, 1986

think of the one part that is still missing, that is the divorced widow.
I do not wish to take up a great deal of time today in the closing steps of this Bill, Mr. Speaker. I would like to compliment the Minister of Justice for bringing it forward. I would also like to compliment the sensible suggestions which came from some members of the Opposition.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, I hope you will notify me when there is one minute remaining in the allotted time.
Forty per cent of Canadian marriages end in divorce. Single-parent families are the fastest growing type of family in our society. There was a 50 per cent increase between 1971 and 1981. We know that most mothers are left to be the head of single-parent families with inadequate support. Largely as a result of this one fact we have had a dramatic increase in the incidence of poverty.
When a marriage ends in divorce the woman's average income falls by 73 per cent and the man's average income rises by 42 per cent. In 16 out of 17 cases the women get custody of the children. However, 85 per cent of divorced women get no alimony at all. As for child support, when this is paid, the average award is only $200 a month for two children. This proves how drastically we need reform in the issue of divorce. It proves even more that we need basic security and protections, basically for the woman, her children, and her later years following divorce.
There are many aspects of Bills C-48 and 49 which we have supported. My colleagues have elaborated on this in considerable detail. We agree with no-fault divorce provided there is adequate financial support. That has been our main concern, and we regret very much that our amendments were not accepted.
The real weakness of the new legislation is the fixed term maintenance order which fixes maintenance awards for three years and does not allow for an extension. There are some other things which we do agree with in the Bill. As my colleagues have said, there is some exchange of information that will assist in locating defaulting spouses. However, we appeal to the Government to take much more drastic action along the lines of that taken by Manitoba which has a provincial enforcement rate of 85 per cent in the collection of support orders.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Is the House ready for the question?


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Mr. Crosbie (St. John's West) moved that Bill C-46, an Act to amend the Divorce Act, be now read a third time and do pass. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Mr. Crosbie (St. John's West) moved that Bill C-47, and Act respecting divorce and corollary relief, be now read a third time and do pass. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Mr. Crosbie (St. John's West) moved that Bill C-48, an Act to provide for the release of information that may assist in locating defaulting spouses and other persons and to permit, for the enforcement of support orders and support provisions,the garnishment and attachment of certain moneys payable by Her Majesty in right of Canada, be now read a third time and do pass. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the third time and passed. [Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: It being now 5.35 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members Business as listed on today's Order Paper.


PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS-PUBLIC BILLS   CRIME VICTIMS ASSISTANCE ACT MEASURE TO ENACT
Mr. Howard Crosby (Halifax West) moved: that Bill C-241, an Act to provide assistance for victims of crime, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.
He said: Mr. Speaker, in specific terms 1 am asking the House of Commons to give second reading to Bill C-241 which enacts the Crime Victims Assistance Act. My real purpose is to present the broader context of the subject of victims of crime. The role of victims in the criminal process has never been recognized in Canada and my purpose is to draw attention to that fact.
Hopefully the House and the committees of the House will give consideration in the future to the role of victims of crime in the criminal process. It goes without saying, Mr. Speaker, that I would accept an amendment to the motion to give second reading that would allow the subject matter of the

January 23, 1986
Crime Victims Assistance Act
status of victims of crime to be referred to an appropriate committee of the House such as the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.
I will begin by explaining my motive in presenting this Bill to the House of Commons. Over many years of involvement with the administration of justice in Canada, I have noted on numerous occasions that victims of crime have in fact been the victims of the court process as well as victims of the criminal act which resulted in the court process. In many cases victims of crime are unaware of the criminal proceedings and the investigations leading up to the actual case before the court in Canada and, generally speaking, have no information on the investigation or the court processes. That is a matter to which I attempted to direct attention in the Bill.
Apart from that, Mr. Speaker, time and again we have seen persons victimized by criminal acts going without compensation. That is a very difficult subject involving both federal and provincial jurisdictions. Steps have been taken in many provinces and by the Government of Canada to provide a method of compensation. However, it is always difficult for the victim of a crime, arid the family of a victim of a crime, to see a criminal offender walk away from a court after having inflicted personal injury or committed damage to property of the victim of a crime, without any requirement that any compensation be made or any retribution be given by the perpetrator of the crime. That is the second point that is addressed in this Bill.
I would also like to make a few remarks generally about Private Members' Bills. I know that as solicitors in the Department of Justice review a Bill such as this there will be a tendency to pick away, not only at the letter of the law, but at the substance of it, and engage in constitutional and jurisdictional arguments. It is not the duty of a private Member who presents a Bill in the House of Commons to dot all the "i"s, and cross all the "t"s and come up with a perfect piece of legislation. A private Member's Bill is really a vehicle for focussing attention on the subject matter of the Bill. I hope that if and when lawyers in the Department of Justice and elsewhere in the Government service have an opportunity to review the provisions of the Bill they will realize that the general intention is to aid and assist victims of crime rather than to establish a legal precedent that will stand the test of time, one that is emblazoned in iron or chiselled in stone. It is simply a document that presents a possible beginning to the resolution of a real social problem. It is with that in mind, Mr. Speaker, that I take the liberty of pointing out to the House of Commons some of the provisions of this Bill.
Basically, this legislation dealing with assistance to victims of crime has two major features. First, it makes provision for informing the victim of a crime, or the family of a victim in the case of a fatality, of the facts concerning the investigation as the investigation by the police and other officers proceeds. When that investigation reaches the point of court action, which, as my legal colleagues know, under a criminal process
begins with the laying of an information against an accused person, the victim then is informed of the fact and of all the subsequent proceedings in respect of that information.
I am sure many lawyers may quarrel with the process and procedures that have been suggested by this Bill, but the fact is that in our criminal process under the Criminal Code of Canada an informant or person who lays an information-the person who actually makes the charge-has a status in the legal proceedings. Therefore, if the victim of a crime is also the informant, in that capacity they have a right to receive information and documentation concerning the case before the courts.
I am simply giving to any and all victims of a crime, or representatives of the victim of a crime in the case of a fatality, the status of informant and the right on their part and the obligation on the part of the police and the court officials to keep that victim or victim's representative informed of all the proceedings. I do not believe there is anything novel or difficult about that concept.
The second major feature of the Bill concerns a right given to a victim or the family, in the case of a deceased victim, to recover compensation from the offender. Those provisions may present greater difficulty. Let me explain my motive in attempting to codify this right into law.
Based on my experience, in many cases unless the compensation that might be provided to a victim of crime is provided quickly and expeditiously, with a minimum of legal difficulty, no compensation whatever will be recovered. It is trite to say that the victim of a crime has a right to sue in civil courts, a right that is protected by many provisions, both for the plaintiff, or claimant, and the defendant, or the person defending against the claim. However, there is a need and I believe a right on the part of a victim of crime in our society to more immediate redress.
I have attempted to establish that process and procedure which would provide that more immediate redress. I direct Members attention to that specific provision of the bill. Again, it is not without fault or difficulty and I would be the last to pretend that it does not present certain difficulties. However, it is based on a known and recognized principle of criminal law. For many years the Criminal Code of Canada has provided for restitution as part of the punishment or penalty imposed on the accused and convicted person. It is not entirely novel although it may be a new approach.
The point of the Bill is to provide two major features to aid and assist a victim of a crime. The first feature is that the victim receives information from the police and other officials with respect to the investigation of the crime and that they are kept informed of the court proceedings after a charge is laid and a court process is begun.
The second feature is a right to quick redress and compensation in certain circumstances and cases. I do not expect the House of Commons to endorse this Bill and all its provisions. However, I believe there is a real interest not only in the House but across the country to provide some assistance to
January 23, 1986

victims of crime. If that is the desire of the House, and I believe it is the desire of Canadians, I ask the House to take some action to see that this subject matter is continued and attention is focused on it through our parliamentary process.
Dealing more generally with the subject of victims of crime, I want to point out to Members, as it has been pointed out to me on many occasions, that victims of crime have no role in the criminal justice system. They are the forgotten people. Over the years we have seen a great deal of public attention focused on the rights of persons suspected of criminal offences and the rights of persons charged with criminal offences. However, very little attention has been focused on the victims of criminal acts. I believe it is time that we change this and do something about the victims of crime.
I was pleased to be one of the Members of the House to have endorsed the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and all of its provisions that are applicable to persons who are suspected and charged with crime. I think we have some obligation to look at the other side of the coin. I cannot believe that Members of the House do not agree with that proposition.
I want to bring two specific points to the attention of Members of the House. One is the cost of the crime in relation to the victims of crime. I have a report that emanated from the Solicitor General of Canada (Mr. Beatty) that gives some details of the cost of crime to victims in Canada. I will simply provide one statistic contained in that report. As a result of a survey conducted through seven cities in Canada, it was determined that the cost of crime to victims in those seven cities in a one-year period was $431 million. That amount is made up of $211 million in unrecovered property and cash; $41.9 million in damage to property; $7 million in associated medical expenses and lost wages and, apart from that direct loss, claims of $170 million were paid out to victims by insurance companies. Therefore, we are talking about a significant problem and one that affects many Canadians.
In a more ideal society than we have in Canada in 1986-I know we are working to make it a better society-we would have a victim's bill of rights. I am sure many agree that victims of crime need special protection and ought to have special consideration under the law. A victim's bill of rights has been established, as I understand it, in 30 state legislature across the United States.
One might ask: What is a victim's bill of rights? I understand that it is a reference to a package of concerns to establish fair standards for treatment of victims and witnesses. While the legislation apparently varies from state to state, these standards include protection from intimidation and harm, the right to information about the case, the right to submit a statement to the court at the time of sentencing during plea bargaining or case dismissal, the return of property and the right to lost employment or wages.
I have only addressed two elements of a victim's bill of rights in Bill C-241. They are the right to information and a method of providing immediate redress and compensation. We still have a long way to go. It is not in any way a perfect document, and I am sure my colleagues in the House will
Crime Victims Assistance Act
remind me of that very soon. However, it is simply a start. I am attempting to draw attention to the plight of victims of crime. I am trying to demonstrate that something can be done through legislation to redress some of the wrongs of the past.
I am simply asking the House to make a start by referring the subject matter of this Bill to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs. I hope my colleagues in the House will see fit to take that action so we may look at the neglected people in the criminal justice system, the victims of crime.


Hon. Donald J. Johnston (Saint-Henri-Westmount):: Mr. Speaker, I do not think the Hon. Member for Halifax West (Mr. Crosby) should apologize for his Bill. I congratulate him on his initiative. Any Bill of this kind requires much study. The subject is important.
Speaking as a Member and as a former Minister of Justice and Attorney General, I think the time for us to address this issue is long overdue, as it is also, I suggest, for the issue of compensation for those individuals who are accused and acquitted of crimes, sometimes with very serious disastrous financial consequences to them.
That being said, I do not want to go on at any great length about this Bill, other than to express my own view, which I am sure is shared by all my colleagues, that this is a matter which should be addressed by the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.
I for one believe, and I hope other Members will agree, that indeed this matter should be referred and considered with a view to addressing the Bill, the technical assets of it and some of the other issues which obviously, as the Hon. Member has said, may indeed be incomplete. It is a private Members' Bill. I heartily support the thrust and the initiative.
Once again, I congratulate my friend from Halifax West and I encourage my fellow members to support the reference.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise on this important legislation to indicate on behalf of the New Democratic Party, as Justice spokesman for my Party, that we fully support the reference of the subject matter to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.
Certainly the question of victims' rights and the extent to which victims have been ignored traditionally in the criminal justice process is one which has, over the last three or four years, been very much coming to the fore. There have been a number of conferences, books and draft conventions. Indeed, the United Nations dealt with the subject at the last congress on the prevention of crime.
The whole question of the status of victims of crime has been drawn to my attention, not just in an abstract way but in a very real way, through a number of families, including a family in my own constituency of Burnaby, a mother, Mrs. Jacqueline Helm, whose daughter was murdered and who came to my office afterward and told me about the way in which her family was denied access to information and were

January 23, 1986
Crime Victims Assistance Act
systematically dealt with in a manner that was insensitive and which failed to reflect the concerns they had about the outcome of the trial, their sense of loss, and their lack of awareness of what was going on.
There are a couple of major concerns in the area of victims' rights. It is the view of victims of crime, and I am referring now to the report of the Canadian Federal Provincial Task Force on Justice for Victims of Crime, that they need more assistance to deal with their losses and suffering.
In speaking of the families of victims the task force stated that in addition they believe they should be compensated adequately for any loss or suffering which they have endured. Many of them also feel that they need to be active participants in the justice process. Most important, I hear the cry for more information and awareness about what is going on.
Many victims find themselves confused and bewildered by the criminal justice system, not just in terms of the specific case but basic questions as to how the system operates. Why is it the property they may have had stolen from them cannot be returned to them immediately? Why was a particular charge reduced? What was the nature of the plea bargaining that took place? Why did the trial have to be adjourned? Why was the individual not informed as a victim when the jury were to come in with their verdict? Why was restitution not ordered? What sort of criminal injuries compensation is available? And so on.
I see the Hon. Member for Ontario (Mr. Fennell) is in the House today. I want to commend the work he has done on behalf of victims of crime. Since he was first elected as a Member he has worked particularly hard with a group "Victims and Violence" and Don Sullivan to try to improve the quality of services to victims in Canada.
There is not just a need for information, Mr. Speaker, but as well the need for services for victims. I would point out the acute shortage of transition houses and rape crisis centres in our communities for victims of sexual assault, the importance of funding for crisis intervention centres and the training of workers within the system to recognize and respond to the needs of victims and to help the victims financially where there has been loss and suffering.
I think it is also important that we as a Parliament do what we can to prevent crime and thus to reduce the number of victims and potential victims of crime. We must attack the causes of crime.
The Senate committee has identified a number of causes in an excellent report which that Committee called "Child at Risk". The Canadian Council on Social Development and the Canadian Criminal Justice Association have talked about the importance of crime prevention through social development programs; attacking unemployment, particularly among young people; attacking poverty and the appallingly inadequate levels of welfare, particularly for single parents; the enhancing of programs for dealing with learning disabilities; the whole question of violence in our society, violence on TV, for example, and in the media; reducing the level of violence, the
Rambo mentality which is so prevalent and the video games which children are playing involving killing as many potential victims as possible within as short a time as possible. We have to look at the violence ethic in our society. We have to look at effective forms of gun control to ensure that the level of violence is reduced and the number of potential victims is reduced.
We must not forget that there are also victims of crime within the prison system. Because people lose their liberty and are sentenced to terms of imprisonment does not mean they lose all of their rights. We must ensure where prisoners are victims of violence, as at Archambault prison not that long ago, that they too are provided with services. Hopefully that kind of violence at the hands of the state will not be tolerated or permitted.
As well, it is important we not just consider traditional forms of crime and traditional victims. One of the important themes of the United Nations in the work it has done on victims of crime is to ensure consideration of non traditional forms of crime as well. We must consider the victims of environmental pollution; victims of the destruction of our environment and our native people who are the victims of mercury poisoning in northwestern Ontario. We have to look at victims of environmental crime. Working men and women who are maimed and killed on the job are victims, and victims of what I consider to be crimes. We must look at abuses of power in our society, at corporate fraud, at negligence in the pursuit of profit and the unsafe and hazardous products that are inflicted upon us. There are victims in those areas of crime as well.
The range of concerns which must be addressed by the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs in examining the whole question of victims' rights is very broad indeed. We must look at victim input in the whole question of the laying of charges, victims' rights to fundamental information, pre-trial hearings, perhaps involving the victim and the accused and what is the onus of the burden of proof. As well we must look at the whole question of victim impact statements. This issue has been raised, and the implications have to be carefully examined. We have the role of the victim in the sentencing process and methods of determining compensation for victims. The Justice Committee will have an onerous task ahead of it.
1 commend the Hon. Member for Halifax West (Mr. Crosby) for bringing this matter before the House. Certainly while I do have some questions about the specific details of his private Members' Bill, 1 am pleased to rise in support of the reference of this important subject matter for the rights of victims of crime and their families to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs. I hope that that committee will give this subject the full and comprehensive study it so deserves.


Mr. Patrick Boyer (Etobicoke-Lakeshore):: Mr. Speaker, the debate over the last few moments indicates very clearly
January 23, 1986

that we now have before the House an idea whose time has come. I salute the Hon. Member for Halifax West (Mr. Crosby) for bringing the matter of compensation for victims of crime to the attention of the thirty-third Parliament. As clearly evidenced by what was said by the Hon. Member for Saint-Henri-Westmount (Mr. Johnston) and the Hon. Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson), this matter will have the support of Hon. Members on all sides of the House to go to committee where it can be thoroughly aired and proper legislation brought forward.
The Hon. Member for Burnaby, in his usual scholarly way, referred to the many studies and works which have gone on up until now to deal with aspects of this problem. The Hon. Member for Halifax West clearly outlined why this is timely. Certainly in the evolution of law, legal recourse and remedy in the country, it has been an important development in shifting from tort law to a statutory right for compensation for victims of crime. We have seen this evolution beginning with such statutes as the Ontario statute providing compensation for victims of crime and the formation in the Province of Ontario of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board. At the beginning it was viewed as a remarkable departure, but now it has become more and more accepted and the concept of compensating victims of crime has been happily and speedily reconciled with other areas of tort law in criminal procedure.
I share the concern raised by the Hon. Member for Burnaby as far as factors in our society which lead to crime are concerned, and particularly reflect upon his point about violence on television. But a few weeks ago in my constituency of Etobicoke-Lakeshore we held a public forum on family violence. In the course of that evening's session, Ms. Diane Pone, who is with the National Clearing House on Family Violence of the federal Government, reported on a conference which she had just that week attended in Chicago.
Something which is now developing in the United States- and we in Etobicoke-Lakeshore are in the course of pursuing it-is to have people monitoring television programs on which there is undue violence, noting which companies are sponsoring those programs, communicating with those advertisers and asking them whether they realize the amount of violence being portrayed in the programs which they are sponsoring. If they do, they are asked whether they are consciously doing it or whether they would agree either to cease supporting the programs through their advertising dollars or at least give the program producers a reflection of the concern which they get from the community. I do not think that these questions can be solved once and for all, and in the abstract. 1 look on this as an important development at the local level. It is beginning to put public pressure reflecting the genuine community concern on those who are disseminating such an unwarranted level of violence through society over the air waves.
I should like to make my final point. Again reflecting upon my point about the local initiative to respond to some of the problems of violence and referring to the organization, Victims of Violence, it is interesting and perhaps timely that just 24 hours ago in my constituency office in Etobicoke-Lakeshore I
Crime Victims Assistance Act
was meeting with Gordon Kearns and his wife, Lillian. They are certainly aware of the issues which we are now discussing because their daughter and their two grandchildren were murdered. They, along with others, were the founders of Victims of Violence National Link. Lillian Kearns, a constituent of mine, is Treasurer of this organization. They provided me with two brochures which are being distributed by the organization-one called "It Could Happen to You" and the other, a more descriptive pamphlet of the services which this very important community organization is providing.
I should point out that the organization is referred to in the police brochures of both the Metropolitan Toronto Police Force and the Peel Regional Police Force. There is an effective working relationship between Victims of Violence National and these two police forces. One idea which is central here is that violence does not discriminate. Men, women and children at all levels, in all walks of society, are victims of crime. The concept that it could happen to you is never more true than in this area.
The representatives of Victims of Violence came to see me for the same reason they have been seeing the Hon. Member for Ontario (Mr. Fennell). They have had difficulty with the Department of National Revenue getting registration for charitable purposes, which of course would be a great boon in their efforts to raise funds to continue their very worth-while support services to families who are cruelly bereaved through murder, or victims of other crimes. This is something on which the Hon. Member for Ontario and I are working, to see whatever changes are required in their application or their letters patent, and to see that whatever needs to be done be done swiftly so that the very important support work of the organization can proceed with all possible support.
That is one way in which community groups are doing their best. They will also get a very strong signal from the Government, from this Parliament, when the Bill which has been brought before the House by the Hon. Member for Halifax West is referred to committee and there considered fully so that we can, in turn, have proper legislation going forward for those too often ignored in the criminal justice process, the victims themselves. The ones who are most often forgotten or are left in the shadow of the process involving all machinery of justice, police investigation, criminal trial and incarceration, are the victims themselves. From speaking with the Solicitor General of Canada (Mr. Beatty) I know that he is extremely mindful of the role and importance of seeing that victims are getting a fair share of attention and that their rights are respected. In our criminal justice system, while doing all that is necessary and appropriate for those who have perpetrated crimes, we must be mindful that the rights of victims must be upheld.
I applaud the Hon. Member for Halifax West for bringing the Bill before the House. I join with other Hon. Members who have urged that the subject matter of the Bill go to committee and there, I hope, receive full and prompt attention.
10124

January 23, 1986
Crime Victims Assistance Act


Mr. Scott Fennell (Ontario):: Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege, and it gives me great pleasure to speak on this subject today.
In 1981 a young girl lost her life. A young man was allowed out on mandatory supervision. Her father came to me and asked me what he should do. We spent a great deal of time together over the next few months trying to find out if the local police department had been notified that the young man who had committed the crime had been released from prison. Unfortunately, due to a strike in an office somewhere between Kingston and Oshawa, the local police department was not notified of this.
The victim's father, Don Sullivan, was a very distraught man at that time. Don has had the courage, dedication and leadership to help bring this Bill to the House for second reading. Don has done a great deal for humanity and a great deal for Canadians. He had to suffer throughout the terrible period of the trial when he could not receive information and did not know if the young man who had killed his daughter was in or out of jail. He received absolutely no co-operation from enforcement officers.
Don Sullivan created Victims of Violence as a result of a phone call he received one night from a mother who had experienced the same kind of tragedy. The two of them started it all at a kitchen table in Scarborough.
In 1982, Don Sullivan came to me for help. He never asked for a hand-out. He never wanted a grant to help him try to represent the victims. Once he started doing this, many people began coming to him. He had long-distance telephone call expenses. He had lost his job as a taxi driver. He was unemployed for a short period of time and then took on a job with the Harbour Commission police force in Toronto.
In coming to me for help, Don only asked that his organization be permitted to try to raise money through donations that could be tax deductible. He wanted to get a tax number from Ottawa. I ran into roadblocks that I could not have imagined when trying to provide this man with a tax number to permit him to raise funds to pay for his long-distance telephone calls, his postage and the information he was sending to other suffering people across the country.
I would like to tell the House of one other thing that occurred in order to prove the importance of victims rights. The husband of a lady who lives about three miles from me. One night tried to stop a vehicle one night. The occupants were stealing some tires that were chained to a tree in a rural area. The vehicle with the people who were trying to steal the tires drove off, dragged the man down the road and killed him. To this day no one knows who was in that vehicle. The wife of the man who was killed has suffered through hell since that time. She was never kept informed of what the police were trying to do to resolve the crime. She was never told anything. She was kept in the dark.
Finally, I went to see Don and told him that I had a problem. I asked if he could help me. Don called this lady and went to see her. That is the kind of person he is. He did this
totally voluntarily. After he had seen her, she called me to tell me that she now felt she had someone with whom she could communicate. She realized that there was a group of people who had suffered the way she had.
Victims of crimes are ill treated and kept in the dark. We give all the protections that exist under the Bill of Rights to the murderers, the robbers and those who do wrong. However, we fail to look after those important members of our society who suffer, the victims. I suppose even I do not know how tough it is to experience a loss such as that suffered by Don Sullivan. However, I lived with his experience for some time.
Don has proved to be quite a force across the country. He has spent his own money. Organizations like Canadian Pacific Airlines have assisted him as he has travelled across the country. However, the only people who have not listened to Don Sullivan are those in the Government of Canada. 1 say hurrah to the Conservative Government. I am not being partisan, I am simply being supportive of Don Sullivan. The Conservative Government has taken this Bill seriously and is moving it to the Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs so that we, on behalf of those people who have suffered, can deal with the issue of bringing into force victims' rights, and do for those people that which is absolutely essential in this day and age.
I must say that the former Solicitor General, the Hon. Member for Central Nova (Mr. MacKay), acted exceptionally. He visited Mr. Sullivan, listened to him and told him that he had to do something about this. Then he started doing something. I understand that the Department has been in touch with Don since then. However, the critical action is in the form of this Bill, and I would like to pay my sincere and heartfelt thanks to the Hon. Member for Halifax West for bringing it before the House. I myself have been trying to draft a similar Bill. I am not a lawyer, but along with my assistant we have been working on it in an attempt to make its provisions very thorough. Perhaps she will be able to have some input and offer information that will be required for the deliberations of the Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.
I also commend the Hon. Member for Burnaby who has been very active and supportive of victims over the years. As well, I would like to make particular mention of the Hon. Member for Edmonton-Strathcona (Mr. Kilgour) who was very helpful in supporting me in the creation of the western arm of Victims of Violence. The Hon. Member was able to go with Don Sullivan to help the organization establish a branch in western Canada.
A great many people have been touched by Victims of Violence. A great many people have become more complete human beings through their understanding of the message Victims of Violence is trying to get across. I hope the next time I rise to discuss this Bill in the House, it will have been finalized and will be acceptable to all the victims who have suffered over the last many years.


Rob Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to address the House this evening on the
January 23, 1986

subject of Bill C-241, the proposed Crime Victims Assistance Act. I too would like to extend my congratulations to the Hon. Member for Halifax West (Mr. Crosby) for bringing this very important subject before Parliament.
Victims of crime have a number of concerns relating to their role in the criminal justice system and the assistance they would like to have in order to participate in this system more fully and with greater awareness of their rights. In some cases, crime victims would like to see changes to the law that would enhance their status in criminal proceedings. This, of course, would have to be balanced with a number of factors, including the right of the accused to have a fair trial.
I have already received a letter from a lawyer in my riding of Niagara Falls who pointed out very thoroughly some of the problems an accused may have in getting a fair trial. However, at the same time, he and all of us recognize the need for more adequate protection of victims of crime. Any changes to the law must therefore give careful consideration to the many interests involved in order to ensure that the best solution is found to meet the concern in question.
The Bill before us attempts to ensure that adequate and fair compensation be awarded to crime victims.
Today, in Canada, crime victims have several means of recourse to some sort of compensation. First, there is the Criminal Code which makes limited provision for compensation, and the emphasis should be placed on the word "limited". I know that in most cases the victims of crime are not even aware of their right to appear before a court to make a claim for restitution.
Second, for many centuries the victims of crime have been able to pursue civil remedies, seeking redress through civil proceedings. Again, the utility of that measure is often called into question. Many times the perpetrator of the crime is an individual with no means of support. Other times the victim of the crime does not have the money to obtain legal counsel in order to pursue the matter through the courts.
There is also a third way by which victims of crimes can be compensated. I am referring to the criminal injuries compensation boards. I believe that in nine of the ten provinces, with the exception of Prince Edward Island, there is a criminal injuries compensation board in place. My experience in the Province of Ontario has not been very good in this respect. It is my belief that the awards by the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board of Ontario are not even coming close to compensating victims. Much more money, both from the federal Government and the provincial Government, has to go into this area.
Therefore, I believe there are shortcomings with respect to all three of the alternatives I have just mentioned. It is essential that the question of compensation be addressed in a much broader context, one that takes into account the existing measures to see how they can be improved upon.
Bill C-241 proposes to ensure that crime victims have access to compensation through criminal proceedings. It contemplates
Adjournment Debate
measures which go far beyond the present provisions, in some instances perhaps raising constitutional concerns. However, the spirit of the Bill is highly commendable. It attempts to provide for a one-stop shopping, more economical type of solution, providing for an enhanced role for victims in criminal proceedings, giving victims special standing in court proceedings and access to information which is not even available to the accused. These proposed changes, however, may not be the most desirable solution to address the issue of compensation to victims and the status of victims.
The question of how to provide assistance to crime victims has been under consideration in Canada at both levels of | Government. Both levels of Government have been actively following up on the 1983 task force report on justice for victims of crime. That report recommends a number of improvements, including legislative amendments which would better meet the concerns of victims. Compensation is one of the issues which received attention in the report. However, I do not think any solution in this area should be considered without reviewing, not just the task force report but all the different issues raised. That is why I believe there is a disposition in the House to have this matter referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs for full consideration. Accordingly, I move:
That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word "That" and substituting the following therefor:
"Bill C-241, an Act to provide assistance for victims of crime, be not now
read a second time but that the Order be discharged, the Bill withdrawn and
the subject-matter thereof referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and
Legal Affairs."


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion as amended?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Accordingly, the order is discharged, the Bill withdrawn and the subject-matter thereof referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.
Order discharged and Bill withdrawn.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 46 deemed to have been moved.

Howard Edward Crosby: Mr. Speaker, it is my purpose in rising this evening to deal with the question I raised with the Solicitor General (Mr. Beatty) on December 18,

January 23, 1986
Adjournment Debate
1985, concerning missing children. I cannot help but think, as we have seen the disposition of the House with respect to the crime victims legislation which will now be referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs, that the House might have taken the same action with respect to a Bill I presented to the House on October 1, 1985, entitled the Missing Children's Search Act. Just as we considered crime victims in Private Members' Hour today, we might also turn our thoughts to the subject of missing children because, in many cases, those missing children are the victims of crime and criminal acts.
My specific reason for asking the Solicitor General that question on December 18, 1985, was that at of a press conference he held the day before in which he announced specific measures with respect to missing children. Among the measures announced by the Solicitor General was one to establish a central registry on missing children to be operated by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. It would obtain and maintain facts and other information concerning missing children across Canada. In addition, the Solicitor General announced an intention to form a Canadian information centre on missing children. Beyond that, the Solicitor General promised a national missing children's day, presumably to focus attention on the subject of missing children across Canada. He said that there would be a national conference on missing children.
When asked in the House with respect to the matter he indicated that the conference would be held as soon as possible. I hope the Parliamentary Secretary to the Solicitor General (Mr. Towers) will give us some information on when that conference might be held.
In addition, the Solicitor General announced a missing children's research project for the City of Montreal, the purpose of which would be to examine the facts and circumstances related to missing children in that city with a view to making recommendations on what further action might be taken.
My first duty is to compliment and congratulate the Solicitor General on taking these steps, because the subject of missing children-and it is a broad subject-has been almost totally neglected at the national level for the past decades as the problem has developed on the streets of urban centres and the roads of rural centres across Canada. I do not apologize at all for raising this subject as many times as I am given the opportunity to raise it in the House of Commons because the subject of missing children is only the tip of a much deeper iceberg, that is, the social wrongs which prevail against children in our society.
The Solicitor General, as I said, has proposed a project for the City of Montreal. I would like to refer specifically to activities in that city. I have before me a newspaper clipping from December of 1985 which quotes Thom Garfat, who is the Director of Treatment at the Youth Horizons Reception Centre in Montreal. He points out very graphically what is at the heart of my concern.
First, the article indicates that over 120,000, and as many as 150,000, children ran away from homes in Canada in the year 1984. That makes it a major problem in terms of numbers. One has to ask oneself: What happens to these runaways who do not return home or are not returned home? Unfortunately, Mr. Garfat provides the answer:
After a short time, some turn to prostitution to support themselves. Or they end up involved in breaking and entering, stealing credit cards and cash. They may even like it.
That is the problem I want to address. I hope the Solicitor General (Mr. Crosbie) will give grave consideration to this problem in the days, weeks and months which lie ahead, because missing children either are or become the victims of criminal activity and that is what makes it a problem for law enforcement agencies across Canada.
The Government of Canada and the Governments of each and every province and territory would be derelict in their duties to the youth of Canada if they did not address in very specific terms what has become the problem called "missing children". I should say that not only runaways create the problem. An even greater problem lies in the fact that children are being taken from their home environment by strangers or, indeed, by members of the families in situations where there are custodial or other family disputes. The point is that across North America we have a large number of young people who have become known as "missing". But the real situation, as pointed out by Mr. Garfat, is that the missing children have become victims of crime or get themselves into a criminal situation. If clear steps are not taken to rectify this situation, death and other forms of violence will result.
In my city of Halifax we have had a graphic demonstration of the dangers to young people on the streets of cities. There have been three teenage murders in a very short period of time. In at least two of the cases, the young girls had been engaged in prostitution. I suppose there are some people who would say that that situation should deprive those victims of sympathy, but that is not so. Quite to the contrary, it is people in that situation who should attract our attention and our sympathy because a young teenage girl involved in prostitution is a victim of our social structure and is not, in most cases, a voluntary actor in that kind of involvement.
I want to present to this House as many times as 1 have the opportunity the subject of missing children. As it states in the headline I have before me, missing children have become a U.S. national preoccupation. There are television programs put before a national audience about this subject. I believe Canadians are responding to the challenge to do something about missing children. I hope the Solicitor General and the Government of Canada can play a real and important role in that challenge to resolve the problem of missing children.


Mr. Gordon Towers (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, in a question to the Minister, the Hon. Member for Halifax West (Mr. Crosby) underlined the importance of measures we are taking on missing
January 23, 1986

children in Canada. He noted especially the urgent need for a national conference on missing children. I congratulate him on his initiative in bringing attention to this important matter.
While the main responsibility for the prevention, investigation and detection of missing children is on a local and provincial level, I feel there are a number of important steps which can be taken by the federal Government to respond to the problem. The most immediate and direct action which can be taken is to have the RCMP create a central registry of missing children in Ottawa in order to assist police forces and concerned agencies across Canada in locating and identifying missing children. An important by-product of such a registry is the generation of national statistics on missing children in Canada, data which we do not now have. We are also setting up four major research projects to examine the phenomenon of missing children in great detail. We must know much more about the dimensions of the problem and how different police departments attack the issue.
The first such project in Montreal should be up and going in about three months, thanks to the co-operation of the Quebec and Montreal urban community Governments. We are now negotiating with other jurisdictions with a view to developing three more research projects to delve into this complex problem. There will have to be continuing consultation between all levels of Government and provincial and municipal police forces, the private sector and, of course, the voluntary sector which has been doing so much good work in this area.
I see our role as one of getting the ball rolling and bringing the concerned parties together to collaborate and provide expertise from their own spheres of responsibility. To this end the Minister will convene in Ottawa in late April a national conference on missing children. This conference is urgently needed, as my hon. friend from Halifax West has noted. At this conference the Solicitor General will bring participants up-to-date on the development of the central registry and research projects. The conference will provide an important forum for the exchange of ideas and information. There will be a discussion on further measures that can be taken to respond to the problem of missing children.
Two important agenda items will be proposals made by the Solicitor General (Mr. Beatty) to establish the designation of May 25 as National Missing Children's Day to focus public attention on the measures that can be taken to minimize the risk of children becoming victims. The second item is for a Canadian Information Centre on missing children. The role and ambit of this Centre needs to be the subject of consultations with other levels of Government and the voluntary sector. However, I see it having the potential for an important role as a clearing house for the exchange of information on effective prevention programs and facilitating the co-ordination of efforts across Canada. It is our hope that private sector groups already involved with missing children will play an important role in the Centre.
Adjournment Debate
I must close, but in doing so let me say that I believe all Hon. Members and the people they represent are concerned for the thousands of children who go missing every year in Canada. They want to see elected representatives at all levels working with police and others to find solutions to this problem which causes so much needless anguish and suffering. I thank the Hon. Member for allowing us the opportunity of discussing this important matter at this time.


YOUNG OFFENDERS ACT-INTRODUCTION OF AMENDMENTS
Bill Attewell: Mr. Speaker, on January 16 I applauded the Solicitor General (Mr. Beatty) for his swift action in announcing a major overhaul of the Young Offenders Act. That Act came into being in 1982, and Phase II came into effect as of April 1, 1985. It involved raising the minimum age at which a youth could be tried in an adult court from 16 to 18, as well as raising the age at which a youth could be prosecuted from seven to 12. I have spoken on this important and vital issue on at least five occasions over the past year. I have from the start been totally supportive of the basic principles and philosophy of the Young Offenders Act. 1 would like to now just highlight the four principles which underlie this important piece of legislation.
First, young people are personally responsible for their acts and should be held accountable before the law. Second, young people, like all Canadian citizens, enjoy rights which are protected by the Bill of Rights and Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Third, society has a right to be protected from criminal behaviour. Fourth and last, juvenile justice laws and procedures must recognize and deal with the fact that young people have special needs because they are at various stages of development and maturity. If there is any group in society that deserves that second or third chance, it is our youth.
The Solicitor General has promised a reform package of legislation within the next two months. I would just like to highlight what I believe will be forthcoming. These are major improvements.
First, the procedures and language of the Act sometimes makes it difficult for the authorities to deal quickly and effectively with young offenders who have, for example, violated probation conditions or failed to keep the peace. Such limits are clearly unacceptable. Second, the rules which govern detention after arrest are inflexible and can cause hardship for both police and the young people affected.
For instance, just today, Mr. Speaker, I was talking with Inspector Jim Clarke, head of the Youth Bureau for Metropolitan Toronto. He was highlighting again the problem of detention. Under current provisions, if two youths are apprehended and one is under 12 and the other over 12, they cannot be placed in the same cruiser to be taken home. We had an example of that where the youths were brothers, and yet could not be sent home in the same cruiser. Of course this

January 23, 1986
Adjournment Debate
causes, particularly small municipalities, a real problem in terms of cost.
Third, there appears to be circumstances in which the inability of police to make names or other identifying information publicly known has been an impediment to effective law enforcement or has created an unreasonable risk to the public. This concerns the problem of missing children which, by coincidence, was debated just a few minutes ago. While it is essentially a provincial matter, I believe the federal Government can show leadership to try to get more consistency in these age ranges that exist throughout the country. For instance, in Quebec I believe the limit is up to 17 and in Ontario it is 16. I think we could play a leadership role in that particular area.
Fourth, there were no comprehensive records systems under the old law, but the Young Offenders Act has introduced such systems clearly authorizing the use of fingerprints, youth court records in an adult court, and so on. Unfortunately, the records provisions have created a wide range of technical and administrative problems. Indeed, I am told that there was not even a clear definition of what constituted a record.
Fifth, Mr. Speaker, modifications should be made to the Criminal Code provisions dealing with counselling criminal behaviour. No one who abuses children by involving them in criminal acts should be immune from criminal prosecution.
Sixth, the current provision requiring that the evidence of a child witness be corroborated by other evidence is clearly unacceptable. The court should assess the testimony on its own merits. Similarly, an oral statement made by an accused who refuses to sign a written waiver should be admissible on its merit.
Seventh, the language of the Act is now unclear about the maximum length of sentence that may be applied for subsequent convictions. The courts should be capable of imposing appropriate sentences for new crimes, with the result that the total sentence for different offences could be longer than three years. The current maximum sentence under the Young Offenders Act is three years unless the case is referred to an adult court. Last April 12 a most regrettable crime was committed by a 14-year old in Scarborough, Ontario. Three people were murdered, yet the sentence given was only three years as provided by the Young Offenders Act. Fortunately, a family court judge has been asked to reopen the trial to determine if the case should be referred to an adult court.
In summary, Mr. Speaker, it appears that most of the major flaws in the Young Offenders Act will be corrected within a few months. The Solicitor General is to be commended for moving so sensitively and quickly to provide remedial action. He has listened to various concerned groups in society and acted wisely and compassionately. I commend and applaud him for that.


Thomas Gordon Towers: Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the Hon. Member for his interest in this very important matter of concern to all of us. I firmly support the basic principles and
philosophy of the Young Offenders Act. My belief in these principles has been confirmed in the discussions of the Solicitor General (Mr. Beatty) across Canada with concerned citizens, police, correctional workers, the legal profession, provincial authorities, and others. Not only did we need to reform the old juvenile justice system, but we needed a law to ensure that young people have the same rights and obligations as do adults.
The basic philosophy of the Young Offenders Act is as follows. One, young people are personally responsible for their acts and should be held accountable before the law. Two, young people, like all Canadian citizens, enjoy the rights that are protected by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Three, society has a right to be protected from crime. Four, juvenile justice laws and procedures must recognize and deal with the fact that young people have special needs because they are at various stages of development and maturity.
Certain provisions of the present law pose problems and it is up to the Solicitor General to deal with these problems, with all our support. Concerns about the handling of youth court records, the ban on publication of offenders' names and the difficulty of enforcing sentences are some of the major concerns which moved the Minister to initiate consultations across the country. He wanted to hear from those who work with the Act every day-judges, police, concerned citizens, youth court workers, Crown and defence counsel-to identify the nature of these concerns and get a good idea of what improvements were required.
The Government recognizes that the provinces and territories must be consulted on such important national matters. Parliament legislates criminal law but it is the provinces which must administer it. That means they have to do their part. In two areas in particular-providing the court with alternatives to sentencing a young offender to prison and providing adequate legislation to deal with children under the age of 12- the provinces have an especially heavy responsibility.
The deputy minister has been meeting with his provincial and territorial counterparts this week and the Solicitor General will be meeting with provincial and territorial colleagues early next month for a final discussion of proposed improvements. As soon as possible thereafter he will present to Parliament a package of amendments that will make the Young Offenders Act much more responsive to the concerns of those who have to work with it. He will be asking for the opposition parties' co-operation in passing the Bill as soon as possible.
Action is required to enable authorities to deal effectively and quickly with young offenders who have, for example, violated probation conditions and other conditions of their sentences. It is required to give police more flexibility in detaining young offenders after their arrest. The present rules at times cause hardship for the police and young offenders. It is required to allow publication of names in those circumstances where a young offender who might be a danger to the public has escaped custody or where public assistance is
January 23, 1986

needed to apprehend the offender quickly. Action is required to improve the Act's record-keeping provisions, which have caused a wide range of technical and administrative problems. These problems will be addressed and evident omissions resolved. The law will be clarified to ensure that records in cases of acquittal by reason of insanity are kept.
Action is required to ensure that modifications to the Criminal Code provision dealing with counsellig criminal behaviour are made to ensure that no one who abuses children by involving them in criminal acts will be immune to criminal prosecution. The Solicitor General will be discussing this point with our colleague, the Minister of Justice (Mr. Crosbie).
Action is required to ensure that courts are capable of imposing appropriate sentences for new crimes with the result that the total sentence for different offences could be longer than three years.
I thank the Hon. Member for providing the opportunity of discussing this major issue at this time.


VISIBLE MINORITIES-GOVERNMENT'S NEGOTIATIONS WITH REPRESENTATIVES OF JAPANESE CANADIANS INTERNED DURING WORLD WAR II. (B) REQUEST FOR FURTHER NEGOTIATIONS
Mr. Sergio Marchi (York West):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity to review a question that I posed to the Minister of State for Multiculturalism (Mr. Jelinek) on January 16. The date is significant because that is the date we learned of the U.S. Congress plans to move very boldly on three separate fronts with respect to the Japanese American citizens. One front was the personal compensation; the second was a foundation and the third was a general apology. I believe we should use the opportunity to compare what Canada is doing with respect to the Japanese Canadian redress issue.
I am sure my friend opposite will suggest that, looking to the past 43 years, the Government is making an attempt to correct a past injustice. However, the debate should take the perspective of what the Government and the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) promised when he was Leader of the Opposition. We should consider in perspective what the Prime Minister promised on the hustings during the last federal election when he said that the package needs to be negotiated and the wrongs need to be righted.
We should also consider this debate from the perspective of the Minister's predecessor who said in a press release dated December, 1985 that the Government would move on two fronts. First, it would negotiate a redress package and second, it would negotiate it with and through the National Association of Japanese Canadians which happens to be the legitimate body, elected across the country, to represent the views of the Japanese Canadian community. The Minister in his response said: "We are consulting, and I am consulting with the Japanese Canadian Association". I said during Question Period then, and I repeat it here tonight that that is a false and an untrue statement. I have met with membership organizations
Adjournment Debate
in Vancouver, in Winnipeg, in Toronto and in Ottawa. They all suggest the great and growing frustration which the community is having dealing with the Government, particularly with this new Minister. He is not consulting with this organization, Mr. Speaker. He is circumventing the organization. The national president of the association only had one opportunity to meet with this Minister and that was in the lobby of the Winnipeg airport for 20 minutes. Is that consulting, Mr. Speaker? Is that what you would call negotiating a redress package? Of course it is not.
The previous Minister stopped the negotiations after two meetings and tried unilaterally to propose a solution to Parliament. That failed miserably. There is movement afoot, words and rumour around Ottawa, that a second unilateral package may be forthcoming.
My question tried to get a commitment from the Government that this Minister would honour the statements, pronouncements and speeches made by his Prime Minister, that he would honour the commitment his predecessor, the former Minister of State for Multiculturalism, made in his accord last December stating the two proposals I outlined earlier.
That is what the Opposition is talking about. We are talking about the Government's promise and the Government's commitment to the Japanese Canadian community. Now we have a Minister who refuses even to meet with the national associations, let alone negotiate. We have also a Minister who is much more political and partisan in dealing with this issue than his predecessor. Not only is he playing up the differences that might exist in the community on a national issue-there are divisions on every national issue we debate, discuss and move in this House of Commons, but there is never unanimity-but after consulting you need to work with the national vehicles and this Minister is not doing so.
Another factor is that this Minister's advisory council on multiculturalism has taken a public stand against a negotiated compensation package. The advisory council is there to advise the Minister. Everyone knows that. In such a delicate and sensitive issue, in an issue the Government has yet to resolve, this Minister allows this council to publicly make the statement it did. The Japanese community, the Opposition Party and Canadians at large know perhaps why that public pronouncement was made, it seems this Minister is preparing the skid. It seems this Minister is asking this council to oil the skid. That is inappropriate. It is inappropriate because it does not give credibility to the commitment, the clear commitment the Government and the Prime Minister made with this Particular constituency.
In closing, I urge the Government to come clean on the matter. If the Minister rises repeatedly, as he does, and says "we are consulting with Canadians and, after we have consulted, we will arrange a package", that is fine. He is a Minister in charge of a national constituency; let him consult. What 1

January 23, 1986
Adjournment Debate
want to hear from the Government is that following the completion of his consultations with whomever he wants, whichever Canadian he chooses, he will return to the negotiating table, present his findings and, in a give and take atmosphere, negotiate a settlement that is not only appropriate and politically acceptable to the Minister or to the Government but also satisfactory to the concerns of the community which a redress package would attempt to address. It is only logical. Let us have the Minister live up to his Government's commitment. Have the consultations, but for goodness sake be honourable, be fair and be just. Return to the National Association and together strike an agreement of which the entire House and the country can be proud.


Mr. Geoff Scott (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the Hon. Member for York West (Mr. Marchi) for raising this most important issue if only to set the record straight.
At the present time, the Minister of State for Multicultural-ism (Mr. Jelinek) is consulting broadly with Canadians on how we can show regret in a meaningful way for the past wrongs to Japanese Canadians. This matter is of concern to all Canadians as it relates to the subjects of equality and human rights.
Shortly after being appointed Minister of State for Mul-ticulturalism, the Hon. Member for Halton, called Mr. Art Miki, President of the National Association of Japanese Canadians, representing a major component of their community, to establish contact and organize follow-up meetings. The
Minister met with him and other representatives of the NAJC in Winnipeg on September 16, 1985, and again in Toronto on October 31, 1985.
These discussions focused on the following items: first, appropriate wording for a parliamentary resolution acknowledging mistreatment of Japanese Canadians; second, possible changes to the War Measures Act; third, a possible pardon for infractions of war-time regulations; fourth, possibility of restoring Canadian citizenship to those who were deported; and, fifth, a meaningful financial settlement.
The Minister has also met with other members of the Japanese Canadian community in several centres and has come to understand that there exists a wide range of views on the most appropriate solution to this issue. It is well known that the National Association of Japanese Canadians is having a study completed by Price Waterhouse and that they wish to have the results of the study before the Government acts.
I would share the views of the Hon. Member for York West, and I say that it is the hope of the Government that with the good will of all Canadians we will be able to arrive at a just and meaningful settlement to this issue.
[ Translation]


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 3( 1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 6.59 p.m.
[Stage Direction]

Friday, January 24, 1986