1986-11-04

Miss Aideen Nicholson (Trinity):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the first report of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts. Pursuant to Standing Order 99(2) the committee requests a comprehensive response.
This report deals with the income tax remission order granted to Hudson's Bay Oil and Gas Company, a subsidiary of Dome Petroleum Limited. The committee is concerned that the remission order conferred a substantial benefit without Parliament's approval. The remission was used in an unconventional and unprecedented way to implement government policy rather than to provide relief from an aspect of the tax system. Moreover, the amount of the remission was not disclosed in the public accounts as required under the Financial Administration Act. The use of a remission order in this way denied Parliament an opportunity to consider a significant expenditure of public funds.
The committee is recommending that disclosure of all income tax remission orders be required and, further, that prior parliamentary approval be required for remissions exceeding $20 million in value.


NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION ACT, 1986 MEASURE TO ENACT
Hon. John C. Crosbie (Minister of Transport) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-18, an Act respecting national transportation.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


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

John Carnell Crosbie: for leave to introduce Bill C-19, an Act respecting motor vehicle transport by extra-provincial undertakings.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


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

[DOT] (UlO)

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. Doug Lewis (Parliamentary Secretary to Deputy Prime Minister and President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, Question No. 19 will be answered today.


Mr. Scott (Victoria-Haliburton): Since September 4, 1984, have any projects been funded in the constituency of Victoria-Haliburton under the Job Development and Job Entry Programs of the Canadian Jobs Strategy and, if so (a) how many (b) what was the total funding allocated to the approved projects (c) how many jobs have been created?


Hon. Benoit Bouchard (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Since September 4, 1984* projects have been funded in the constituency of Victoria-Haliburton under the Job Development and Job Entry Programs of the Canadian Jobs Strategy.
Job Development
1985-86	1986-87
(a)	General projects:	13 projects	none
Individually subsidized jobs:	14 placements 6 placements
Severely employment disadvantaged	1 renewal	none(b)	General projects	$765,409	noneIndividually subsidized jobs:	$ 87,429	$22,839Severely employment disadvantaged	$187,000	none
* The Canadian Jobs Strategy having been in place since September, 1985.

November 4, 1986
Motion to Adjourn under S.O. 29
(c)	General projects	72	jobs	noneIndividually subsidized jobs:	14	jobs	6 jobsSeverely employment disadvantaged 26 clients	none
4 core staff
Job Entry
(a)	1 project
(b)	$84,250
(c)	15 participants


Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Fernand Robichaud (Westmorland-Kent):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank you for giving me the floor at this time, since I realize that under the provisions of Standing Order 29, your office should have been given notice one hour before, and I was unable to meet that requirement. Thank you very much.

Pursuant to Standing Order 29 I give notice that I wish to move a motion to adjourn the House for the purpose of discussing a matter of urgent and pressing importance, namely the situation at Moncton, New Brunswick, where 1,000 jobs are threatened as a result of a decision by CN, a Crown corporation, to close its railway shops there.
I have previously asked for an emergency debate on this issue. In fact, I made the request on June 18, 1986, shortly after CN announced its intention to sell the Moncton railway shops to Canadian General Electric. However, things have changed since then. The proposed sale to Canadian General Electric, which would have salvaged 300 jobs, appears to be very much in jeopardy and will likely not materialize. The deal hinged on the various unions in the Moncton area agreeing to waive a "no contracting out" clause. When the deal was taken to a vote the membership of two of the seven unions refused to accept the proposal because the deal was unacceptable to them.
Things are right back where they started and the complete closure of the shops-


Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I understand the Hon. Member's concern. I wonder whether we may not move directly to the motion. Standing Order 29(3) states that "the Member shall rise in his or her place and present without argument the statement referred to in section (2) of this Standing Order". I appreciate the Hon. Member's concern. I think we should move directly to the motion and your ruling.


Mr. Speaker:: It is the feeling of the Chair that an Hon. Member rising on an application such as this should have an opportunity to present the basic facts and reasons for moving the motion. The Chair is in the hands of the House. Perhaps the Hon. Member could conclude his remarks briefly and present the motion itself. I intend to defer my decision until 3 o'clock.


Fernand Robichaud: As I was saying, Mr. Speaker, things are right back to where they started. There is a threat that over
1,000	jobs will be lost. A deal was in process with CGE and CN which would have saved some jobs, but it now seems that talks have been suspended and that Moncton could lose 1,000 jobs. In a province where the unemployment rate is 13 per cent this would be a disastrous loss. For these very serious reasons 1 respectfully move:
That this House do now adjourn.


Mr. Speaker:: I want to thank the Hon. Member for his speech on a very important matter, but I shall postpone my decision until three o'clock this afternoon.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Hon. Ray Hnatyshyn (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada) moved: that Bill C-15, an Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Canada Evidence Act, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.
He said: Mr. Speaker, it is an honour today to address the House on a matter of grave concern for all Canadians-child sexual abuse. We are here to do something about this. Our younger generation is the promise of Canada's future. We have a responsibility to protect children from sexual abuse and exploitation and to deter those who would seek to victimize them.
It is a high priority of the Government and myself, as Minister of Justice, to address this issue in an effective and sensitive manner. To that end I am asking for the support of all Members in this House in order that this legislation may be dealt with without delay so that those children who are
November 4, 1986

presently being exploited can have some protection under the law.
In 1984, the Committee on Sexual Offences against Children and Youths, the Badgely Committee, reported that half of all Canadian females and one-third of males are at some time victims of unwanted sexual acts, 80 per cent of which occur when the victims are children or youths. Over the last two years police departments and child welfare agencies have seen a significant increase in the rate of reporting of child sexual abuse cases by as much as 25 per cent to 50 per cent.

This disturbing increase in the number of cases reported is in some measure due to the fact that both the experts and the general public are now more aware of the problem of sexual offences against children. Furthermore, children themselves are also better aware of the parameters of this problem, thanks to educational programs that teach children not to submit to the various physical advances that may be made by their elders or by persons in a position of authority.

In April, 1985, the report of the Special Committee on Pornography and Prostitution, known as the Fraser Report, was published. The work of the Fraser Committee in part overlapped that of the Badgley Committee so that recommendations were made by both committees on certain aspects of child sexual abuse such as the provisions presently existing in the Criminal Code which are applicable to child sexual abuse and to juvenile prostitution.
The Badgely Committee and the Fraser Committee have made a significant contribution in identifying the scope of the child sexual abuse problems in Canada in those areas where present legal provisions have failed us. In addition, officials in the Department of Justice and other concerned Departments have met with more than 300 individuals representing more than 200 different organizations across Canada to gather the views of certain non governmental organizations and private sector agencies concerned with children's issues about the recommendations of these committees. Consultations were also conducted with the provinces. As a result of the review of the recommendations of the two committees, and these consultations, legislative amendments were developed to deal with the problems of child sexual abuse, reception of children's evidence and juvenile prostitution. The findings of the Badgley and Fraser Committees and the consultations with the provinces and the public clearly pointed out that the present Criminal Code provisions do not adequately cover the full range of sexual behaviour that children may be induced to engage in, nor are young girls and boys afforded the equal degree of protection of the law required by our Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
This Bill would create three new criminal offences, namely sexual interference, invitation to sexual touching, and sexual
Criminal Code
exploitation, to ensure that children under 14 years of age are protected almost absolutely from all manner of sexual contact while children up to the age of 18 years would be protected from sexual exploitation by anyone in a position of trust or authority or on whom the child is dependent.
The new offence of sexual interference is designed to cover a wide range of sexually abusive behaviour consistent with the Badgley recommendations. The consent of the child to being touched for a sexual purpose is irrelevant. The child is to be protected from all touchings for a sexual purpose, with one exception. This exception would cover youths aged 12 or 13 who are not more than three years older than the complainant. Of course, if the complainant under 14 did not consent to the sexual activity with a 12 or 13 year old accused, the young accused could be charged under present sexual assault provisions.
Since the age of criminal responsibility is 12, children under 12 would not be held criminally responsible for any sexual activity. Over-all, the effect of this new offence would be to provide an almost absolute protection to children under 14 years of age from being touched for a sexual purpose.
The Badgley Committee found that very young children were sometimes bribed or otherwise induced to perform sexual acts upon another individual. Under the present law, no sexual assault is committed by the inviter in this situation and prosecution under the indecent act provisions may not always be successful.
In order to ensure more complete protection for children under 14 from all manner of sexual abuse, a new offence would be created termed invitation to sexual touching. It would be an offence for anyone to invite a child under 14 to touch him or her for a sexual purpose. It would also be an offence for anyone to invite young children to engage in sexual touching of themselves or others.
The two new offences which would afford protection to those under 14, sexual interference and invitation to sexual touching, would be hybrid offences with Crown election whether to proceed by way of indictment or summary conviction. Where the Crown decided to proceed by way of indictment, the maximum penalty available would be a ten-year sentence of imprisonment.
The proposed third new offence, that of sexual exploitation, would protect young people under the age of 18 from sexual activity with an adult who is either in a position of trust or authority, or on whom this young person is in a relationship of dependency. This offence recognizes that a young person requires special protection from those individuals who would use their position of authority, or the child's trust or dependency to exploit them.
There was a great deal of concern expressed by child care workers and others, as well as by the Badgley and Fraser Committees that those accused of sexual offences against children should not be able to avoid prosecution easily by arguing they did not know the age of the child involved. With

November 4, 1986
Criminal Code
respect to the three new offences, and in fact all the provisions that would protect children, mistake of age will not be a defence unless the accused took every reasonable step to ascertain the age of the complainant.
There is another form of sexual abuse of our youth that has increasingly been openly practised across Canada. It is the exploitation of our children by those who seek their services as prostitutes and by those who would benefit financially from putting them to work as prostitutes. This Bill would create a new indictable offence punishable by a maximum sentence of five years for anyone in any place to obtain the services of a juvenile prostitute. Both the Badgley and Fraser Committees recommended penalizing the customer of a young prostitute, as did the Standing Committee of the House of Commons on Justice and Legal Affairs in 1983 in its report on prostitution.
The House may recall that I had the honour of being my Party's spokesperson on the Justice and Legal Affairs Committee at the time. I recall the deliberations and many thoughtful presentations made to that committee by individuals and groups across Canada. It is my honour today, as Minister of Justice, to be putting forward legislative changes to deal with the problems addressed by the Justice Committee three years ago. This Bill would also increase the penalties for living from the avails of a prostitute from the present ten-year maximum sentence of imprisonment to 14 years, if a young prostitute under 18 was involved.
[ Translation]
It is not sufficient, however, to create new sexual offences and to amend the present provisions of the Criminal Code accordingly. As the Badgley Committee pointed out and as consultation with non-governmental organizations has confirmed, it often happens that very young children cannot benefit from the protection of criminal law because they cannot be sworn and, consequently, cannot testify in court. Those who abuse very young children can often do so a number of times or abuse more than one child without having much to fear from the law.
The Bill we are about to consider provides a number of amendments to the Criminal Code and the Canada Evidence Act, in order to resolve the problem of the admissibility of evidence given by children and to put in place more flexible mechanisms to gather that evidence.

An amendment to the Criminal Code would remove the current need for corroboration before a conviction can be sustained when it is based only on the unsworn evidence of a child. Amendments to the Canada Evidence Act to enable more children to testify would provide a procedure whereby a judge would examine a child under 14 to determine whether the child could be sworn or heard to affirm. If the child cannot be sworn or make an affirmation, the judge would determine whether the child could be heard on promising to tell the truth. The weight to be given to such evidence would, of course, be a matter for the judge or jury to decide.
A further proposal would abrogate the doctrine of recent complaint. It has been observed that children are frequently unable to bring themselves to make a disclosure of their sexual victimization until a significant time has passed. This inability has resulted in offenders evading prosecution and indeed punishment.
It is also proposed that a videotape of a child victim under 18 describing the acts complained of could be shown in court if the child adopted the contents while testifying. During the series of consultations held with groups and individuals across Canada, my officials were told of numerous instances where young children felt intimidated by the nearness of the accused in the courtroom. Further amendments would permit the judge to exclude the accused from the courtroom during the testimony of the child complainant in a sexual offence case, if the judge believes that the exclusion of the accused is necessary to obtain a full and candid testimony from a child. The excluded accused would, of course, be able to watch the proceedings on closed circuit television and would have the facility and ability to communicate with his or her legal counsel.
We have often heard that sexual abuse is a cyclical problem, that individuals who are abused as children often abuse children in their adult years. It is my hope that this legislation will assist in breaking that cycle of abuse by using our system of justice to protect those who cannot protect themselves, the innocent victims of child sexual abuse. It is not my intention to hold out these amendments to the Criminal Code and the Canada Evidence Act as a solution in and of themselves to the complex and tragic problem of child sexual abuse. However, and this I stress, these amendments are an integral part of the commitment of the federal Government to do everything reasonably possible to stop this damaging conduct.
My colleague, the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp), is actively co-ordinating an effective federal approach at the policy and program level to combat child sexual abuse. My colleagues and I will be working closely with the provinces and territories to ensure an integrated effort. The amendments before the House, in the context of all the other steps being taken, will send out a real signal that society will not tolerate the continuation of child sexual abuse and exploitation. We will use the full weight of the criminal law to afford our children the protection they have the right to expect.


Hon. Bob Kaplan (York Centre):: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of my Party, her Majesty's Official Opposition, I am very happy to participate in the debate. I begin by assuring the Government and the Minister of Justice (Mr. Hnatyshyn) that we support action in this area. We welcome the Bill. While we have some concerns I will deal with in a moment, we feel this is an important area for action with respect to Criminal Code amendments. Even before the-
November 4, 1986



Even before the Badgley Report, there was a feeling among the general public about the seriousness of child abuse and people realized that it was a matter that had not been satisfactorily addressed by our society. What really came out of the Badgley Report was that the extent of the problem was far greater than anyone had suspected.

A problem was revealed by the Badgley Commission of a proportion which could hardly have been anticipated by many Canadians. The Badgley Report makes recommendations for many bodies to act on. While there are recommendations which cannot be implemented by Government, there are a certain number which can be, including strengthening the Criminal Code to deal with the problem of child abuse and molestation of children. I am very glad the Government has reintroduced this legislation. I would have been happy to deal with it in the last session of Parliament but I am glad it has been raised in this session. I look forward to the important work the committee will do in looking at the recommendations and to seeing this Bill legislated, hopefully, in this session of Parliament.
Let me say, however, that I think we have to give the public more time to react to the Bill than we seem to be doing. It is true that this Bill is virtually the same as Bill C-114, but 1 do not think too many of the groups which looked at Bill C-114 realize that the Bill has been reintroduced in this session. I hope that, when it comes to committee, at least three or four weeks' notice will be given to communities which are interested, that the Bill is here, that important considerations are before Parliament in this area, that new crimes are being created and that traditional safeguards for the accused are being removed, so that there will be some opportunity for those interested in these questions to get their act together and put a submission in before the parliamentary committee. I think the committee's work will be important because we are creating new crimes and removing traditional safeguards which accused have relied on in the past in connection with offences against young children
I think it important that there be new crimes created and that some of the safeguards which have prevented cases from getting to court in the past be looked at and removed. Nevertheless, when we make changes such as that, it is important they be done with notice and opportunity so that members of the Committee on Justice can consider all the points of view which have to be brought to bear before steps are taken.
A fundamental step on which we must all agree, I submit on behalf of the Official Opposition, is to find ways of getting more cases where young people are sexually abused before the courts of the land. Whatever the safeguards and definitions of the past, the Badgley Report is right in observing that not enough cases have come before the courts. I think judicial decisions, condemnations and judgments against accused in
Criminal Code
connection with sexual offences have an enormous deterrent effect.
People have felt comfortable about getting away with sexual abuse partly because it involved the family where, one might have wrongly felt in the past, the law did not venture and partly because children were involved. Offenders might have felt, because of their more powerful position, that they could get away with it. Whatever the reasons, we have to throw light on this area of behaviour and bring reprehensible behaviour before the courts and obtain more convictions.
There have been barriers in the past which have prevented these cases from coming forward. In part, this has been because of definitions. As the Minister has indicated, and here he has our support, some new offences are being created with new definitions of unacceptable behaviour in relation to young people. I am particularly pleased to see the particular provision with respect to "persons in authority". I am pleased with the provision with respect to the protection of children under 14 and of the greater precision which is attached to the exemption for sex play among children which we must recognize is a normal part of growing up through adolescence. The law must recognize that, and is doing so, with the exception provided for in that provision. But that is not an exception from which an adult should be able to benefit. Again, the Minister's provision makes it clear that exploitation by adults of young children for sexual purposes by adults will be a punishable activity. It will be a crime and will be brought before the courts, if it can be.
On the other side, there is a treatment of the traditional barriers which have prevented behaviour of this type from coming before the courts. There is, first, the qualification of the complainant. The Government is proposing the removal of the requirement that corroboration be retained. If one looks at the cases, one sees that the kind of corroboration asked for by the courts has provided cover and has made it impossible to bring forward many cases which should have been brought forward. Where an adult organizes his assault on the young person with care, corroboration will not be available. Those of us who have practised in the area, and Members of Parliament who have followed the amendments of the Criminal Code in this area in the past, know that the corroboration requirement, which has no counterpart for offences against adults, has probably been the single greatest reason why cases have not been able to be developed to the point where they can be brought before the court. This requirement is to be removed.
Second, we are looking at the acceptability of the complainant's evidence. Is the young person competent to tell a story? Is the young person aware enough of the consequences of what he or she is doing? Is he or she conscious of the difference between truth and falsehood so that a court can be asked to accept such evidence?
We are moving from a point in the law at which courts focused on admissibility to a point where they now focus on questions of weight. In general, I welcome very much this

November 4, 1986
Criminal Code
development in the law. Our traditional British system of justice when compared with other systems in the world-and one has to recognize them as fair in themselves-more than the civil law system and other systems I have looked at tends to exclude evidence which tells the trier of fact that certain matters cannot be taken into account.
In many other systems the approach is different. In such other systems the court is allowed to consider evidence that is relevant and to say what weight it should be given. The Bill before us seems to be moving more toward a system in which formerly inadmissible evidence will be considered while the question of what weight it should be given will be raised.
I also have some reservations about the sufficient intelligence test that the Minister proposes be maintained in the law. While I agree that a judge ought to assess the capacity of a young person to tell a story as it happened-something about which the judge will have to make some judgment-"sufficient intelligence" is a test that has already been looked at by the courts. If one looks at the leading case in the field, Horsberg v. The Queen which dates back to 1968, one will see that the sufficient intelligence test boils down to a requirement that the complainant be of above-average intelligence. This is a case which went to the Supreme Court of Canada. The aboveaverage intelligence standard is a high standard. It is applicable to less than one-half of the people in a given group. It means that more than one-half of the children who might otherwise be complainants will fail the test. A great many cases that ought to be brought forward will not be brought forward.
While a judge ought to look at the intelligence of the complainant to apply the sufficient intelligence test, according to legal precedent this will result in the exclusion of a great deal of evidence rather than in its admissibility. This is subject to the question of how much weight is given to the evidence of the young person who tells a story and who is intelligent enough to be able to put forward a story that he or she believes to be true and that reflects a proper recollection of the incidents alleged to constitute a crime. This is a test which I will want to look at in the committee.
I would now like to deal with the removal of other traditional safeguards recommended in the Bill. First, there is the removal of the warning that the judge traditionally gives in the case of even formerly admissible evidence by a young person to the trier of fact that it is evidence of a young person and that the trier of fact must be extra careful in considering it. This warning will not be necessary in the future under the regime to be established by the legislation which is before us. I think that is a positive move.
The admission of videotape evidence taken soon after an incident occurs is an extremely important and welcome addition to the law. This means that shortly after the commission of an offence, the young person will be able to tell the story on videotape. I ask parenthetically why there could not be provision to have the story placed on sound tape. There may be some circumstances in which video cameras are not
available and where evidence could be given on an ordinary tape recording. Videotape gives the trier of fact an extra dimension in which to make judgments. One can watch the demeanor of the child telling the story. This helps one to conclude whether or not the child has been truthful and accurate. However, as I have said, video equipment may not always be available. If we are to trust a judge or a jury to make a judgment about the truthfulness of the evidence of a child then a sound recording may be useful. This is one of the issues on which we will question the expert witnesses who appear in committee to see whether or not such a provision can be added. From the stories I have heard from people who practise in this field, four or five years can go by between the time an offence is committed and the time the accused is found guilty or not. Thus videotaping a complainant at a time closer to the incident will reflect more accurately the vocabulary and life experience of a child. The evidence a child gives in court will be much different four or five years later because of the evolution of the child, because of his or her greater understanding of the sexual behaviour of adults and because of his or her own sexuality. That in itself is an argument for admitting a videotape or some other similarly recorded earlier recollection.
The provision with respect to the videotape calls for it to be made soon after the incident complained of. 1 wish to suggest that perhaps a videotape should be made soon after the child reveals the commission of an offence. Sometimes a period of time goes by before a child who has been subjected to the conduct about which he or she complains reports it. Again, there may be other intervals between the time of complaint and the time of trial. To limit videotaping to soon after the incident occurs will exclude videotape evidence in a case in which a child waits a year or two before deciding to complain about certain behaviour. I wish to discuss in committee the opening of a window for videotaping not only soon after the incident occurs, as is presently proposed, but soon after the disclosure or the making of a complaint by a young person. In general, I think that videotaping of this nature, or any taping, will enhance the ability of the court to make a proper decision.
I now wish to speak about the exclusion of the accused from the courtroom, which is unprecedented in our system of justice. The argument for exclusion is that the complainant when giving evidence in court could be intimidated while he or she is doing so while the accused is sitting in the same room, glaring, as he or she is entitled to do, at the young person in the witness box. The thought is that if the accused is removed then the young person might feel more free to tell the story. One could say the same about other people around the accused. In many cases, as in incest cases, for example, there might be other adults present in the courtroom whose presence could be intimidating to the young person. If this power is to be given, we ought to see if the judge might also have the power to exclude others who, by being present in the court while the young person is telling the story, might prevent the young person from feeling comfortable about telling the entire story.
November 4, 1986

Let us look at this from the other side for a moment. Nothing would be worse than developing a regime under which an accused would be denied a fair opportunity to defend himself or herself. What is the impact on the court of removing the accused and perhaps a larger group of people during testimony? I believe it is very prejudicial. If I were sitting on a jury and the accused was ordered by the judge to leave the courtroom along with others because of his or her demeanour,
I would find it pretty prejudicial. It might also damage the ability of the accused to defend himself.
The statute calls for the video taping of the procedure so that somehow or other, the accused will know what is going on in the courtroom while he is away and will be able to instruct counsel or respond to counsel. The machinery that is proposed here is a radical innovation. While 1 welcome it and believe it will achieve the basic goal of the Official Opposition, which is to see more of these cases come before the court and be dealt with by the court, we want to be fair as well. We want to be certain that the machinery the Government has in mind will not prejudice a jury or a trier of fact and will not tend to lead to convictions in cases where the accused has a defence and is innocent.
What I am about to say applies to this particular provision as well as to some of the other provisions. There are other jurisdictions in the world that are trying all these different methods. I do not think there is anything in this legislation, new and radical as it is for Canada, that has not been tried elsewhere.
It is not good enough for the Government to defend a procedure by saying that it has been tried elsewhere. We need to know how it has worked where it has been tried. In connection with divorce reform, some of the measures that were brought forward were called terrific by the Government because they had been tried elsewhere, but we heard evidence from elsewhere that it was not working as well as the Government had hoped it would work here.
In fairness to future accused and in the desire for fair trials, we want to know how these measures have worked where they have been tried. Have they been beneficial, have they resulted in miscarriages of justice or have they resulted in decisions acceptable to the population, decisions that provided a deterrent to the community and showed that young people are being protected by the courts of the land? Have these measures shown that certain kinds of behaviour will be punished and that there is a greater risk than there had once been of this type of behaviour being found out and dealt with by the courts?
The final issue with which I would like to deal regarding the reduction of safeguards is the matter of prior sexual activity. In the areas of sexual assault and aggravated sexual assault, the former Government of which I was a part led a move away from evidence of prior sexual activity being brought forward to prejudice the court against a complaint in rape cases. All of us
Criminal Code
at the bar know that the development of the law had been so regrettable and unfortunate that a woman with a certain kind of prior sexual behaviour could never bring a complaint before a court. Nothing that was done to her of which she would complain would result in a conviction because of the prejudice created by her former sexual behaviour. That was an unacceptable development of the law and it was important to make a move that permitted anyone who was raped, whatever her prior sexual behaviour, to bring forward a complaint and to obtain justice in the courts of the land.
In the legislation before us, the Government is proposing in proposed Section 246.6 that no evidence shall be adduced by or on behalf of the accused concerning the sexual activity of the complainant with any person other than the accused. Again, I welcome this provision but I want to be certain that we will not be moving too far in a direction which will prevent relevant evidence from coming before the trier of fact so that he may deal with the question of its weight. How much can one safeguard the truth while still allowing for a wide latitude in the admissibility of evidence that is logically relevant?
There is a lot in this Bill. It is very important that we move it forward. It is important that there be tougher laws in this area designed to punish offenders who target young people and abuse them sexually. I hope that the process of Parliament will work quickly. I would like to assure the Minister of my cooperation. However, I must note that the Minister's predecessor had a very poor track record with the legislation that was brought forward.
I can name chapter and verse a number of the Bills that were brought through the House, and I would if the Minister were here, which have been struck down as violating the Charter. I believe it behooves all of us to take more care than the Government has taken to date of the Charter implications and the requirements of the Charter for fair trials, free speech and free access. We do not want to see the Government continue to abuse the Charter and the goal of the Charter which is to enhance the rights and freedoms of Canadians. That kind of concern which has not meant much to the Government so far must mean a great deal to the Opposition.
When we deal with legislation, as important as it is, we do not want to see the Conservative tendency which one also sees in the United States toward having pious declarations become legislation and particularly criminal legislation for which people may be convicted and serve time. We do not want to translate a public sentiment into a criminal statute. We do want to respond to a public sentiment and, within our traditions of fairness, free speech and all the other rights and freedoms we enjoy in Canada, we do want to try to advance society and protect young people and women, but at the same time we want to do this in a way that is consistent with the fundamental freedoms that make this a liberal democracy. However often Canadians rally for a drastic solution to a problem, when cases come before the courts as a result of drastic sentiments, they want the people who appear before the courts of Canada to have fair treatment.

November 4, 1986
Criminal Code


Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to participate in the debate on this very important piece of legislation, Bill C-15. It is important and long overdue legislation designed to deal with the hidden tragedy of child abuse.
It was in August of 1984 that the Badgley Commission submitted its report to the Government documenting what it termed "a national crisis" of the sexual abuse of young people. There has been debate and considerable discussion since that time as to the actual extent of child sexual abuse, and the extent to which it may be a phenomenon which is increasing in our society, or merely one which is being reported in increasing numbers. Nevertheless, no Member of this House can deny that we all have an obligation to deal quickly and effectively with this tragedy.
The Badgley Commission recommendations were tabled in August of 1984. Shortly after that I called upon the newly elected Government to move forward and take action to deal with the concerns that were raised by that commission, not necessarily to implement all of the recommendations chapter and verse by any means, but to recognize that a problem does exist and it is one that should be addressed. It took the Government over a year before it even began to respond to the recommendations of the Badgley Commission.
Approximately one year later, in August of 1985, the ministry embarked upon a series of consultations. These consultations were rushed so much that many of the groups consulted strongly protested the nature and the process of the consultations. They were also concerned that the Department of National Health and Welfare was not involved in those negotiations, and certainly should have been.
Following those consultations the Government introduced two Bills last June. This is once again a lag of almost another year. It is a matter of considerable regret that in the concern that was expressed, in my view quite properly with respect to the companion Bill C-114 on pornography, many of the important questions raised by the legislation on child sexual abuse were completely ignored.
Quite understandably, the press focused on the repressive and Neanderthal provisions of Bill C-114, the pornography legislation, and completely ignored many of the provisions dealing with child sexual abuse in Bill C-113. Much of the important focus and concern that had been raised at the time of the tabling of the Badgley Commission Report was lost in the publicity and the concern over pornography legislation.
I am pleased that the present Minister of Justice (Mr. Hnatyshyn) has decided to move forward with the child abuse legislation separate and apart from Bill C-114, the pornography legislation. If it is his intention to bring forward similar legislation to that brought forward by his colleague, the now Minister of Transport (Mr. Crosbie), I would suggest that he delay that as long as he possibly can because it certainly will
meet with vigorous resistance from many Members in this House.
That is not to say that we in this Party believe that action is not necessary to deal with the present archaic laws in Canada on pornography. Clearly such action is needed, particularly in the area of violent pornography and pornography which is degrading. To suggest that we take the sweeping approach to stomping out any depiction of consensual adults sexual activity, as advocated by many of the Minister's colleagues, is surely an approach that we cannot accept.
I would suggest to all Members of this House that they go back two or three years and review the proceedings of the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs in dealing with similar legislation on pornography and sexual abuse of young people. That legislation was Bill C-53. The present Minister of Justice spoke at that time to the Justice Committee with considerable force and eloquence against the proposals of the previous Government in Bill C-53. I intend, in the course of the deliberations on this legislation before the Justice Committee, which I understand will be dealing with this legislation, to remind the Minister and his colleagues on that committee of the position that he took at that time on that legislation. I hope that perhaps, with that consistency for which he is so well known, he will in fact adopt a similar position in response to amendments that I intend to put forward to this legislation.
The Badgley Commission documented a very disturbing human tragedy involving young people in Canada. It is a largely hidden tragedy, as I indicated earlier. The scars of the sexual abuse of young people can be borne for a lifetime. Too often the abuse of young people is then in turn repeated, and that vicious cycle is continued. The Minister referred earlier to this. This is a cycle which we must make every possible effort to break. Clearly there can be debate as to the actual extent of child sexual abuse in Canada. There are those who argue that the estimates by the Badgley Commission are excessive and unreasonable. Whatever the extent, it is clear that this Parliament must take firm and effective action now to deal with that crisis.
Clearly changes in the law are required. There is no doubt about that. I intend to comment on the Minister's specific proposals.
I believe it is also essential that we recognize that changes in the law alone are totally inadequate to deal with this serious problem. Indeed, changes in the criminal law may in fact result in a significantly larger number of people coming into direct contact with the criminal justice system. If the additional resources are not put in place to deal with those individuals-here I speak both of victims and offenders-then we will be doing a disservice and not a service to the victims of sexual abuse.
There must be a clear recognition of the need for significantly enhanced resources both provincially and federally to deal with the problem of child sexual abuse. We have to look at the
November 4, 1986

prevention as well as the assisting of victims of child sexual abuse and resources to treat offenders, those who would abuse the children themselves sexually. I have spoken about the victims of child sexual abuse. It is important to note that there are also adult survivors who bear the scars of sexual abuse that they may have suffered as children. There must be resources to assist the adult survivors of sexual abuse to cope with those problems and overcome the scars and the pain which they have suffered. In short, we have to attempt to break that cycle of child sexual abuse which is so pervasive.
In this regard, it is essential to note that many of the resouces which should be in place are seriously lacking. Many of the legislative provisions at the provincial level are seriously lacking. I believe that there are only four provinces, four jurisdictions, which even include sexual abuse as part of their definition of children in need of protection in their child protection statutes. Clearly that must change. While we cannot rewrite provincial legislation, we can certainly send a strong signal of our concerns.
It is also important that we look at the enhanced provision of services for abused children. There are many omissions in this area. There is duplication of effort, the absence of effective coordination between service programs, and ineffective evaluation of whether policy initiatives, guidelines, and programs are actually working and benefiting children. Too often provincial jurisdictions are not putting the amount of money into this problem that they should be. Too often professionals that work in the field are not paying the type of attention that they should be.
In a paper in which Lorenne Clark did a critique of the Badgley Report she stated:
-how is one to make sense of the fact that most jurisdictions do not even recognize sexual abuse of children as behaviour constituting a sufficient condition for declaring a child to be a child in need of protection, that the agencies dealing with the problem do not even know whether the guidelines they are following and the programs they have developed either work or benefit those for whom they are intended, and do not function either as major direct recipients of complaints or even as frequently utilized referrals, and that in two-thirds of the sexual abuse cases coming to them, they themselves may have contributed to that abuse because their belief in the importance of keeping the families of these victims intact led them to refrain from intervention when they already knew that sexual abuse had taken place?
We have illustrations from across Canada about the absence of resources. In Halifax, Children's Aid Society workers now deal with about 50 cases each. This is a far too heavy case load. There is a three month waiting period for psychological treatment of sexual abuse. Similar inadequacies have been documented across the country in the summary of the consultations prepared by Neville Avison of the federal Ministry of Justice. I should like to quote what I think Mr. Avison said very well in his report. He said:
It was believed to be useless, or even worse than useless, for the federal Government to address the legal concerns without having-plans being implemented for the infrastructure of programs and services that would be required.
Criminal Code
I strongly support that statement. We need resources at both provincial and federal levels. There must be an effective coordination of the involvement of the federal Government in this area. For that reason I very much regret that the Ministry of National Health and Welfare has not played a higher profile or a more active role in the whole question of dealing with child sexual abuse.
It was in June of this year that the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp) said that the Government would be announcing shortly the appointment of a special adviser on child sexual abuse. He said that there would be committees of regional advisers as well. One can debate whether there should be a special adviser reporting to the Minister or a commissioner reporting to the Prime Minister as Badgley recommended. However, what surely should be beyond debate is the suggestion that the Government should move quickly to ensure that there is an effective co-ordination of the response of the federal Government in this area. The Minister said in June of this year that the Government would be announcing shortly the appointment of this special adviser. It is now November and we are still waiting. Five months later and the Minister of National Health and Welfare, who is unable to join us in the debate this morning, has failed to act on the promise which he made to move forward with an effective co-ordinating body. I would hope the Minister would recognize his responsibilities and take action on this matter immediately.
As well, the Minister of National Health and Welfare announced with great fanfare that the Government intended to spend the sum of $20 million over five years to deal with the whole question of child sexual abuse. The evidence is clear that such an amount is a pittance and falls far short of what is necessary to respond effectively to the concerns of those who are active in the field of child sexual abuse. That $20 million is approximately half the amount the Government is wasting on the construction of a federal penitentiary at Port-Cartier in the Province of Quebec. The total amount the Government is prepared to commit to child sexual abuse is half the amount being wasted on the construction of a federal penitentiary in the riding of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney). It is shameful that the Government is not prepared to spend more money or to put more resources into effectively dealing with the concerns surrounding child sexual abuse.
A former employee of the Department of National Health and Welfare, Dr. Susan Painter, who worked for that Department from 1981 to 1984 as director of an information service on family violence, has said that she does not understand why her former Department has not responded. She said:
I don't see any excuse for the lack of action.
She is right, and it is about time the Minister of National Health and Welfare recognized his responsibility in this area and realized that a legal response is simply not good enough.
I would note, in closing on this particular point, that Mr. Neville Avison commented in his summary of the discussions following national consultations that those attending the

November 4, 1986
Criminal Code
discussions regretted the absence of a National Health and Welfare representative from the discussion team. Once again we see the colleague of the Minister of Justice failing to fulfil his responsibilities to the children of Canada ana failing to play an active role in this important area.
We must look at the whole question of social services, but we must recognize as well that there is a more fundamental and basic question which we as a society must address-the whole question of male socialization in society. It has been pointed out that over 98 per cent of the offenders in the area of child sexual abuse are males, are men. It is men who are the pimps. It is men who are overwhelmingly the consumers of pornography. It is men who are the customers of prostitutes. Until we can attack in a very fundamental way the socialization which leads to this phenomenon of men being the abusers, the users, and the customers, surely we will not have come to grips with the problem of child sexual abuse or discrimination against women and children.
Again it was Lorenne Clark who wrote very eloquently about this particular matter in the paper to which I referred earlier. I should like to note briefly her comments. She said:
Sexual response is a learned behaviour, and until men can accept themselves as the equals rather than the superiors of women, and can learn new sexual responses appropriate to that status, most aspects of the problem will remain unchanged.
The Church Council on Justice and Corrections, in its brief to the Minister, noted that there was a societal problem in the socialization process of young males. Until recently women and children were considered to be subjected to the power and authority of their husbands and fathers, with very few rights of their own. Women have now acquired legal rights by law and are starting to have these rights respected, but to attribute rights to children is a very recent concept. It is still revolutionary to say that children are not the property of their fathers but are citizens with equal rights to respect and dignity. In that regard I note that it was the former Hon. Member for St. John's East who introduced a Bill into the House in 1978 proposing a Bill of rights for children. I introduced similar legislation, and I believe that approach is one at which we as Members should look with considerable care.
In looking at the whole question of the sexual abuse of young people and children, we recognize a serious concern in society. However, I believe it is very important that in focusing as we are today on the sexual abuse of young children, we not lose sight of other forms of abuse of children. There is a danger that if we as a society focus upon the sexual abuse of young people, we will not give the attention which is warranted to other forms of violence and abuse of children.
In 1959, Canada was one of the signatories to the United Nations Declaration of the Rights of the Child. That Declaration set out very clearly that the child shall enjoy special protection and shall be given opportunities and facilities, in law and by other means, to enable him to develop physically, mentally, morally, spiritually, and socially in a healthy and normal manner and in conditions of freedom and dignity. We
as a society have fallen far short if that is to be our benchmark, as I suggest it should. We have not come to grips with the problem of physical abuse of children, and I am not speaking here of sexual abuse. We have not come to grips with the battering of children which was so clearly documented by the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs in its 1981 report. We must recognize that that is a serious concern we must address. Surely we must ask ourselves whether it is really appropriate that we should in effect be tolerating child abuse explicitly in the provisions of the Criminal Code of Canada. In its 1981 report, in referring to Section 43 of the Criminal Code, the committee indicated:
The Criminal Code as it now stands provides a legal framework for child abuse.
I remind Hon. Members that it is Section 43 of the Criminal Code which indicates explicitly that schoolteachers, parents, and those who stand in the place of parents can in fact use what is called "force" against children.
Why? Why is it that we as a society are prepared to tolerate the use of force against those who are the weakest and most helpless in society, when we will not allow the use of force against any other citizen in our community? It used to be that we would allow the use of force against women, who were seen as appendages or chattels of their husbands. Fortunately those days are gone, but we as a society still tolerate the use of force and violence against our children. I believe, and I speak now as an individual and not on behalf of my party, that the time has come for us to re-evaluate this question. We have to ask ourselves very seriously whether we should not be adopting a fundamentally different approach to the way we treat our children. In Sweden, following lengthy study and debate, the law was changed to prohibit use of physical punishment against children. The law now reads that a child may not be subjected to physical punishment or other injurious or humiliating treatment. The time has come for us to examine very carefully whether that is not an appropriate response for us as a society. After all, what is the dividing line between a spanking and a beating? Who makes that very important decision?
We also have to look at the extent of violence on television. The reality is that a child exposed to television over a number of years will probably have seen something like 18,000 deaths by the time he or she reaches the age of 18. Our movies are full of violence. Video games encourage children to kill as many creatures as possible, as quickly as possible. I am sure that leads to attitudes which can in turn generate violence.
Then there is the violence of poverty itself. The National Council on Child Welfare documented this problem very eloquently. We have the poverty and violence of hunger and cold. We have poverty and violence which leads to young native people drinking photocopier fluid and dying, as happened in Peerless Lake, Alberta. Surely we must not overlook these other forms of abuse and violence of our
November 4, 1986

children which leads to teenage suicides in record numbers in some of our provinces. As Jeffrey Wilson, an author who has written extensively about the position of young people in our society, said, too often the modern reality of Canadian childhood includes the shopping mall, the street corner, the teenage drug abuser, the child suicide, the AWOL kids, struggling in our cities to find a job, a fake ID and a warm place to sleep for the night. That is the reality of too many children in Canada today.
This legislation deals with a number of concerns in this area. It deals with evidentiary provisions which would make it easier to prosecute child sexual abuse in Canada. It would make it easier for children to give evidence. It deals with substantive law in the Criminal Code and there are provisions dealing with juvenile prostitution. Allow me to refer briefly to the clauses in the legislation dealing with juvenile prostitution.
In March of 1983, the Standing Committee on Justice and Solicitor General considered the whole area of prostitution. It did not agree on many things. In fact, there was only one issue on which all three Parties in this House agreed. That was, that the Criminal Code of Canada should be amended to provide sanctions explicitly against those who would attempt to purchase the sexual services of young people. We supported that suggestion in 1983. We have since advocated that the Government move on that suggestion. Certainly we are pleased to see the legislation before the House today incorporate that important provision. I am also pleased to note that the Government rejected the recommendations of the Badgley Commission in that respect.
I see the Hon. Member for Outremont (Mrs. Pepin) has just entered the House. She served with distinction as a member of the Badgley Commission. I say to her that while there were many important provisions in that report, the suggestion that young people be charged as criminals for engaging in acts of prostitution is one that I believe this Government quite properly rejected. However, the Government went on to deal with prostitution in a manner which many of us felt to be completely inappropriate, and Bill C-49 was adopted in the last session of this House despite the opposition of both opposition Parties. That Bill in effect made life even more difficult for young people on the street involved in acts of prostitution. It has driven them underground and in some cases has made them more dependent on pimps. David Dranchuk, who has worked extensively on the streets of Vancouver with juvenile prostitutes, pointed out that since this Bill was enacted the lot of juvenile prostitutes is worse than it was before. We warned the Government of that, and unfortunately the warning has turned into a harsh reality. I hope the Government recognizes that that approach was wrong. It flew in the face of the recommendations of the Fraser Committee and certainly it contributed to the expansion rather than the reduction of child sexual abuse.
Dealing with the two major areas of this Bill, I would like to touch on the evidentiary provisions. My friend from York Centre has already referred to a number of the proposed
Criminal Code
changes, as has the Minister himself. Surely the fundamental principle must be that we allow the child to tell his or her story clearly in court without any sense of intimidation. Does this Bill facilitate that objective? It would eliminate the present requirement for corroboration. We welcome that and we will support it in committee. It is quite unfair that under the present law, if a child cannot be sworn and there is no corroboration, the case must be thrown out of court. That has been a significant barrier to dealing effectively with child sexual abuse in the courts.
However, the provisions as presently drafted fall significantly short of what we believe should be the case. The governing principle should be to facilitate communication by the child. There should not be a test of sufficient intelligence, as proposed in this Bill. We have already seen that the interpretation of this test has led to unreasonable expectations. One judge said it is not good enough to have just average intelligence, the child must be above average in intelligence. Yet, it should not be the intelligence of the child that governs, it should be the ability of that child to communicate to the court that governs. Surely judges should be able to weigh the evidence.
I suggest as well that children be allowed to use devices which might assist them in communicating. A young child, for example, might wish to use an anatomically correct doll to explain exactly what has happened to him or her. I believe that should be permitted by the courts.
The provisions with respect to videotaping evidence are a step forward. The drafting of this provisions leaves something to be desired, however. I believe videotaping should be allowed not just shortly after the offence, because in some cases the child is afraid to speak and it is only after several weeks or months that it finally has the courage to speak out. I would suggest that shortly after the disclosure of the offence the videotaping should be permitted. Nor is it good enough just to permit videotaping. I suggest a record in another form, perhaps an audio recording, is appropriate as well. If this is to work effectively there must be the fundamental safeguard of allowing the accused to watch the evidence of the child and comment on it to his or her lawyer. There are obviously many parts of the country in which there are not adequate resources to facilitate such videotaping of evidence. I suggest that the federal Government should assist in providing those resources.
There are also concerns about the provisions with respect to decorum in the court room and the exclusion of the public from the court room. It may very well be that there should be provisions for the exclusion of the public at the discretion of the judge when a young person is testifying. There are a number of other evidentiary provisions which we will want to examine carefully in the course of committee study.
The Canadian Council on Children and Youth has made a number of important recommendations for changes, as has the Metropolitan Toronto Special Committee on Child Abuse. I

November 4, 1986
Criminal Code
hope that they will be given an opportunity to appear before the committee and make representations in the area of the presentation of evidence. One area in this Bill which I would emphasize as being of fundamental importance, aside from the substantive offences which I will deal with shortly, is the question of evidence. We are concerned that the proposals fall dramatically short of what is appropriate for ensuring that children's evidence gets before the courts.
There are lawyers, particularly defence counsel, who have various concerns about these provisions. Harold Levy, the editor of the Criminal Lawyers Association Newsletter, has called these changes "incredibly dangerous". I have a great deal of respect for Harold Levy. He said:
There seems to be a "believe-the-children movement" which is tied into the children's-rights issue. But they don't have the right to be believed just because they are children.
I fundamentally disagree with that. The fact is that under the law as it now stands children are disbelieved just because they are children. It is about time we recognized that children do have the right to be heard and we should be taking the necessary steps in law to facilitate that right.
The last portion of the Bill which I would like to address contains the substantive provisions of the legislation, the new offences which are created in this Bill. This is obviously an area of the law which is in serious need of overhaul. The Badgely Commission and the Fraser Commission documented offences which are not covered by the existing provisions of the Criminal Code. Similarly, there are other actions which are presently criminalized which should not be the subject of criminal sanction. I would like to address both of those areas in the few minutes I have remaining for making my remarks today.
There are some serious weaknesses and inequities in the substantive offence provisions of this Bill. The Bill refers to "sexual touching" and creates offences for that. Sexual touching is not defined in the legislation. I realize that it is difficult to define that with precision, but I suggest that the committee should try to formulate an appropriate definition of "sexual touching". If it does not, there is greater potential for abuse of this, particularly by law enforcement authorities who may define as "sexual touching" conduct which none of us in this House would reasonably believe should fall under that particular description.
The Bill would, as well, criminalize adolescent sexual behaviour which is currently not the subject of criminal sanctions. As the Canadian Council on Children and Youth has pointed out, under the present law we do not criminalize the acts of a 14-year old who may be necking and petting with a 13-year old or the actions of two 13-year olds who happen to be fooling around or engaging in sexual activity or experimentation. No one in the House is suggesting that we should take steps to indicate our approval of teenage sexual activity. However, the reality that young people under the age of 16 do engage in sexual experimentation must be faced. This Bill would criminalize that sexual experimentation amoung young
people. I suggest that education at home, school, church and elsewhere is the best way for children to develop in a sexually healthy and mature fashion. We should not use the sledgehammer of criminal law against sexual experimentation and activity between adolescents.
The Bill is curious in that it would say that it is okay for a 13-year old and a 12-year old to engage in adolescent sexual experimentation. However, for a 14-year old and a 13-year old to engage in the same kind of sexual experimentation is a criminal offence. That makes no sense whatever. I suggest that we study very seriously the recommendations of the Canadian Council on Children and Youth in this area.
In addition, the Bill would single out for special treatment under the Criminal Code the offence of buggery. It would reduce the age from 21 to 18 but would maintain the offence of buggery for special treatment. The Special Committee on Equality Rights recommended that there should be a uniform age of consent for homosexual and heterosexual activity. I suggest that by retaining the offence of buggery and applying an age of consent of 18 to it, the Government continues to discriminate against young gays. I suggest that the committee may want to examine as well the term "buggery".
In reality, in dealing with the offence of buggery the Government is saying that two 17-year olds, including two 17-year olds of the same sex, for example, cannot engage in an act of anal intercourse but may engage in any other form of sexual activity. If the Government wants to justify this form of discrimination, surely it will have to demonstrate to the committee that this conduct is more harmful than heterosexual conduct or other homosexual conduct in the same age group. I suggest that in the absence of the ability to demonstrate that, the legislation should apply a uniform age of consent.
I note as well that the legislation attempts to lower the age of consent from 21 to 18 for buggery. However, at the same time there is a quite pejorative reference to consent by individuals who are "feeble-minded, insane, an idiot or imbecile". I suggest that maintaining that kind of language in the Criminal Code is quite inappropriate. I hope the committee would redraft that language if it is to be maintained at all.
I suggest that in the absence of compelling evidence the committee should adopt the recommendation of a uniform age of consent.
In conclusion, I would like to emphasize that we in this Party recognize that this subject must be addressed with care and in depth by Parliament and, in particular, by the committee which will be established to consider the legislation. It requires careful study. We have co-operated in ensuring that the debate on second reading of this Bill came forward quickly.
I hope that the Minister recognizes that there must be adequate time for those groups involved in this issue to be able to prepare their responses to the legislation and appear before the committee. I hope the Government will ensure that there are adequate resources to assist them in appearing before the committee.
November 4, 1986

The legislation before us is of fundamental importance. We in the New Democratic Party are prepared to give it very serious and responsible consideration. I hope the Government will recognize that the changes which I suggested would make this a better Bill which all members of the House could support.
[ Translation]


Mr. Francois Gerin (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, first of all, I wish to congratulate the Minister of Justice (Mr. Hnatyshyn) on tabling this Bill so soon. I also wish to reiterate his request that all Canadians support the fight against child sexual abuse. This request was made earlier by the Minister to the Opposition parties, and I was happy to hear spokespersons for the two Opposition parties give the House the assurance it would have their full co-operation for speedy passage of these measures.
Mr. Speaker, the Minister sought this co-operation not only because he believes in these measures as the Minister of Justice of Canada, but also because two important committees made the same request previously. The Badgley Report and the Fraser Report both recognized that the problem was an urgent one and required a joint effort by all levels of government in Canada and by all other social agencies and organizations in our society. The Badgley Committee submitted a total of 52 recommendations addressed to all levels of government and to the private sector. They contain a wide range of approaches, including heightening the awareness of society, public education, improving public health and amendments to criminal law. The Badgley proposals specifically identify two preconditions. First of all, to deal effectively with the personal and social ills arising from child sexual abuse will require concerted action on the part of all levels of our society. Second, the Government of Canada must play a central role in this action. Consequently, it is only logical that the Canadian Government should use criminal law to fight against certain kinds of behaviour that cause considerable harm to others and that it should involve special social and educational measures in the process. While the federal Government can play a major role at the national level and continue to make the public aware of these issues, we must remember that under the Canadian Constitution, the responsibility for providing social and health services to Canadians lies with the provinces. The federal Government will therefore act as a catalyst in this area and seek the co-operation of the provinces in dealing with these issues.
The key to the success of this new program which is aimed at fighting child sexual abuse will be to obtain the co-operation of all levels of government and the private sector. These problems must therefore be addressed, first and foremost, at the local level, and we hope that in future, the provinces will help the federal Government to identify areas where concerted action could be taken. I am convinced that this Government
Criminal Code
also intends to maintain and even strengthen its close relationship with the many volunteer organizations involved in this field. Private sector participation is a must as well. We are aware that in many instances these organizations are in an ideal position to take quick and appropriate community action.
This Bill deals with several major issues, Mr. Speaker, but I am pleased that the Government has seen fit to dissociate it from the legislative measure on pornography. It would have been unfortunate had all these Criminal Code amendments been lumped together, for Bill C-15 would have lost its impact and the special consideration it deserves precisely because it excludes other measures related to pornography. As a matter of fact there is no doubt that within a few weeks- recently the Minister of Justice did express the hope that the Bill might be introduced before Christmas-the Bill on pornography will come up for reconsideration which will not include these provisions respecting sexual abuse of young children.
Among other points, Mr. Speaker, I intend to deal today with specific amendments related to the Canada Evidence Act.
As a criminal lawyer with over 15 years' experience I paid special attention to the amendments concerning corroboration, testimony by the spouse, failure of the accused to attend when a child gives evidence, in certain cases, admissibility of videotaped evidence, lack of recent complaint and extension of the limitation period.
This week, Mr. Speaker, I heard about and read certain articles dealing mainly with the question of corroboration. This rule, which is very familiar to judges and lawyers alike, caused many problems to prosecutors and much satisfaction to lawyers for the defense. In my opinion, this is an exceptional rule. Why require corroboration of the evidence of a child if you do not require the same corroboration in the case of evidence given by a very old person or someone whose evidence before the court is rather incoherent.
In such cases, the usual rules of evidence apply, which means that the evidence is judged on its own merits. Who is in a better position to evaluate evidence than the judge or members of the jury? Who could be in a better position than these twelve men and women to decide whether evidence should be believed totally, partly or not at all, whether it is given by a 40 year-old or a 10 year-old?
It seems to me that most jury members are Canadians with children of their own, and they are aware of the problems which can result when a child tells his own version of the facts. Parents are able to understand, judge and assess what a child has said and generality to decide whether he should be believed completely, partly or not at all, just as jury members do in all cases before the courts in Canada by listening to the evidence of the witness, whoever he may be.
I am very happy about this new rule which removes the need for corroboration, and as a defence lawyer, it does not scare me. I am convinced that other defence lawyers will be able, through an appropriate cross-interrogation, that the judges will be able, thanks to their usual wisdom, and that the jury

November 4, 1986
Criminal Code
members will be able, thanks to what they see happening before their eyes and their own common sense, to decide what credence should be given to the evidence of a child.
I am not worried at all. I have myself been much more concerned when I saw frightened young children give evidence not knowing whether they should say that they knew what the Bible was or what the nature of the oath was, not taking the oath and afterwards giving their evidence quite coherently and credibly, and when J then saw, because of this corroboration rule, the judge often say publicly at the hearing that, regretfully, he could not accept the evidence of these children because it had not been corroborated on an essential point involving the accused. Then, the accused was acquitted on a technicality. Canadians find this unacceptable. So do the parents of these young children. Generally, this is viewed as unacceptable by our society, where there have been some changes in attitudes that we should recognize today. Mr. Speaker, such corroboration is no longer necessary in 1986. Nowadays, it is replaced by the normal rules of evidence, which normally determine how you should judge evidence.
As a defence lawyer, I am not at all worried about the accused. They may not be acquitted on technicalities, but they can still be acquitted if they are able, by effective crossinterrogation or other evidence, to weaken or undermine the evidence of the child, as that of any other witness. This is the fair solution.
The presiding judge at a trial by jury will no longer have to advise the members of the jury to be careful before condemning an accused on the evidence of a child. This will no longer be necessary. However, in any trial by jury, the judge must explain thoroughly the nature of the evidence and what the jury members must do before deciding whether a witness should be believed completely, partly or not at all. He must explain this well. In any case, my personal experience has always been that the jury members' just as anyone else who follows a trial closely, make up their minds about the quality of a witness and of his evidence. There is therefore no reason for concern about this either.
By the way, 1 want to say that I am also delighted that the legislation should no longer discriminate between young girls and young boys. 1 think it is a very good change. This is indeed a practical application of the political speeches and promises made by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) in 1984, reiterated in the first Throne Speech, and reiterated again recently in the last Throne Speech. This is an example with practical application in our daily life. 1 suggest all Hon. Member should congratulate the Government for this new legislation.
There is also an amendment to the Canada Evidence Act which would now allow or even compel the spouse of an accused to testify when the victim is a child of the accused. That is normal. In many cases, that might be the only testimony. A mother might be aware of a fact and could not tell it to the judge, because of a particular provision in the legislation which generally made it possible for the accused to
say: I do not want my wife to come and testify against me. This is a time honoured tradition which all Canadians will accept to break in the case of sexual offences against children.
Mr. Speaker, a provision of this Bill which will make it possible for the presiding judge or justice, under special circumstances and following an investigation, to exclude the accused during the testimony of a child, will certainly create a whole new jurisprudence. It obviously raises a number of practical problems, as in the case of an accused who would defend himself.
Clearly, the Legislative Committee will have to study this provision closely and consider its application to various cases. Yet, as counsel for the defence, I also put a lot of trust on the intelligence of the presiding judges who will be called upon to determine exactly when this very special provision should apply. I firmly believe, for instance, that in the case of an accused who is defending himself, the justice would appreciate and decide each case on its merit.
In my opinion, that videotaped evidence should become admissible is excellent. Of course, in our courts, it often happens that proceeding commence only several months, if not several years, following the alleged offence. How could we ask a ten-year old child, for instance, to remember all the details two or three years after the alleged offence.
In practice, we used to try and refresh the child's memory by using a previous statement. From now on, this legislation will allow the courts to refresh the child's memory publicly and openly, and if the child is able to recognize his or her previous statement, this videotaped evidence will become admissible as proof. Again, that is an excellent change. This applies also to recent complaints which have always caused serious problems before our courts. The absence of prescription is also a very good thing. In fact, such a prescription exists under the Criminal Code for all offences punishable on summary conviction. It continues to exist. For indictable offences-it did not exist for other indictable offences and I do not see why it should exist in the case of a sexual offence against a child. No distinction should be made. That is a measure which is therefore more equitable.
The existing criminal law provisions contained a number of restrictions and I will single out a few, Mr. Speaker. Young boys and girls did not enjoy equal protection under the law. In many cases the victim had to be a female and the accused a male.
Most offences related exclusively to vaginal sexual intercourse and did not cover the wide variety of sexual activities which can be described as abuse of children such as touching, masturbation and oral-genital contacts against which young boys and girls alike must be protected.
There was also the Criminal Code legal presumption whereby a boy under 14 was deemed unable to maintain an erection and have sexual intercourse. This flies in the face of today's biological reality, Mr. Speaker.
November 4, 1986

The age of sexual consent varies under the existing Criminal Code provisions, but this will be changed according to the sexual act involved and the sex of the participant.
Mr. Speaker, I see that my time is running out. I wanted to make these few remarks on the amendments and tell you that this Bill is one of the social justice measureSTmveiled by the Government in the Speech from the Throne delivered less than a month ago. I invite all Canadians to familiarize themselves with these new rules and abide by them. I urge all my colleagues in the House, regardless of their Party, to support this Government endeavour which goes a long way to meet the wishes of the members of the Badgley and Fraser committees, as well as those of Canadians and parents throughout this country.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: If the Hon. Member is in the House, there will be time for questions and comments after the oral questions period.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I wish to advise the House at this time that, pursuant to Standing Order 92(5), the following Members have been appointed to the Panel of Chairmen: Robert Coates and Anthony Roman.
It being one o'clock, I do now leave the chair until two o'clock this day.
At 1 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.


Mr. Len Hopkins (Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday, in answer to my second question concerning the closure of the Algonquin Radio Observatory located in Algonquin Park in eastern Ontario, the Minister of State for Science and Technology (Mr. Oberle) had the gall to say that I was an alarmist and that I was not being helpful to the morale of the employees. This is a new-found method of
diverting blame and responsibility from the Government. It is a cheap tactic.
If the Minister is genuinely concerned about the morale of the employees, why did the director in charge of the observatory visit the site one week ago today and tell the employees that they should submit their resumes so that they would have an opportunity to apply for other jobs? How does the Minister think that affected morale? Instead of blaming the Opposition for asking pertinent questions about this incredible Government, why does the Minister of State for Science and Technology not admit that it is the unconscionable financial restraints imposed by his own Government that have caused this entire mess? It is the Minister who is creating the alarm, not the members of the Opposition.
I visited the employees last Sunday and I can tell the Minister that there was absolutely-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I regret that the Hon. Member's time has expired.



HOUSING


Mr. Rob Nicholson (Niagara Falls):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to report that our residential building industry continues to boom. This is just one more sign that the economic objectives of the Government are right on track. As quoted in The Globe and Mail of today:
Residential construction across Canada continues to outpace even the most optimistic forecasts-
"The spectacular strength of new home building-is breath-taking-
Up to September of this year national housing starts number almost 125,000-a 26 per cent increase over the same period last year. The figures are equally impressive for the Province of Ontario where there is a 29 per cent increase over last year's starts. However, this building upsurge carries right across the country. For example, the Province of Nova Scotia is ahead by a spectacular 50 per cent.
In my riding of Niagara Falls and the surrounding area housing starts are 34 per cent ahead of last year. This is good news for Niagara Falls and good news for all of Canada.



REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT


Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg-Birds Hill):: Mr. Speaker, Manitobans of all political stripes feel that a great injustice has been committed against our province. In the days and weeks ahead the Government will have ample opportunity to

November 4, 1986
address that injustice by making good on other decisions that will beneficially affect the Manitoba economy.
Specifically, the Government should act as soon as possible to implement the remaining two-thirds of the box-car rehabilitation program in Transcona; decide to build, and to build in Winnipeg, the new light-weight hopper-cars; proceed with the VIA Rail shop in Winnipeg; order the new transcontinental equipment for VIA; review its cancellation of the manufacturing technology centre; live up to its commitments to Churchill; reverse the shift of IRDP funds to central Canada; and reverse the cut-backs in federal transfer payments to the provinces, such as Manitoba, which are hardest hit.
In addition, the Government should also be looking for ways to prevent the unravelling of the aerospace industry in Winnipeg-a process begun by the Liberals a long time ago when they transferred the Air Canada overhaul base in Winnipeg to Montreal-instead of helping to unravel that industry further as it did last week.



VOLUNTARY ORGANIZATIONS


Mr. Allan Pietz (Welland):: Mr. Speaker, the work of volunteers in our society has enriched the lives of those who participate in such services as well as the lives of those they help. The dedication of workers like Margaret Corbett, Helen Fennell, and Don MacLean from the riding of Welland has contributed greatly to the communities of South St. Catharines and Thorold.
Mr. MacLean has worked for many years organizing recreational sports. Mrs. Fennell has contributed years of work to the Canadian Cancer Society. Mrs. Corbett has been very active on behalf of severely mentally handicapped children. The two women were among 71 people across Canada to be awarded the Canada Volunteer Award Certificate of Merit this year.
I was pleased to hear in the Speech from the Throne that the Government plans further support for the growth of volunteer service in society. Recognition of the value of volunteers should be a priority of every level of government and of all Canadians.



THE ADMINISTRATION


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, I object to the Government's authorization of a payment of up to
$350,000 for the legal fees of the Hon. Member for York- Peel (Mr. Stevens) who is defending himself on violations of conflict of interest guidelines. I believe it is fair for the Government to pay the bills of a Minister who is defending the way he did his job and his behaviour as a Minister. However, in this case the allegations are that the Minister in effect engaged in moonlighting while he was a Minister.
I submit that it is not fair for a person who is defending himself on allegations of moonlighting to have his bills paid by the Government of Canada. There is no precedent for this of which I am aware, and I tried to find one. Any official of the Government who must defend his own conduct before a commission should have his fees paid, but not for doing things extraneous to the job.



POLITICAL PARTIES


Mr. Walter Van  de Walle@Pembina: Mr. Speaker, the byelection in the Pembina riding held on September 29 was history in the making. The electors of Pembina demonstrated once again their confidence in the Progressive Conservative Party, the one most competent and best equipped to administer the affairs of our great country.
The by-election was a personal victory for me and I can assure my colleagues in this House that I will live up to the trust that has been placed in me.
The residents of the Pembina constituency have been disastrously affected by the dramatic drop in the world prices of oil and grain. I will be concentrating my efforts on the areas of agriculture, small business, and energy, areas which are so vital to the economy of the Province of Alberta.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, the Department of the Solicitor General has recently privatized, without consultation, parole supervision for 250 parolees in Toronto to the John Howard Society. The mission of the Correctional Service to help offenders become law-abiding citizens is demeaned by shoving aside a professional workforce of highly skilled and deeply committed workers in favour of the employees of a largely voluntary organization. This change does no service to parolees and it does no service to the people of Canada who demand a professional supervision service.
November 4, 1986

Not only is the whole system of parole put into question by this ill-conceived move so too is the John Howard Society's role as one of the most important prisoner service organizations in Canada. Indeed, there is internal division on this question.
I call upon the Solicitor General (Mr. Kelleher) to halt this mindless proposal immediately and to allow the Justice Committee to hold full hearings on it. As well, I would hope that the Government would ensure that there would be no reprisals against those public servants who had the courage to speak out against this senseless move toward privatization in the Correctional Service of Canada.



RESEARCH


Mr. Alfonso Gagliano (Saint-Leonard-Anjou):: Mr. Speaker, today I should like to read in this House a letter sent to the Prime Minister of Canada by one of my constituents and I quote:
I have been an employee of the CNRC for six years. During that period, I have filed 14 industrial copyright applications for which permits have been purchased by three Canadian companies. I have also written 46 scientific papers and an internationally renowned book. I mention this to show that I am an aboveaverage researcher in Canada as elsewhere.
Due to the recent climate of uncertainty for applied research in this country, I am now considering going to work abroad. Unless conditions change drastically in the near future, the best scientific engineers will soon do likewise. The federal Government should act as soon as possible to prevent such an exodus which would have long-term disastrous effects.
Mr. Speaker, the Government should put an end to its cutbacks and encourage our young scientists to stay in this country.
* *
*



AIRPORTS


Mr. Dave Nickerson (Western Arctic):: Mr. Speaker, despite recommendations of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Transport, the Canadian Aviation Safety Board, and many others, the Arctic Airports Program still remains in limbo. The Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) is on record as acknowledging the need for proper airstrips in remote areas, both for safety and economic reasons. Manicouagan has already been the beneficiary of his vision. However, about 11 identified locations exist in the Territories
where airstrips are either rudimentary and unsafe, or nonexistent. The Arctic Airports Program, which was allowed to expire by the previous Government, must be reactivated if northerners are to travel in safety.



CANADA POST CORPORATION


Mr. Cyril Keeper (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, Canada Post in letting out its new contracts for cleaning has robbed the lowest paid workers of their collectively negotiated rights by asking them to take a 50 per cent pay cut. Canada Post is taking advantage of the fact that labour law does not protect those people and their collectively negotiated settlement.
I call upon the Minister to meet with the workers in order to resolve this conflict and prevent a further deterioration in labour-management relations at Canada Post, which could threaten postal service in our country. Will the Minister take some action so that Canada Post cannot take advantage of the lowest paid workers who are being asked to take a 50 per cent wage cut?
* *
*



QUALITY OF LIFE


Mrs. Carole Jacques (Montreal-Mercier):: Mr. Speaker, the recent report by the CUM Public Security Commission states that the fight against drug trafficking must be supported by political will.
I am proud that this Conservative Government already has recognized this and taken the steps needed. The Solicitor General has stressed once more his determination to set up a national strategy to reduce both the demand and supply of drugs.
Drug consumption is a problem that goes far beyond criminal acts and health hazards. Too often, it opens the door to criminal habits such as stealing, receiving, and sometimes even prostitution, all of which arise out of the need for drugs. The problem however is not exclusively a criminal one. It is an educational and a social problem. This is why the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp), the Minister of Justice (Mr. Hnatyshyn) and the Solicitor General (Mr. Kelleher) are joining efforts to find a solution. This is a national problem that requires a concerted effort on the part of all Canadian. This Government is doing its share, and all Canadian men and women should welcome this.

November 4, 1986
Oral Questions ENERGY



INCREASE IN PRICE OF GASOLINE DECREED BY ULTRAMAR

Mr. Jean-CIaude Malepart (Montreal-Sainte-Marie):: Mr. Speaker, there were bad news for Quebecers today. The Ultramar Corporation has announced an increase of close to 2 cents a litre on gasoline at the pump.
Mr. Speaker, we all remember that nine months ago, this Conservative Government approved the purchase by Ultramar of the Gulf refinery and other facilities, so that it could shut down the Montreal East End refinery, reduce competition, secure a monopolistic position and increase fuel prices at the pump.
It is my hope that this Conservative Government and the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Masse) will ask Petro-Canada not to follow the bad example set up by Ultramar. And I am inviting all Quebecers to boycott Ultramar and to fill up at other stations where they can have cheaper gasoline.



THE PRESS


Mr. Lee Clark (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, the first newspaper which I ever read was a community weekly newspaper. Like many Canadians, I continue to read such newspapers literally from cover to cover. For many of us who either grew up in rural communities or continue to live in rural communities, the weekly newspaper was and still is an important and sometimes the only source of information. Moreover, the weekly newspaper was and is a unifying factor, a source of local pride, and the personification of the community itself.
Due to the vastness of Canada, and the degree of isolation which exists in many of our rural communities, Governments historically have recognized the need to subsidize postal rates for many of our special interest publications, including weekly community newspapers.
Unfortunately Canada Post officials are now threatening to absolish those special postal rates. The end result, tragically, would be the demise of some local newspapers due to an insufficient number of subscribers and advertisers.
In light of the historic and continuing role of weeklies as community builders and supporters, I urge Canada Post officials and the Minister responsible to continue the policy of concessionary rates to this industry.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Right Hon. John N. Turner (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. He knows that the CN shops in Moncton are the largest industrial employer in the Atlantic provinces. He also should know that the Deputy Prime Minister promised that there would never be any massive lay-offs at those shops. He indicated at one time that there was no prospect of a sale. Of course there have been negotiations for a sale, and now we learn from Canadian General Electric that the sale has either been cancelled or suspended. Why does the Government not fulfil its promises to the people of New Brunswick? What is the Government doing to try to save the CN shops at Moncton?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Leader of the Opposition might keep in mind that during the period from 1980 to 1984 average employment with CN declined by 8,000 persons. We wonder where he was while that was happening.
To deal with the position at Moncton, the proposed sale of part of the main shops at Moncton, which was arranged by CN, to CGE, is not cancelled. CN is still prepared to meet with the unions concerned to see if the matter can be resolved. Two of the seven unions have refused to agree to what they call contracting out so that the present employees of CN can continue to do the same work for CGE at those shops- maintenance work on Bombardier locomotives. It is still prepared to meet with them and hope that agreement can still be reached, so the matter is not yet concluded.
CN and the Government will do everything possible to see that the 303 persons who would have jobs in the CGE operation get that opportunity and that Moncton has the opportunity for that kind of industrial development.


NECESSITY THAT CN SHOPS IN MONCTON NOT BE CLOSED
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, the Moncton shops used to employ 1,200 workers, but only half of them are left now. As the Minister would know, the Moncton CN shops are one of the mainstays of the economy of the Atlantic Provinces. The Deputy Prime Minister had promised they would remain open.
Why is the Government attempting to shirk its responsibility? Why is the Government failing to live up to its promises to New Brunswickers? Why is the Government failing to live up to the promises it made in the Speech from the Throne? Why is the Government abandoning the men and women who work in the Moncton CN shops? These are facts.
November 4, 1986


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, let me say that the Government is fulfilling its responsibilities and that CN is doing its best to meet the responsibilities it accepts, and to be a model employer. I will refer to the 1,022 employees affected by the fact that the CN shops in Moncton had to be closed. They had to be closed because CN must operate productively and efficiently, as directed by the Government of 1978. The Liberal administration of Canada then directed that they had to stand on their own feet.
Of the 1,022 employees, CGE hopefully would employ 303; 150 are transferred to CN's Gordon Yard; 132 will be taken care of in other aspects of CN work; 200 have options to move to other shops in the system; and 237 will be offered comprehensive benefit programs and retraining assistance. We and CN set up a special $4 million fund to help in the industrial development of Moncton. The Government has met every ounce of its responsibilities and will continue to do so.


GOVERNMENT POLICY
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, those words will not give any comfort to the workers of Moncton and the Minister knows it. The Prime Minister, when he was in New Brunswick this summer, told the people of that province, "I won't give you the finger, I will give you the time of day". I do not know what the Prime Minister has given the people of Moncton but it certainly is not the time of day. Now that it is five to midnight for the people of Moncton and the workers in those shops, cut out the subterfuge and tell us what the Government is really going to do about it.


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, if the right hon. gentleman wanted to be helpful and not just try to take partisan advantage of an unfortunate situation he would be urging the two unions concerned to drop this ideological fixation on contracting out and permit their Moncton members to go ahead so CGE can set up a locomotive manufacturing establishment in Moncton. The only thing stopping that now is the refusal of two of seven unions to permit this to happen so that the employees doing this work now can do it in the future. That is where he could be helpful.


FUTURE OF SHOPS-MINISTER'S POSITION
Fernand Robichaud: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Transport knows CGE has suspended its plans to buy the railway shops in Moncton. He also knows that CN said it would close the shops if the deal with CGE did not go through. It seems that deal is quite remote at this moment. Is the Minister going to stand idly by and allow CN to shut down the shops, or is he going to save the shops as the previous Minister of Transport promised the people of Moncton?
Oral Questions


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. gentleman wanted to be helpful he would be side by side with the Hon. Member for Moncton who met yesterday, and is meeting today, with CN to try to resolve the situation and persuade the union to drop this restriction so that this manufacturing enterprise can go ahead. That is what he would be doing rather than doing everything he can to stop it, which is all he has done in the past.


Fernand Robichaud: Mr. Speaker, I will not be a party to union busting. Never once has that Government come out on the side of the Moncton workers.


REQUEST THAT MINISTER INTERVENE WITH CANADIAN NATIONAL
Fernand Robichaud: Mr. Speaker, I ask the Minister when he will intervene and instruct CN to take a second look and come up with a deal acceptable to the workers and the community of Moncton? We cannot afford to lose 1,000 jobs.


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, the friends of the Moncton workers have been hard at work attempting to save the 1,100 jobs or see that adequate training, retraining, and other help is given, or see that 303 of them work in the CGE manufacturing facility in Moncton. The Minister of Labour appointed a mediator to help reach an agreement. An agreement was reached with the seven unions on October 13 which the internationals have turned down out of callous disregard for their members who live in Moncton. He should be trying to persuade those internationals to help free the workers in Moncton to take those jobs.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


REQUEST THAT MINISTER INTERVENE WITH CANADIAN GENERAL ELECTRIC
Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina West):: Mr. Speaker, I have never heard such unmitigated nonsense from a Transport Minister before, and I have been through eight of them. Ministers of Transport are going through a revolving door around here. He knows that the Canadian machinists and Canadian pipe fitters voted nationally across Canada not to accept contracting out after the bitter experience of post office workers. We all know that CGE has not burned all its bridges although there is an element of blackmail and holding to ransom by that company. Will the Minister assure the House that he will ask CGE to show some understanding, compassion and patience, let the collective bargaining process take its course, and assist in getting the parties concerned back to the bargaining table?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, I would remind the hon. gentleman that five of the seven unions involved, that is in excess of 50 per cent, five out of seven, agreed to allow contracting out under the conditions set down, that it would not be a precedent for national labour negotiations and the like. The hon. gentleman could have a
1054

November 4, 1986
Oral Questions
persuasive effect on those other two unions if he would stir his stumps and try to do something other than criticizing everything that everyone else tries to do.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, the Minister keeps running away from the facts and his responsibilities. That is a national contract. It is not a contract only for Moncton. The Minister damn well knows it.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I would ask the Hon. Member to put his question and leave out some of the words.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


POSSIBLE REOPENING OF NEGOTIATIONS
Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, will the Minister now tell us what action he has taken, if any, or will take, to get CGE to keep its mouth shut and get the two parties concerned back to the bargaining table? One vote does not close out a contract or a deal. There needs to be further bargaining and the Minister knows that. Will he assist in that process and will he get it going as quickly as possible?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, when the hon. gentleman leaves the rhetoric behind he starts to make sense.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. de Jong:: Listen to that.


Mr. Riis:: You try that.


Mr. Broadbent:: Yeah, you try it.


John Carnell Crosbie: I retract. He doesn't make sense, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Guilbault (Saint-Jacques):: You should try to make sense.


John Carnell Crosbie: My office has been in the touch with the president of CN constantly. CN is ready to meet with the unions involved again and to do anything humanly possible to get them to see the virtues, merits, and lack of danger of the course which is being suggested. Canadian General Electric is doing just what the hon. gentleman suggested. It is keeping its mouth shut and waiting to see. It is not going to pull out prematurely either. We all want 303 jobs and a manufacturing industry established in Moncton.


Fernand Robichaud: We want 1,000 jobs, not 300.


John Carnell Crosbie: That is what those who are keeping their mouths shut want, but not some of those who are not keeping their mouths shut.


REGIONAL INDUSTRIAL EXPANSION
Mr. Russell MacLellan (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Right Hon. Prime Minister. Earlier this year the federal Government made a commitment to the Province of Nova Scotia to fund the modernization of Sydney Steel Corporation. Now the Premier of Nova Scotia says that the federal Government has retained Arthur D. Little of Toronto to do a marketing study of Sydney Steel Corporation. Could the Prime Minister tell me why the federal Government is reneging on its commitment to the Sydney Steel Corporation and the Province of Nova Scotia?


Right Hon. Brian Mulroney (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, the federal Government is co-operating completely with the Government of Nova Scotia with regard to this very important matter for the people of Nova Scotia, and it will continue to do that.


Mr. Dingwall:: He doesn't know his file.


PREPARATION OF MARKETING STUDY
Russell Gregoire MacLellan: Mr. Speaker, if the federal Government is keeping its commitment, why is this maketing study necessary at this particular time? Why is the Premier of Nova Scotia saying that an unfavourable result of this marketing study could result in the federal Government pulling away its commitment to funding for the modernization of Sydney Steel Corporation?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I suppose one would have to ask the Premier for his answer to that. We are of the view that the project, as set out originally, which required federal and provincial commitment, is a valuable and valid one and we continue to work with the provincial Government in that regard.


NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. The Algonquin Radio Observatory has a world-class reputation, having gained respect in virtually every country in the world. Regrettably, due to government cut-backs, it has had to curtail a $6 million expansion. On Friday the head of the Herzberg Institute wrote all the employees directly involved telling them that the facility at Algonquin was going to be shut down. Given the Prime Minister's commitment to double research and development spending in Canada, how could his Government sabotage such a worthwhile scientific endeavour?
November 4, 1986


Hon. Frank Oberle (Minister of State for Science and Technology):: Mr. Speaker, as I was sitting here I was reading some of my mail. I have a letter here signed by the Director whom the Hon. Leader of the NDP mentioned, Mr. Donald Morton. He says that no final decision has been made. This is a letter dated November 3 to: "All staff of the Herzberg Institute of Astrophysics". It states: "No final decision has been made on the future of the Observatory".


FUTURE OF EMPLOYEES
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, the House will have noted the date on the letter. All of us would like to see copies of it.
Perhaps the Minister can explain how two things happened yesterday. First, he announced that no final decision had been made, notwithstanding what had been said on Friday. It was also announced yesterday that 90 per cent of the positions currently occupied in the observatory were going to be abolished. It is a logical problem to many of us how an observatory can be run without any employees. Will the Minister explain that?


Frank Oberle: Mr. Speaker, the information given to us by the Leader of the New Democratic Party is again erroneous. Not 90 per cent of the positions have been affected.


John Edward Broadbent: How many?


Frank Oberle: I want to tell the Hon. Leader of the NDP that there is an urgent and pressing need for us to develop a new national strategy that will take us into the 21st century. Changes will have to be made, including changes that will eliminate some irrelevance that is in the community, to make sure that all of our programs and all the instruments available to the federal Government are focused properly on a set of new priorities that are urging us toward the next century.


John Edward Broadbent: One way that you do not improve R and D is to destroy a world-class operation. That is what the Government is doing.


COST OF OPERATING OBSERVATORY
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Prime Minister. He spoke eloquently about this subject during the campaign. That facility presently costs between $40 million and $50 million. That is what the Algonquin facility is worth. Can the Prime Minister explain how the Government is performing rationally by shutting it down completely or mothballing it in order to save $1 million in needed funds now? Does it make sense not to provide that necessary $1 million and continue to destroy that facility? Why does the Prime Minister not live up to his commitment to expand research and development facilities instead of destroying them?
Oral Questions


Frank Oberle: Mr. Speaker, that is precisely what the Government is doing. It is expanding on the Government's and the nation's capacity to do research and science related activities. Let me provide the Hon. Leader of the NDP with the facts. I will gladly send him a copy of the letter. It says that there will be no reduction in the service during the winter of 1986-87- "during which time a number of options for providing the necessary facilities to the Canadian Astronomical Community will be investigated". This is what I have said consistently and what the President of the NRC said when he held a press conference three weeks ago. The facts are here. Why would the Leader of the NDP wish to distort them?


REGIONAL INDUSTRIAL EXPANSION
David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Right Hon. Prime Minister. On December 28, 1985, the former Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion said in Sydney: "I am here to tell you that it is going. The Sysco agreement is there. There should be no doubt now concerning the future of Sysco". Will the Prime Minister explain to the House why this new market information was not requested in early 1985, or is the Sysco modernization another broken promise by an untrustworthy Government?


Hon. Bernard Valcourt (Minister of State (Small Businesses and Tourism)):: With respect to the Sysco modernization program, Mr. Speaker, the engineering contract has already been awarded, the engineering project got under way last October 1, and the work is expected to be completed within six to eight months. Such activities indicate to me and to the people of Cape Breton that the Government is following up on its program to help Cape Breton and Sysco. We are not backtracking. On the contrary, we are moving ahead and making good time.


INITIATION OF MARKETING STUDY
David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Minister. I say with great sincerity that the Minister is not on top of the file. Who is responsible for the request for additional market information? Is it the Government of Canada, is it the Government of Nova Scotia, or is it both parties participating in an unconscionable act on a people who have been disgusted by the Government?


Bernard Valcourt: Mr. Speaker, when I look at the action

November 4, 1986
Oral Questions
the Government has taken on behalf of Cape Breton, I do not believe that rhetoric holds true at all.


An Hon. Member:: Answer the question.


Bernard Valcourt: The actions taken by the Government with respect to Sysco modernization are in line with what had been planned. We are doing whatever is necessary to ensure that this works, and works properly.


SUPPLY AND SERVICES
Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the President of the Treasury Board. The Minister must be aware of stories that Canadair does not have the necessary and expensive technology needed for the maintenance of the CF-18. Was the Government aware of this fact? Does the Government have any cost estimates with regard to how much this could cost Canadair and, if so, who will pay that extra cost?


Hon. Robert de Cotret (President of the Treasury Board):: As I have stated repeatedly, Mr. Speaker, we were dealing with two excellent groups of companies which were deemed fully competent technologically to do the work. As a matter of fact, the current exercise is the reason why we have favoured Canadair as a company which can manufacture airplanes and ensure their maintenance. We had a greater possibility to ensure the transfer of technology which will occur over the next few years and that is the reason why, in the common interest, we decided to award the contract to the Canadair group rather than to the other consortium, both being excellent.


REQUEST THAT CONTRACT BE REFERRED TO AUDITOR GENERAL
Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, I asked the Minister three specific questions and he did not answer any of them. Since the integrity of the Government is in question with regard to its decision-making process, will he agree to the request made by the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North Centre on Friday afternoon and ensure that all the papers necessary to look into the Government's decision-making process in this matter are referred to the Auditor General?


Robert René de Cotret: Mr. Speaker, when a Government acts in the national interest, I doubt sincerely that its integrity could be questioned. We have made a difficult decision based on complex criteria in the
common interest which we pursue as a Government. For that matter, Mr. Speaker, we will have to make other difficult decisions, but always in the best interest of Canadians from coast to coast.


COST OF TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Winnipeg-Fort Garry):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also directed to the President of the Treasury Board. Since he apparently did not hear the previous questions, 1 will pose them again. Litton, Bendix, and Garrett, which were three sub-contractors in the Bristol consortium, have said that they will no longer transfer technology that they possess for free as they had intended. It will now cost an extra $30 million, which means $30 million on top of the $104 million Canadair bid. Will the President of the Treasury Board state whether that was taken into account and whether the Government will sudsidize Canadair? Is this not a good reason for reassessing that decision?


Robert René de Cotret: Mr. Speaker, I, and I am sure the Hon. Member, have taken notice of a press release that was put out at approximately 11.30 this morning in which a study, apparently, was made public by the Government of Manitoba, alleging that this amount of money would be required to ensure the completion of the contract. 1 am sure my hon. colleague would grant me the time to look at these allegations in more detail before answering the House more fully.


Lloyd Axworthy: The Government has had two years to do its homework.


TOTAL COST OF CONTRACT
Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, will the Minister tell us that all the negotiations have been completed with McDonnell Douglas and all the subcontractors? Are all the costs in or is there, in fact, an outstanding $30 million cost that will be added to the bid of Canadair which will require some form of subsidy by the Government of Canada?


Robert René de Cotret: In my opinion, Mr. Speaker, that would be quite surprising. We have said over the past... A team of some 75 very competent officials from three departments had been set up to carry out a technical assessment. I feel they have examined all the relevant factors. When we announced our decision, we made public the findings of this public assessment and we are going to continue making public all the information which are not commercially confidential to try and reassure all our hon. colleagues that the decision was truly made to promote an increased transfer of technology through Canadair.
November 4, 1986


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF HIS EXCELLENCY MR. PAUL BIYA, PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF CAMEROON
Mr. Speaker:: Order, please! I wish to draw to the attention of Hon. Members the presence in our gallery of His Excellency Paul Biya, President of the Republic of Cameroon.


EDUCATION
Ms. Lynn McDonald (Broadview-Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State. He will know that students have higher and higher debts to bear. Some are starting their working lives with debts of $8,000, $10,000 and, indeed, $20,000. Will the Secretary of State not agree this is deplorable and that the Canadian Student Loan Program is not adequate to meet the needs of students? Would he consider a bursary program instead of or in addition to the current loan program?


Hon. David Crombie (Secretary of State of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member is quite correct, this is a very, very important matter. Indeed, I will be discussing that very topic with the provincial Ministers of Education at our next meeting.


MINISTER'S POSITION
Lynn McDonald: Mr. Speaker, why has the Secretary of State not published any annual reports on the Canadian Student Loan Program since his Party came into Government? Why is he covering up a situation which he must know is getting worse, and what action will he take?


David Edward Crombie: Mr. Speaker, the Ministers of Education for the provinces met in mid-September. They asked if I would join them in a consultative committee. I have indicated my desire to do so. We are meeting within weeks. At the conclusion of that meeting, of course I will be happy to meet with the Hon. Member and other Hon. Members of the House to deal with the situation.
Oral Questions


SHIPYARDS
Mr. Jean-Claude Malepart (Montreal-Sainte-Marie):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion, my question is directed to the Right Hon. Prime Minister and concerns the crisis in Quebec shipyards. On October 10, the Minister promised, for the umpteenth time, that on October 24 work would start on the super ferry Caribou II, seeing this as the answer to the 5,000 jobs lost as a result of the sale of Versatile's Lauzon and Montreal operations to Marine Industries. Could the Prime Minister inform the House whether it is true that this transaction has been delayed and no jobs have been created because of a disagreement between the Government and the company on the restructuring of the TRUMP program?


Bernard Valcourt: Mr. Speaker, I am indeed aware of this Government's efforts and success in this area, in which it has joined forces with the Province of Quebec and the private sector to reach an agreement on restructuring the industry in Quebec. As for the information the Hon. Member is requesting, namely, the reasons for the delay, I am not in a position to confirm there has been a delay, but I certainly shall consider his question and give him an answer as soon as possible.


REQUEST FOR CLARIFICATION CONCERNING FRIGATES
Jean-Claude Malépart: have a supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Could the Minister check . . . This will be the fifth time the Minister informs shipyards from Lauzon to Quebec City that the ferry Caribou II will be built. There have been a lot of promises, but nothing concrete. Considering the problems being encountered by the company in Saint-Jean, where a delay of five or six months are expected, could the Minister give the House the assurance that the frigates that were promised the Sorel shipyards on February 2 will be built within the time-frame previously promised by the Government?


Bernard Valcourt: Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would like to point out that the Hon. Member's insinuations that there has been a delay in the frigate program at Saint-Jean has no basis in fact. As for the other issues he is raising, we will also give him that information, and I hope that when construction starts on the Caribou, he will rise in the House to applaud the Government.

November 4, 1986

Oral Questions



FAMILY FARM SITUATION


Mr. Aurele Gervais (Timmins-Chapleau):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for Forestry and Mines. It concerns a problem in the community of Wawa in my riding. It is of grave concern that there have been some massive lay-offs in Wawa during the last several months. We are now faced with possibly a complete closure of the Algoma Ore mine in that locality. Closure is unthinkable as it would bring economic chaos not only to Wawa but to the whole area. Will the Minister please tell this House, and through this House the residents of Wawa, what is being done to circumvent this closure?
Hon. Gerald S. Merrithew (Minister of State (Forestry and
Mines)): Mr. Speaker, I am sure we all share the Hon. Member's concern with regard to the potential loss of jobs in Algoma's Wawa operation. I guess it is no secret that for a long period of time that particular company has had a very difficult time in remaining competitive. The company has put forward a package, if you will, of potential solutions which would require perhaps assistance or concessions from labour, utilities, the province, and from the federal Government. That package is under consideration and we will try to respond as soon as possible.



AGRICULTURE


Mr. Stan J. Hovdebo (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Agriculture. In the first two months of operation the Federal Farm Debt Review Boards have received over 1,200 Notices of Intention to foreclose family farms. Six hundred and seventy of these Notices of Intention were filed in Saskatchewan. The present debt review board structure cannot properly handle the hundreds of cases before it in Saskatchewan. How does the Minister intend to alleviate this serious and unworkable situation?


Hon. John Wise (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I think we have to appreciate the fact we are breaking new ground. There have been some rather minor difficulties in the start-up process. However, if we find that numbers continue to grow and it develops into a major problem, the Hon. Member may recall that under the legislation it is possible for us as a Government to establish more than one debt review board for each province.


Stanley J. Hovdebo: Mr. Speaker, the number of Notices of Intention filed indicate the extent of the real crisis in farm financing and show as well the inadequacy of the Government's actions to date. Does the Government have any plans to stem this attack on the family farm?


John Wise: Mr. Speaker, if the Hon. Member wants to examine the record since day one, he will find many major initiatives which have been taken by the Government-


Mr. Fulton:: Name one.


John Wise: -to ensure the continuation of the family farm.


James Ross Fulton: Name one.


John Wise: That's where we were yesterday, that is where we are today, and we will be there tomorrow.



IMMIGRATION


Mr. Sergio Marchi (York West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for Immigration. Media reports today confirmed that the Minister awarded a special ministerial permit to an individual with a record of over 20 criminal convictions, a man the Minister lobbied for as a backbench Member of Parliament. Given that this outrageous decision goes against his own departmental advice and the position taken by three former Ministers of Immigration, on what grounds does the Minister base a special entry into Canada for this individual? Can he clarify if any of his staff or officials helped in the drafting of the rehabilitation letter, signed by this individual, to his Department and Cabinet?


Hon. Gerry Weiner (Minister of State (Immigration)):: Mr. Speaker, we have a family which has been with us in Canada since 1979. It is well established, well thought of, and has many supporters. There was a technical obstacle to other Ministers making a recommendation to the Governor in Council. The individual removed the obstacle by admitting he was the man in the conviction. It was then I was able to make a recommendation to the Minister of Employment and Immigration.


Sergio Marchi: Mr. Speaker, that answer is a slap in the face to the thousands of legitimate immigrants who cannot get into this country, and makes a mockery of the process.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
November 4, 1986



REQUEST THAT MINISTER REVOKE DECISION

Sergio Marchi: Mr. Speaker, I ask the Minister again why an individual with over 20 criminal convictions gets awarded a special admission into this country when thousands of Canadians cannot even be reunited with their families abroad? Is it not time to revoke this very regressive decision immediately and retain some credibility and fairness in the system?


Gérard (Gerry) Weiner: Mr. Speaker, the man had a right since 1981 to rehabilitate himself under the provisions of the Immigration Act. He came forward this year and signed a declaration. If formal approval is granted, steps will be taken to grant permanent resident status to the man and his family. This person has no criminal conviction in Canada. I ask the Member-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!



NARCOTICS


Mr. Lorne Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Right Hon. Prime Minister. It concerns drug testing. The Prime Minister is aware that mandatory drug testing in the workplace is common in the United States but very uncommon in Canada. Is the Prime Minister aware that American Motors is now insisting that, as a condition of employment, some 3,000 employees in the process of being hired in Bramalea and Brampton are required to take a urine test for drugs? Is the Prime Minister aware of this policy of American Motors? Does he support such a policy in Canada?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I would be happy to examine the specifics of the question set out by my hon. friend. Some weeks ago I had the occasion to describe the drug situation in Canada as I saw it and felt it to be at that time. I am delighted to see that most Canadians agree with that.



POSITION OF PERSONS SEEKING JOBS

Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, since the federal Government put some $60.5 million through the DRIE program into the American Motors plant, what advice does the Prime Minister now have for job-seekers who have to take this urine test for drugs when the Government has no clear policy on the issue, and when the Canadian Medical Association and the Canadian Bar Association are still reviewing the issue of compulsory urine testing for drugs?
Hon. Otto Jelinek (Minister of State (Fitness and Amateur
Sport)): Mr. Speaker, the Minister of National Health and
Oral Questions
Welfare is at a federal-provincial Health Ministers' conference. I will take the question as notice.
May I remind the Hon. Member that the Government has taken the lead nationally and internationally in many areas related to the use of drugs, particularly in the area of sports. I will be delighted to deal with the other part of the question when the Minister of National Health and Welfare returns.



PENSIONS


Mr. Joe Reid (St. Catharines):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for Finance. What action or what legislation is being proposed to protect the contributions made to pension funds so that those funds will be secure, safe from creditors and abuse, and available to pensioners on retirement?


Hon. Tom Hockin (Minister of State (Finance)):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank my hon. friend for his important question. I think the Hon. Member knows that on the bankruptcy of a plan sponsor the pension plan is normally wound up. When that happens the Pension Benefits Standards Act provides that no funds can be paid out for the benefit of the employer until all benefits provided under the plan have been fully secured. In that case, I should tell the Hon. Member, the Department of Insurance very carefully monitors this situation. Under amendments to the Pension Benefits Standards Act to be introduced in January, further powers to strengthen that provision will also be put in place.



NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL


Leonard Donald Hopkins: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State for Science and Technology. In reply to one of my questions yesterday the Minister stated that there had been no decision to close the Algonquin Radio Observatory. If the observatory is not to be closed will the Minister explain why, one week ago today, the director of the observatory asked the employees for their resumes so that they could apply for jobs elsewhere? Was this just a matter of creating better morale among the employees?


Frank Oberle: Mr. Speaker, I will send to the Hon. Member a copy of the letter signed by Donald Morton, Director of the Herzberg Institute.
I would like to remind the Hon. Member that I have said consistently that there is a modification plan to the program,
November 4, 1986

- Oral Questions
something which the Council decided to do. Some employees will perhaps be looking for placements in other laboratories of the Government, or even in the private sector or in universities. That may have been the reason the director took this initiative.



FUNDING FOR OBSERVATORY

Leonard Donald Hopkins: Mr. Speaker, I refer the Minister to the final paragraph of Dr. Morton's letter dated October 31, which is in opposition to what the Minister read out today.
The director stated that if the observatory is not kept at its present level and present funding it will have to be closed down. How can the Minister stand up and say that some people will go but the observatory will stay? He is in direct conflict with his own director. Will the Minister explain that to the House?


Frank Oberle: Mr. Speaker, I did say that I would undertake to send the Hon. Member a copy of the letter which states no such thing. The letter, which I will read from again, states that no final decision has been made as to the long-term future of the observatory. This letter is as late as November 3, 1986. They are not my words; I am using the words of the director who made the decision.



REGIONAL INDUSTRIAL EXPANSION


Mr. Steven W. Langdon (Essex-Windsor):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. It refers back to the issue of the Sysco modernization Phase II. Is the Prime Minister still convinced that this is a viable project? Is he prepared to keep the promise with respect to the over $100 million in federal funding for this project?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, there is nothing I can add to my earlier response.



FUTURE OF EMPLOYMENT IN PLANT

Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, the question of viability was what the Prime Minister neglected to talk about in his earlier response. Is the Prime Minister not aware that a shut-down of this plant, or a marked reduction in its activities, will cost up to 1,200 jobs in a devastated part of the country which has already had far too many economic blows from this and other Governments?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, we are in the process of attempting to create jobs in Nova Scotia and across the country. We have tried to avert shut-downs and to create new employment opportunities across Canada. From time to time there are predictions made by
members of the Party of the Hon. Member, and others, which indicate that certain government policies could result in a loss of jobs. I think that my hon. friend will agree that there has been a very significant increase in job creation across Canada since the Government came to office, something in the neighbourhood of 600,000 jobs. I think that is quite a considerable accomplishment.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


Mr. Gabriel Fontaine (Levis):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Communications. Last Saturday evening, the Quebec Nordiques hockey team was playing against another NHL team, the Hartford Whalers, but the only game available to Quebecers was between the Washington Capitals and the Calgary Flames. Why is it that Quebecers cannot watch the games of the best hockey players in Canada, the Nordiques, on Radio-Canada?


Hon. Flora MacDonald (Minister of Communications):: Mr. Speaker, I understand quite well why the Hon. Member is raising this important question. I believe that Radio-Canada has not obtained the broadcasting rights to the Nordiques games from the NHL. However, I shall refer the matter to the CBC to see whether a solution can be found to the problem.



THE ADMINISTRATION


Mr. John Nunziata (York South-Weston):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. It concerns the decision of Cabinet to pay the legal fees of the former Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion in the amount of $350,000-or over $1,700 per day. Will the Prime Minister explain to the taxpayers of Canada why they should be forced to pay the former Minister's legal bills when the average taxpayer has to pay his own legal fees whether they be for a divorce or to fight a speeding ticket?


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Deputy Prime Minister and President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, I know that the Hon. Member knows that this is a public inquiry. The Hon. member for York-Peel is central to the inquiry. It was considered essential that he be there and that he have legal counsel. It was the decision of the Government to assist him with his legal fees.

November 4, 1986


John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, the Deputy Prime Minister knows that the Government was not under any legal obligation to pay the legal fees and in effect the Government is prejudging the case.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!



REQUEST THAT DECISION BE REVOKED

John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, is the Prime Minister prepared to revoke that inappropriate decision, and would he not agree that Cabinet should not be in business to provide legal aid to its buddies?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, the Government made a decision to assist the Hon. Member for York-Peel in this particular case. If I am correct, I believe there were cabinet Ministers of previous Governments who, under certain conditions, received similar kinds of relief. I am amazed that the Hon. Member would suggest that there should be a double standard in this case.



ORGANIZATIONS' DIFFICULTIES IN SECURING INSURANCE COVERAGE

Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Fitness and Amateur Sport. He will be aware of the pending crisis facing every YM and YWCA across the country. We learned today that the one in Kamloops has been forced to put all of its programs on hold pending a resolution of the crisis it faces in securing comprehensive insurance. Would the Minister explain to the House what he is doing personally to ensure that YM and YWCAs across the country, as well as other groups, including the Red Cross, Boy Scouts and other charitable organizations, stay in business and continue to provide services by obtaining insurance at affordable rates?


Hon. Otto Jelinek (Minister of State (Fitness and Amateur Sport)):: Mr. Speaker, as the Hon. Member knows, this is a global problem. Regarding the YW and YMCAs as well as sports in general, I am a step ahead of the Hon. Member. Over a year ago I appointed a commission to look into the situation and to bring forward specific recommendations. That commission has worked diligently over the past six months and has brought forward recommendations which are under review. We will be in a position to begin to implement them in the very near future.
Criminal Code



MOTION TO ADJOURN UNDER S.O. 29 REQUEST FOR ADJOURNMENT-MR. SPEAKER'S RULING

Mr. Speaker:: I indicated this morning that I intended to reserve my ruling on the request of the Hon. Member for Westmorland-Kent (Mr. Robichaud) to hold an emergency debate under Standing Order 29.
The matter raised by the Hon. Member is certainly very important. However, the conditions set down in Standing Order 29 are quite strict. While the situation in Moncton is serious, I have to refuse this request because it does not meet the criteria established under Standing Order 29.

I would like to say to the Hon. Member that the refusal to accept an application for an emergency debate must in no way be taken as an indication from the Chair that the matter is not in itself very important. I want all Hon. Members to understand that and I thank the Hon. Member for raising the matter.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Hnatyshyn that Bill C-15, an Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Canada Evidence Act, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.
Mrs. Lucie Pepin (Outremont):: Mr. Speaker, I would have liked to ask a question to my Conservative colleague about his statement in the House this morning, but as he is absent, I believe I shall just go on.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. May I ask the Hon. Member whether she wanted to ask a question or to make a speech?


Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Are we in the period of questions and comments following the speech of an Hon. Member? If I could have the name of the Hon. Member, we will do what we can to assist the Chair.


Mr. Speaker:: I think I can assist all Hon. Members. When the House rose, the Hon. Member for Megantic-Compton- Stanstead (Mr. Gerin) had completed his speech. I do not think that the Hon. Member is in the Chamber. If it is the wish of the House to wait a moment for the return of the Hon. Member, I would think that that would be an appropriate response, and then I could recognize the Hon. Member for Outremont (Mrs. Pepin).

November 4, 1986
Criminal Code


Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, on the same point of order. For the time being, we are unable to locate the Hon. Member who spoke. I would suggest, if it meets the favour of my hon. colleague opposite, that you stand down the period for questions and comments and we will do what we can to get the Hon. Member back into the Chamber.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Parliamentary Secretary is asking that this matter be put over for a few minutes. Is it for one minute or for five minutes? Under the circumstances-


Philip Derek Lewis: After the next speech?


Mr. Speaker:: Is that the disposition of the House?


Mr. Gauthier:: Mr. Speaker, just to make it as clear as possible, I do not think it has been our practice to allow questions and comments to be put off for a while. I think it would be difficult to do so. I see the Hon. Member has just walked in so perhaps he will take questions now.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada (Mr. Gerin) has the floor.
Has the Parliamentary Secretary concluded his speech?


François Gérin: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I am ready for the questions and comments if there are any.


Lucie Pépin: Mr. Speaker, I would like-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Hon. Members will know that following a speech on debate, there is a question and comment period of 10 minutes. The Hon. Member who had completed his speech just before the noon adjournment is now back in the Chamber. The Hon. Member for Outremont (Mrs. Pepin) wishes to ask that Hon. Member some questions. That Hon. Member will listen to the questions and, no doubt, will give a reply. Now I believe everyone is satisfied and we are back on track.


Lucie Pépin: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member suggested it was easy for a 10-year old child to come forward and take the stand in court, before a jury of 12 people. I would like him to amplify his point, because when I was sitting on the Badgley Commission, we heard several representations indicating that a child 10-year old or younger felt very nervous in the presence of a jury.
The groups that presented submissions really insisted that, in order for a child to be able to give evidence, the evidence should be taken as true, and no jury should be there. Otherwise the child will be frightened.


François Gérin: I thank the Hon. Member for her question, which is relevant. Clearly, an 8-or-10-year old cannot have the self-assurance of an adult before a court of justice. It is quite a
shock for any person to appear as a witness before a court of justice.
But this should be balanced against the right of the accused to be tried before a jury. And if the accused were to be deprived of that basic right, this would greatly prejudice any Canadian who is facing a serious charge.
But, I must say, in the light of my personal experience before the courts, that there are alternatives for a judge presiding in a case before a jury, like hearing witnesses in camera for instance. He may reduce the court staff. He may allow a child's mother or father to be in attendance during the testimony, and above all there is now a provision in this Bill that would allow the judge to ask that the accused himself be excluded. So who would remain in the court? The judge, perhaps a stenographer or a clerk. There would remain counsel for each side and 12 members of the jury, and this is much less frightening than what we now have considering that usually the courtrooms are generally filled with people.
This means that those new facilities made avaible to the courts by this legislation are reassuring in my view as to child testimony.
And may I add that, to my knowledge, the Badgley Report did not deal with 8-, 9-, or 10-year old children, because they are not the ones generally who are severely shocked, but rather teenagers aged 15, 16 and 17 who will have to tell of a sexual experience for instance, something they are not used to. So they are reluctant to tell about it. Whether there is a jury or not, I do not think this will change anything. And this is where understanding is needed from the judges, the counsels and everyone for that matter.


Lucie Pépin: I would like some further clarification. When the Hon. Member says that a child can suffer some trauma or more trauma than he would otherwise if he is 10 years old, does he mean that the child can be more or less intimidated? From his own experience, can a child be more or less traumatized depending on his age? Also, the Hon. Member emphasized the need for the accused to be there to defend himself, but we must remember that, in the case of sexual assault, the accused is often a relative. In most cases, it is the father, the stepfather, an uncle or other relative. I come back to my question. In that case, why did the Government not accept the recommendation of most of those who made submissions to the Badgley Commission, that is that children should be able to give evidence in a different atmosphere, without having the accused and the jury present?


François Gérin: There are two ways of making a charge. It can be done either by summary procedure, without a jury, or by indictment, which generally gives the accused the right to a trial by jury. The prosecutor, with the police officers who have prepared the charge, and probably the parents in this case since the rights of the victims must be protected and the parents are entitled to be present at such preliminary proceedings, decide together what type of procedure is appropriate in that particular case. This partly replies to the question.
November 4, 1986

However, if after this preliminary work, because of the seriousness of the charge, it is decided to proceed by indictment, in the case of an offence punishable by 14 years of imprisonment, for instance, if it is decided to bring a serious charge which can result in a serious sanction or sentence, I do not think that we can forget the rights of the accused, as he is facing a rather serious interference with his freedom. He is told that he could lose 14 years of freedom. I do not see how the accused in such a case could lose such a basic right as that of being judged by his peers, that is to a trial by jury.
I think that this Bill allows some flexibility. For certain charges, probably the majority, I imagine that the accused will be charged by summary procedure. He will therefore be facing a judge without a jury.
In very serious cases, when the freedom of an individual accused of a serious offense is involved, it will be possible to have a trial by jury, but there are other provisions which allow a judge to decide to exclude the accused from the court room when the witness gives evidence. This goes a long way toward protecting the child. I am personally convinced that this measure will have excellent results.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, I have listened with care to the remarks of the Hon. Member. Could the Hon. Member explain the delay in the decision of the Government to appoint a special adviser on child abuse? Last June the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp) promised that he would be, as an urgent matter, appointing a special adviser to co-ordinate the federal Government's activity in this important area. Yet, five months later a special adviser has not been appointed. Can he explain the reason for this lengthy delay?


François Gérin: Mr. Speaker, I believe the Badgley Report as such dates back to September 1984. A great many representations have been made since then. There has also been the Fraser Committee; a great number of groups have made representations to the Government. It is not surprising, therefore, that there was a certain delay which was necessary to introduce this Bill and obtain the consensus that will be required of all Canadians to address all these serious problems which have existed for decades and which the Government has had to face. I realize too that this two-year delay since the Badgley Report may appear long on the face of it, and the delay my hon. friend is referring to may also appear to be long. Yet, it touches on essential and extremely fundamental issues. All the groups wanted to be heard. As far as this Bill is concerned, I think that most recommendations have been accepted and are reflected in this legislation. I am convinced that in the very near future, with the cooperation of the provinces and other voluntary organizations in Canada, the still undecided issues, including that referred to by my hon. colleague, will be addressed.
Criminal Code


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson) has the floor for a very short question.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, of course the Hon. Member did not answer the question, but my supplementary is this: In this Bill, why does the Government continue to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation, given the fact that age of consent is 18 with respect to certains acts and 14 with respect to others? Why such discrimination?


François Gérin: You will admit that we must set.. . There is no discrimination, that is not the way I see it. We have to draw the line somewhere. Where is it? In the case of a child is it age 13 and a half, 14 and a half, 15?


Svend Johannes Robinson: But why two lines?


François Gérin: Why two lines? I too have children and I make a distinction between the one who is 13 and the other who is 17 and a half. All parents know this, it is not the same thing. Personally I do not think my little 13-year-old girl is in the same situation as my boy who is 17 and a half. A distinction has to be made between a child and an adolescent. The Government has decided it is going to be between ages 14 and 18. I think it is extremely logical, extremely fair. The old act referred to another category, 16-year-olds, and people were utterly confused. Now we are setting two lines: under 18 and under 14. First we do not change anything to the legal age, which is 12, then we say that people aged 18 or more have reached majority and will have to assume their responsibilities since the other majority age of 21 will be abolished. It is a definite improvement and I fail to see what else could have been done. All children under 18 cannot be treated on the same basis. There is a major change, a major distinction to be made with respect to children aged 13, 15 or 18 for example.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Debate. The Hon. Member for Outremont (Mrs Pepin).


Lucie Pépin: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this new Bill, Bill C-15, is basically to protect children against sexual abuse and exploitation. Following a study of the Badgley Report, it was felt that amendments were needed to deal with sexual offences against children.
The amendments being proposed to provide increased protection for children may be summarized as follows: provisions for receiving unsworn evidence from children who are victims of sexual offences, without the need for corroboration; permission to videotape statements by a person under the age of eighteen in which he describes the acts complained of (the tape being admissible as evidence); provisions imposing severe sentences on persons who seek the sexual services of persons under the age of eighteen (up to five years imprisonment); provisions that raise the term of imprisonment from ten to fourteen years for those who live on the avails of prostitution of young persons under the age of eighteen.

November 4, 1986
Criminal Code
Mr. Speaker, I believe that the amendments provided in Bill C-15 will give children more effective protection against sexual abuse. In fact, this Bill draws heavily from recommendations contained in the Badgley Report, published in August 1984. I shall now give a more detailed assessment of some of the legal provisions included in this Bill.
I agree with Section 139 which provides that consent is no defence when the complainant is under fourteen. The fact is that even behaviour that does not resort to force or to the threat of such force or to misrepresentation or the exercise of authority can still be such as to unduly persuade a person under the age of eighteen to consent to the commission of a sexual offence, whatever it may be. In fact, the provisions of the new Section 139 are a direct reflection of Recommendation 13 of the Badgley Report.
As for the new sub-section 139(2) which provides that: "it is not a defence that the complainant consented to the activity that forms the subject-matter of the charge unless the accused (a) is aged twelve or thirteen years; (b) is less than three years older than the complainant; and (c) is neither in a position of trust or authority towards the complainant nor is a person with whom the complainant is in a relationship of dependency." I am somewhat puzzled, because it has been proven that young victims are as likely to be exposed to threats of force on the part of persons whose age is relatively close to theirs as they are to threats by those who are older, as far as participating in sexual acts is concerned. Assuming that the complainant is thirteen, the accused could be fifteen and thus avail himself of the provisions included in subsection 139(2). I would suggest that a 15-year-old adolescent is stronger than a 13-year-old adolescent and can therefore handle his younger brother and take advantage of him for sexual purposes.
Concerning clause 140 on sexual interference, I would like to see it amended along the lines of Badgley report recommendation No. 7 which reads as follows:
"Every person who, for sexual purposes, touches the genital or anal region of a young person with any part of the body or with any object is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to: (i) imprisonment for a term not exceeding 14 years if the complainant is under age 14, or (ii) imprisonment for 10 years if the complainant is between ages 14 and 16.
In this section, "young person" means a person under age 16.
The fact that the young person may have agreed to the activity which is the object of the charge, or that the accused may have thought the young person to be 16 years of age or older does not constitute a defence to a charge."
Again I would like new clause 154 on buggery to be amended along the lines of Badgley report recommendation No. 5 which reads as follows:
"Every male person who commits buggery on a female person who is not his wife and who is under age 18, or on a male person under age 18, is guilty of an indictable offence
and liable to: (i) imprisonment for a term not exceeding 14 years, if the person with whom the act was committed is under age 14; or (ii) imprisonment for five years if the person with whom the act was committed is between the ages of 14 and 18."
Similarly, new clause 155 on bestiality should be amended to take into account the Badgley report recommendation.
As to clauses 166 and 167 respectively, first the parent or guardian procuring sexual activity, and second the householder permitting sexual activity, I think the new text of law is appropriate.
In my judgment, however, the provisions concerning exposure and contained in section 169 should read as follows: "Every person who, for a sexual purpose, exposes his genital organs to a young person, is guilty of an offence punishable on summary declaration of guilt; in this section, "young person" means a person who is or, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, appears to be under the age of 16."
I agree with new section 195 concerning juvenile prostitution. The wording of subsections (2), (3) and (4) would seem adequate to protect children against this terrible scourge of our society.
As for the section which does away with the need for corroboration of a child's evidence, I agree with the provision that such corroboration is not necessary in order to convict a person accused of a sexual offence against a child.
I would like to see Recommendation 19 of the Badgley Report fully reflected in this Bill, because I think this particular recommendation was overlooked.
Finally, my concluding remarks concern the evidence of children who have been victims of a sexual offence. The new Bill remains silent in this respect. I feel that fundamental changes must be made in the legislation to enable children to testify on their own behalf in the course of judicial proceedings.
Although the testimony of victims of sexual offences is now considered with less scepticism than it was previously, the legislation is still very wary about evidence given by children. I think there should be no special provisions in this respect. The evidence given by a child should be heard and considered in the same way as that given by an adult. According to studies made for the Badgley Report, there is a very little basis in fact for assumptions that question the truthfulness of evidence given by children and their ability to clearly remember the facts of a sexual offence.
We can therefore say that young children are not more inclined to give vague descriptions to the police than are older children.
Consequently, I would like to see Recommendation 18 of the Badgley Report made part of the new Bill.
Finally, I would like to express my approval of a new provision in the Bill authorizing the presiding judge to exclude
November 4, 1986

the accused from the courtroom during the testimony of the complainant, if he is of the opinion that exclusion is necessary to obtain a full and candid account of the acts complained of from the complainant.
On the whole, I must admit this is a satisfactory Bill, but there are still many amendments to be made to the legislation, and I hope to have the opportunity of debating these amendments in committee. I also hope that enough time will be allowed for persons or groups wishing to make representations before the committee, so that everyone will be able to contribute.
I can assure you I will be taking an active part in the proceedings of this committee, but I still think a great deal remains to be done.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. Are there any questions or comments about the intervention of the Hon. Member? If not, we shall continue the debate with the Hon. Member for Charlesbourg (Mrs. Tardif).


Mrs. Monique B. Tardif (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, in response to the serious problem of sexually abused children, the Government has now introduced in second reading Bill C-15, an Act to amend both the Criminal Code and the Canada Evidence Act.
The new provisions contained in this Bill will provide better protection for children because they will give more flexibility and strength to our legal system.
Obviously, the changes in the present legislation will have immediate effects on health and welfare programs. First, the new legislation will allow the authorities to institute proceedings against a greater number of offenders, and it is virtually certain that this will result in a greater number of charges and convictions.
Mr. Speaker, these offenders, and there have already been references to the Badgley Report and other studies on this subject, are nearly always men. Often, they are also the fathers, brothers or uncles of their young victims, and this constitutes a challenge to the legislators, as well as to the professionals, psychologists, psychiatrists, social workers, and all the others who must prepare the families to face the legal process and live with the consequences.
Also, the fact that these children will be able to give evidence before the court either on videotape or in person, will require special training for those who are in charge of these interviews so that they can carry them out not only in a way that will be legally acceptable, but also to avoid any psychological trauma for the child.
The judicial system as well as the social and health systems will have therefore to work hand in hand, not only in the particular cases which I have just mentioned, but also in other cases which I should like to review quickly.
Criminal Code
As everybody certainly knows, it is with a pluridisciplinary outlook that the Government announced on June 10 last a series of initiatives which was to include not only this bill under review, but also a major package of social legislation. From that moment, Hon. Jake Epp was designated as responsible Minister and undertook to set up in his Department a secretariat to coordinate all federal measures in his own Department and in all other departments concerned.
An interdepartmental committee has just been established to promote this coordination. This committee is made up of representatives from the Secretary of State, the Departments of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, of the Solicitor General, of Justice, of National Defence, and Status of Women Canada.
This new Secretariat will complete a wide range of programs already implemented by the Department of National Health and Welfare since 1978, including mainly a National Information Centre on Family Violence and the funding of numerous research and demonstration projects.
Mr. Speaker, all these years of work in the area of child abuse have given the Department a working experience and a global perspective on this issue, a perspective which places the current legal reforms in a quite unique social context.
Like any social or medical problem that arises suddenly and unexpectedly, sexual abuse has left us helpless as a modern society. Helpless first because the fact, as reported in the Badgley Report in 1984, that in a major survey, 50 per cent of women and 40 per cent of men did recognize that they had experienced undesired sexual acts before age 16.
Those who answered were people of all ages, that is 30-4060-year olds who remembered their childhood in the 1920's and 1930's.
In that half or so of Canadian men and women, there are still people who have been severely shocked and to-day they are the parents, the offenders or the teachers perhaps of our children.
For one reason or another, a large number of those people need help either themselves to be good parents, or because they are subject to persistent personal anxiety or to dangerous and hard to control behaviours.
Given that tragic problem, let me refer briefly to the approach and the measures that will be considered by the department over the next five years.
As you already know, $20 million have been earmarked for a program to help prevent and solve that problem. We must look at the issue, in a comprehensive and multidisciplinary way, about which do I need to stress, experts consistently agree. As in any family violence problem, whether children or battered wives are involved, the question must be addressed by all professions and at every level of society. In other words, it is not for governments alone to deal with sexual abuse. Professional associations, national non-government groups, school

November 4, 1986
Criminal Code
systems, benevole societies, people in general, everyone in both the private and public sectors has a specific role to play.
In almost all cases, the youth protection service remains the co-ordinating agency; sometimes task forces in hospitals play that role, that is they invite to a common table physicians, police officers, teachers and all sorts of experts to draw up guidelines to ensure a responsible and co-ordinated intervention.
One could ask what is the use of passing legislation to control criminal behaviour if the victims go unnoticed by the experts, if these experts have not learned to work with the police to set up well-documented files, if there is a lack of coordination between child welfare services, family courts and criminal courts before all of which the family has to appear?
The department will seek the co-operation of all sectors and disciplines. In its working context, Mr. Speaker, the department will have to always remain aware of the fact that the provinces are to be the first to intervene in cases of sexual abuses and provide with necessary follow-up services for the victims, the families, and the offenders. However, the federal Government has an important contribution to make by supporting the provinces in this work. The department is very much aware that all parties involved with the problems are overwhelmed by the frightening number of former and recent victims who report to the authorities day after day. It is essential to find long-term and short-term solutions which are both inexpensive and effective.
One solution of particular interest to the Department is to support systems whose contribution has not always been readily recognized and ask them to join in the task of educating the public and protecting and following up problem cases. I am thinking, for instance, of the churches which have played a supportive role for families, especially in rural areas. The job environment is also an excellent way to reach a large number of parents and make them aware of the issue of child abuse, while at the same time we could also increase their awareness of violence generally in the family.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to take a few minutes to consider the family context and the problem of violence in the home. Preliminary research has pointed out that abuse is often related to other problems existing in the family. For instance, a s.tudy in Alberta supports the results of research carried out in the United States which show that children who followed their mother to a shelter after the mother was abused by the husband or partner, were far more likely to suffer sexual abuse than children in the general population.
Studies have also shown there is a cycle of violence that goes on from generation to generation. In other words, girls who have been sexually or otherwise abused as children are more likely to become victims of abuse once they are adults, while boys who suffered sexual abuse are likely to repeat their experience by acting as the aggressor once they have become teenagers or adults.
The important thing to remember is that the problem of sexual abuse must be considered within the perspective of the family. This brings us to another very important aspect, namely, prevention. Considering the so-called cycle of violence, it is imperative to start prevention programs in order to persuade the general public to reject value systems that promote violence and sexual exploitation in particular.
Our knowledge of the way the public can be educated is still very basic, and much remains to be done to find out how we can inculcate more acceptable values. Long-term prevention is probably the best way to eradicate the problems of sexual abuse.
Mr. Speaker, we may be overwhelmed by the increasing number of cases being reported to provincial offices and police stations, and by the continuing shortage of services from agencies that are already working to full capacity, but it is also a fact that although the problem has been recognized, science has not yet had time to collect, examine and verify its various working assumptions.
We still have a long way to go before ascertaining which types of treatment are successful and which are ineffective. Were surgical science at the same point as sexual abuse is now, few of us would agree to an intervention. And still, given the numerous descriptions of recent and past victims, social and mental services must overcome uncertainties and help victims. Therefore the federal Government will fund research and demonstration projects to establish a sound basis for the treatment of victims and assailants alike. All the initiatives I have just mentioned will help professional staff deal directly with families and will have to be taken after consultation with experts in the field and the provincial Governments which are responsible for looking after the people involved, in a multidiscipline perspective.
To ensure success the Department is preparing a consultation for next fall to promote a concerted approach aimed at a national strategy in which all parties involved will participate, including the private and public sectors as well as the victims themselves. All Government levels will be represented: the federal Government, provincial and territorial administrations, municipalities and small communities. The preparatory work done this year and the results of next fall's meeting will be the basis of the program for the next four years. Without the participation of major Canadian institutions we would not even consider setting up prevention, research and general education programs, or preparing professional staff and the public at large to come to grips with this urgent problem. Mr. Speaker, we are seeking a national commitment.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Are there any questions or comments? There being none, I will recognize the Hon. Member for Vancouver East (Ms. Mitchell).
November 4, 1986


Ms. Margaret Mitchell (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise to speak generally in support of Bill C-15, an Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Canada Evidence Act, which deals particularly with the very serious issue of child abuse. We support this Bill in principle. We are pleased that the Government brought it forward separately from other sections of the Bill which was presented in the last Session of Parliament. We had serious concerns about many of the sections dealing with pornography in that Bill. Although we want some amendments to this Bill, we support it generally in principle.
The portions of this Bill concerning juvenile prostitution and sexual abuse of children are of deep concern to me and my constituents, as I know they are to all members of the House. In Vancouver East we have had and still have very many young people on the streets involved in juvenile prostitution who were victims of sexual abuse as young children. I will speak about that a little later.
It is a great tragedy that the lives of so many young people are being ruined as a result of early sexual abuse. Unless there is some kind of treatment or intervention, very often their lives continue to be disfunctional in many ways as they become adults. My colleagues and I spoke very strongly in the debate on Bill C-49 on the need for stricter sanctions against the customers of juvenile prostitutes. I am pleased that there are some tougher sanctions applying to that contained in this Bill. This is, of course, only one aspect of dealing with the issue of juvenile prostitution. We need a multifaceted approach to dealing with young people on the streets.
My colleague, the Hon. Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson), very ably analysed the concerns which we have about this Bill from a legislative point of view in his remarks this morning. I hope these matters can be improved through amendments. These are also concerns of the Canadian Council on Children and Youth. I refer Members to its analysis which is based on research and refers to concerns of the Badgely and Fraser Reports as well.
I would like to briefly summarize these concerns. First, under this Act a judge would be given the power to determine whether a child is capable of giving evidence. We find this to be far too subjective. I do not think it is fair to put judges in this position either. We believe that attention must be given to that section of the Bill. Second, there is the problem of whether the accused should be in court while a child is giving testimony. This Bill says that the accused may be in court. Surely this is a very intimidating experience for a young child who is being asked to testify against the person who has abused, frightened and damaged him or her and who may be sitting very close by in the court room. We do not feel that this is appropriate. It should not be allowed.
Third, we approve of the use of videotapes for taking evidence from a child. However, we do not feel there should be any time limit on this. I am sure that provision can be amended. It is obvious that we cannot just sit a child down and say that we are now going to talk about this terrible thing which
Criminal Code
happened. A child must have time to disclose information which is very painful and may be repressed. They must be in a very comfortable situation with people whom they trust. It is much better to do this at the appropriate time. I do not see why information obtained later should not be included on videotapes as well. It is certainly a better way of obtaining the information than in a very painful, formal and frightening situation.
Fourth, we are happy that the Bill does not require corroboration of a child's evidence. I have a very interesting article by June Callwood to which I refer members. She quotes an authority which states that children at about the age of six are able to make mature judgments on many matters, are able to speak for themselves and should be allowed to do so. The article to which I refer was in The Globe and Mail in October.
This Bill discriminates on the basis of sexual orientation. We believe there should be a consistent age of consent for both men and women. I believe that is practical and reasonable. This was recommended by the Special Committee on Equality Rights as well. Finally, it is quite unreasonable that the penalties prescribed in the Bill for beastiality exceed those for abuse of a child by a person of trust. Surely that should be changed.
I do not want to go into greater depth on the legislative issues which my colleague covered so ably this morning. Rather, as the critic for social policy, I would like to concentrate on some of the social aspects and implications of child abuse and the need for a much broader approach than is presented in this Bill. I believe very strongly that this is an obligation of the federal Government as well as provincial Governments.
In my earlier remarks I said that my colleagues and I are very concerned that so many young people are homeless and on the streets. There are young people from all over Canada on the streets of my riding. It is a real tragedy, not only that these young people are homeless but that they are involved in prostitution and drug abuse and often other illegal pursuits such as breaking and entering and other activities which are destructive to themselves as well as society. The case histories of many of these young people frequently reveal that they have been abused as younger children, often by people in their family such as a relative or friend who is a trusted person. If the abuse continues, this is extremely destructive to the child's personality.
These are the children who are withdrawn and anxious in school and have very low self worth. Often their teachers do not go beyond these symptoms to recognize that there is a very serious underlying family problem. They do not try to get help for the child but they have an obligation, as we all do, to do something about it.
I have also heard of cases of children who have gone to a doctor suffering from physical abuse. I saw a case on television

November 4, 1986
Criminal Code
involving a child with anal bleeding for which the doctor prescribed a diet of bran. The fact that this was a symptom of serious child abuse was not recognized. Medical and other professionals are reluctant to recognize child abuse, just as they are reluctant to recognize family violence and the battering of women. They are reluctant to intervene in family situations because it still seems to be part of our training that we do not interfere. However, it is extremely important to the protection of a child that we recognize what may be happening and intervene in such situations.
Furthermore, social workers often have little training in this field. In Vancouver, for example, unfortunately the Department of Human Resources had to retire, or fire, a sexual abuse team which consisted of the most skilled specialists in this field. They were recognized right across Canada and this team was very important as a resource to help train social workers and school personnel. That team was eliminated. During this time of restraint the Government also fired child care workers who were required to work on a one-to-one basis with children who had been abused, had family problems, and needed much help to recover.
I want to return to my remarks concerning young people on the street. Many of them are involved in prostitution. I have here a very realistic and moving article entitled "Street Youth in Vancouver", which was written by a youth worker, David Dranchuk. He has worked with young people on the streets for the past six years and is employed by the Anglican Church of Canada. I want to read from this because I believe he gives a very eloquent account of his personal and hurtful experience of what is happening to young people and what little we are doing about it. He says that Vancouver is the runaway capital of Canada. Some of the children are as young as 12, but most are around 15 or 16. These children come from all over Canada. He goes on to say:
Most of the children I find on the streets have a history of running. Often they are from unstable home situations or have already been removed and made wards of a child protection authority. Very often there is a history of abuse-physical, emotional or sexual; especially sexual abuse.
When I take a closer look, I find that these children have a lot more in common. They tend to have a very poor self imagine; perhaps the result of abuse. Not surprisingly, they have a profound distrust of adults in authority. Many are emotionally disturbed and don't feel wanted or accepted. For acceptance, they will do almost anything.
This need for acceptance is very significant. Because the street community is a very accepting one, they gravitate to the streets.
He goes on to say:
Before too long, the young runaway learns an important axiom of street life. Nothing comes for nothing. You have to pay. And because they have no money, sex becomes the common token of exchange. This is particularly true of girls who have been sexually abused at home.
If this child is not diverted from the streets and its sordid activity, he or she becomes entrenched into street life. It is not a good life. It is self destructive. I sometimes call it death on the installment plan.
Drugs are a big part of street life.
Drugs help to numb the pain of living. Drug overdoses are common. Sometimes the overdose is fatal. What a senseless waste of a young life!
He goes to note that there are practically no services that are relevant or usable by these young people. They are unable to stay in foster homes and landlords will not rent to them. Therefore, they end up on the streets. Employers will not hire them so they turn to drug trafficking, shoplifting and various forms of break and entering, theft, and prostitution. Wherever they go they seem to get repeated confirmation of their own lack of personal worth.
I know that where there are young people on the streets in my riding, people in the neighbourhood tend to abuse them and do not want to have anything to do with these kids. They do not even want a youth centre in the area. It is a very sad situation.
Mr. Dranchuk went on to say that many services are needed. I would appeal to the Government, particularly the Minister of Justice (Mr. Hnatyshyn) in co-operation with the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp), to ensure that there are funds available and special projects are developed that will provide some of these services. Mr. Dranchuk states that they need more street workers because there are only three street workers in Vancouver for literally hundreds of kids. They must be special people who, themselves, can live on the streets and be accepted by street people. He goes on to say:
Also needed is a Youth Services Centre open seven days a week until about three in the morning. Besides trained counsellors, such a Centre should have emergency food along with laundry and shower facilities.
There are only one or two training programs that supposedly help young people but usually are not relevant at all. Once the bureaucratic screening and selection procedure is completed, young people who might begin to be interested simply drop out. If they happen to be lucky enough to get a job or into a job-training program, they are usually paid minimum wage so they often end up back on the streets because they do not have enough to live on.
Mr. Dranchuk also states that another needed facility is a "safe house" where street kids can stay for up to three days. These are suggestions by people who have experience with what can be done. The important point is that there is no funding available to provide these specialized services now and I urge the Ministers who are directly involved in this area to give some attention not just to imposing penalties through the law which, of course, must be done as far as customers are concerned, but to provide an alternative for these young kids who are on the streets for a reason.
There is also a need for prevention. We hear much about programs that have been initiated in some schools that are helping children to be more aware of potentially unsavoury relationships. One program in particular teaches children to say no if there is sexual touching that is likely to lead to sexual abuse. This is a progressive approach and I think many parents who are very anxious also need such programs to learn how to deal with this problem in an educational, relaxed way so that they are not over-anxious and creating an unhealthy situation for their children.
November 4, 1986

The legitimate concerns about child abuse are certainly much more open as a result of many public programs dealing with it. However, I hope that this approach to more awareness does not lead to over anxiety and near hysteria. I believe that is happening in some areas. In British Columbia there have been incidents of child abuse by teachers. This has caused a general backlash against the whole profession of teaching, which is grossly unfair. I think it is also very unfortunate if good teachers, or care givers of any kind, cannot show the normal kind of warm affection and responses which are important to children and to the relationship between a child and an adult.
I believe we have to do positive things in both prevention and treatment as well as through the laws, such as in the Bill before us, and we must ensure there is not a great hysteria. In our hearings on child care we are finding that parents are very reluctant to hire male child care workers in daycare centres, for example, which is very unfortunate. This again is because of reports of perhaps just one or two situations where there has been some child abuse. It is very important that we have male child care givers in our centres because so many of the youngsters do not have other male adults in their home environment.
Finally, I would like to take a moment to refer to many women who have been victims of sexual abuse or other forms of family violence and who may be in transition houses. There have been studies which show that women who have been abused often marry wife batterers and their children in turn may suffer from family violence. I recommend to all Hon. Members, and to the Committee on Justice, that they review a film which we showed very recently called "Breaking Silence". It is available from Women in Focus, a group in my riding of Vancouver. This film very eloquently shows many examples of women who have been victims of abuse and the terrible trauma which still remains with them as adults, affecting their lives, and the great importance of treatment and prevention for both adults and children.
I say once again that I am pleased to support this Bill, along with my colleagues. We think there are amendments needed, as well as a whole program which will deal with children and young people who have been abused.


Mr. Thacker:: Mr. Speaker, I have a question to put to the Hon. Member for Vancouver East (Ms. Mitchell). I am glad her Party agrees in principle with the Bill. The section with respect to an accused being in court or being excluded from court is a permissive section in that the judge "may" exclude an accused. If I understood the Hon. Member correctly, she said it should be mandatory, that the accused "shall" be excluded from the court while a child is giving his or her evidence. Throughout the long history of criminal law, it developed that the accused had to be in court to protect his interests and rights. If there is a mandatory exclusion, how would the New Democratic Party handle a situation where a
Criminal Code
man or woman represented themselves rather than be represented by a lawyer?


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Hon. Member for his question. I think this is a matter which surely should be dealt with in committee, with witnesses. I am not a lawyer. Probably the Hon. Member knows better than I the legal aspects. However, I am sure the Hon. Member would find it very difficult if his own child or a young child he knew was in the position of having the person who abused them sitting in court while they were giving testimony. As a social worker, I find that quite unacceptable, but I would leave it to the committee to decide on the details of the law.


Blaine Allen Thacker: If I understood the Hon. Member correctly, as a question of principle she feels the accused should be excluded with the word "shall". I wonder if it would not be wiser to leave it to the judge as the Bill provides?


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, as my colleague has indicated, there may be some circumstances where the accused perhaps should not be excluded. I would suggest to my hon. friend that we leave this to the committee, which will have witnesses before it. I think it is important that there be a time period for witnesses to prepare and be familiar with the Bill. I think that is something that the Canadian Council on Children and Youth have particularly advocated.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: There being no further questions or comments, we shall resume debate.


Mrs. Mary Collins (Capilano):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join with my colleagues today in the debate on Bill C-15 which deals with amendments to the Criminal Code with respect to sexual abuse of children. I am pleased to hear from my colleagues on all sides of the House that there is agreement about the importance of these legislative changes and. the fact that they have been long awaited throughout the land.
I would like to review the situation and some of the background of which I am aware. We know, of course, of the excellent work done by the Badgley Commission. Its report was released in 1984. Perhaps, on the Canadian scene, this was the first time that the myths of child sexual abuse had been exploded. Up to that time people had been afraid to talk about the subject. We are now aware that it has been going on for many years. It is something which happened in secret and there had not been a great deal of public discussion.
I recall the first time I really became aware of how widespread it was is when I lived in Campbell River in the early 1980s. A very courageous young woman, who had been the victim of sexual abuse herself, finally spoke out and started a self-help group in the community. At that time there was no funding. She would go to various service clubs and groups to raise a little money here and a little money there for a telephone service or answering line. I sat in on some of those discussions and was amazed at just how shocked people were to even think that these things were happening. In this case,

November 4, 1986
Criminal Code
the woman had been sexually abused by her father. We could not believe this existed in a quiet and pleasant town. We became very aware of the impact the number of incidents of abuse had on that particular woman's life. Since those days there have been many different stories and books published on the subject.
When the Badgley Report was released, we were shocked as well by the statistics it presented, that at some time during their lives one in two females and one in three males have been victims of one or more unwanted sexual acts, that four in five of these unwanted sexual acts had first been committed against these persons when they were children or youths, that three in five sexually abused children have been threatened or physically coerced by their assailants and that one in four assailants is a family member or a person in a position of trust. About half are friends or acquaintances and only about one in six is a stranger. I think it is very sad and shocking to us all to find those kinds of things going on in our society.
We are very aware, of course, that this has been happening for centuries and statistics show that it is most generally women who as children have been the victims of sexual abuse and have been afraid to speak out. There is an interesting anthology published in 1983 entitled "I Never Told Anyone". It is writings by women survivors of child sexual abuse. It is this kind of book, along with others, which has brought this issue to the fore and have enabled women who have been victimized to speak out. I would like to read from the Preface by Louise Thornton:
This collection of women's voices speaks out about what is seldom said, seldom told, seldom acknowledged-the sexual violation of children. It is about the silence of nights spent holding in screams, holding back tears, holding in one's very self. And it is about the stillness of days when all of a young girl's resources are used up in keeping the secret from everyone, sometimes even herself. The women in this anthology are breaking this silence. Whether by whispers or cries or shouts or screams, they will continue to shatter it with the power of their own voices, their own words.
There are some very moving stories in this anthology. I think what is important is that over the last few years there has been a recognition of how important it is to speak out, and now we are beginning to help our children understand that.
I saw a television documentary last week which I believe was entitled, A Violent Secret. It depicted a young girl about 11 or 12 years of age who had been subjected to some unwanted sexual advances in a small town. She kept the issue a secret for a long time. The program depicted how her behaviour had been affected in terms of her friends and family because she felt so demeaned. I know the type of experiences young people go through because they do not understand what has happened to them and how destructive these experiences can be to their self image. This particular story had a happy ending in that the young girl was finally able to tell her parents and the perpetrator of the crime was brought to trial.
A National Film Board film entitled, Feeling Yes, Feeling No, is being shown in schools across the country. It is important that we begin to educate our young people about child sexual abuse. It is important for them to know that they do not have to take it and that if something happens to them they must tell someone whom they trust.
The legislation before us today is an important weapon in the fight against child sexual abuse. It deals with the legal framework. Other Hon. Members have mentioned today that we recognize this is only part of what we need to do. The rest has to be done through educational programs and support programs in communities. I am pleased to see that the federal Government, primarily through the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp), is initiating programs in this area, as well as the Solicitor General (Mr. Kelleher) through his missing children initiatives.
Often there is a connection. Many of the children who go missing have often been victims of some type of unwanted sexual abuse in their early days. Obviously, all of these matters tie together. What the communities are asking for is a stronger legislative framework which will more clearly enunciate the crimes involved and send a clear message to members of society that we will not condone the sexual abuse of children under any circumstances. The legislation before us is an important part of that process. There will be other legislation coming forward in terms of amendments to the Criminal Code which will deal with child pornography.
In terms of this legislation, I wish to pay recognition to the tremendous work that groups in communities across the land have undertaken. In this regard I think of my own riding of Capilano and, in particular, a woman in my riding, Mrs. Olive Wyatt, who has been personally dedicated to this issue for years. For some time she has been visiting different community groups to raise the issue and to appeal to these organizations. She has worked with the churches and is personally involved with the stores in my area in terms of getting them to take child pornography off the shelves. She has been consistent and persistent in her efforts. It is as a result of the efforts of such women, and others across the country, who have helped to raise public conscience and outrage with respect to this issue that has resulted in the Badgley Report and the Fraser Report, as well as the legislation which is before us today.
As has been said earlier, this legislation deals with several different areas. It makes provision for some new offences. A problem which existed before was that offences were not comprehensive enough to deal with the real situation. Included in the legislation is the new offence of sexual interference, which is an important one. Once the legislation is enacted, it will be an offence to touch anyone under the age of 14 years for a sexual purpose with any part of the body or an object. Sexual purpose is defined as one directed to the sexual arousal or gratification of the individual initiating the activity. I am pleased to see that this offence will be applied equally to boys and girls, which is something the equality committee recommended.
November 4, 1986

The second offence with which I wish to deal is the offence of invitation to sexual touching. This will go a long way toward dealing with a problem that existed before and which could not be dealt with effectively in criminal law. It will now be an offence for a person to invite or urge a child under the age of 14 years to touch another person in a sexual way. Often when we are dealing with children six years of age and under we find that they have been urged or invited to partake in such activity. They do not know that what they are doing is wrong and that it will cause trauma to them. The person who is making the invitation is the perpetrator of the offence and should be dealt with in a harsh way by the law.
The third new offence of sexual exploitation will add sections to the Criminal Code to protect young persons between the ages of 14 and 18 years from sexual abuse committed by persons in positions of trust or authority. As I mentioned before, it is a sad reality that much of the sexual abuse of children is carried out by persons in positions of trust, that is, relatives, friends, people whom the children know and of whom they have no reason to be afraid. Yet in such circumstances an incident can occur.
This legislation will prohibit a person in a position of trust from touching a child between the ages of 14 and 18 for a sexual purpose or from inviting them to touch any part of their own bodies or another person's body for a sexual purpose. These new offences which form the core of the amendments will be successful in laying charges in a number of instances in which it has not before been possible.
In terms of the presentation of evidence, we have heard a great deal about the subject in the past. It is very difficult for children to go into a courtroom situation, something which has been designed for adults. They are already traumatized by the events which have occurred to them. We are introducing provisions which will allow for the videotaping of evidence soon after an event has occurred which can be used as evidence at trial. Corroboration of a child's evidence will not be required since, in many cases, that is just not possible.
In certain circumstances a child will be allowed to give evidence without the accused being present. It can be a very humiliating experience for a child to give evidence in front of the accused. We know that what has happened in the past is that someone has known about a situation of child sexual abuse and yet has been unwilling to bring the offender to trial because of the former provisions involving the child and the giving of evidence. In those cases the family sometimes did not want to go through with it. What we are now saying is that it is an obligation to do this because the person who has committed the offence should not be allowed to continue in the same manner. We have to bring them to court and to punish them.
Another area with which the legislation deals is the important area of child prostitution. A new offence is created, that is, to be a customer of juvenile prostitution under any circumstances. A much heavier sentence is provided. There are increased penalties with respect to living off the avails of prostitution when a juvenile, either male or female under the
Criminal Code
age of 18 years, is involved. Sentences of up to 14 years have been provided for in these circumstances.
We know the tragedy of child prostitution. We know that in many cases juveniles, the children involved in prostitution, have come from circumstances in which they were either sexually abused or were the victims of other types of abuse in their own homes and that they have a very low sense of selfesteem. They do not have the support systems of their own families or friends and often they take to prostitution because they have been offered some type of friendship by a pimp or by other people. They think that that is the answer. Of course we know that it is not. In the circumstances in which they find themselves, the potential for violence and disease is even worse.
We need the laws. As my colleagues have said, we need the programs as well in order that we may provide alternatives for young people who have entered into prostitution. We should provide safe homes and training programs so that these people have other opportunities beyond prostitution.
We know from the evidnece that quite often, young women and men go into prostitution because they think it is an easy way to earn money. If they have no training, they feel that they have no other way of making money. We would suggest in those circumstances that there be other training options and opportunities for these people to earn money so they are not left on the streets.
There is a great deal that needs to be done yet. Personally, I am very pleased to see the initiatives the Government is taking in this legislation and in other ways. For example, the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp) has established the office of a special adviser on child sexual abuse. This office will provide a co-ordinating point and there will be an interdepartmental committee of senior officials from all Departments involved including Health and Welfare, Justice, Secretary of State, Solicitor General and Indian and Northern Affairs. This committee will help co-ordinate our approach.
Of course, it is not just the federal Government alone that can help in these circumstances. We need to work with the provinces and the territories, with community groups and with volunteer organizations that have an interest in these issues as well. We in the federal Government are taking the initiative and are providing this leadership role. Although we know we will not eradicate the problem, we will raise public consciousness through these kinds of initiatives. We will be able to deal with these offences, we will be able to provide options and opportunities for young people and children who have suffered abuse and we will be able to provide a better life for them.
I look forward to the discussion in committee where we will deal with some of the specific issues in the Bill. I look forward as well to early passage of this legislation so that its provisions may come into effect.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the Hon. Member for her speech. I appreciated it. Of course, we have

November 4, 1986
Adjournment Motion
approved of the Bill and its principle is a good one. As the Hon. Member said at the end of her remarks, we will be looking at the Bill very attentively in committee to make sure the amendments to the Criminal Code are good and proper ones to make.
I have a brief question to ask the Hon. Member. She mentioned that the sexual exploitation part of the Bill applied to children between the ages of 14 and 18. I would like it to be clear in my mind that I understand the Bill as she does. I believe the clause in question indicates that that part of the Bill applies to children up to the age of 18. This means that it applies to those who are still 17 but not to those who have reached 18. I would like to make sure that the Hon. Member understands the Bill as I do. Perhaps the Hon. Member would correct her remarks on that small detail and agree with me that it refers to children up to the age of 18 and not the age of 18.


Mary Collins: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for pointing that out. Terminology in Bills always causes me great difficulty. Once one reaches the age of 18, one is an adult. Ordinarily, this and other legislation does not apply. That is my understanding of this legislation as well.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest and care to the speech of the Hon. Member for Capilano (Mrs. Collins). She is a colleague of mine from British Columbia and a former colleague from the Special Committee on Equality Rights. One of the unanimous recommendations made by that committee was for a uniform age of consent for sexual activity. In view of her support for that recommendation of the Equality Rights Committee and as a member of that committee, could the Hon. Member indicate if she intends to attend Justice Committee meetings and support amendments which would ensure that that principle is included in this legislation as well?
As the Bill is now worded, there is no uniform age of consent. There is an age of consent of 14 in most circumstances but an age of consent of 18 in the case of buggery. Could the Hon. Member confirm that indeed she does believe that there should be a uniform age of consent and that she will do her best to ensure that that principle is enshrined in this particular legislation?


Mary Collins: Mr. Speaker, I suppose one could imply from the legislation that 14 is the age of consent although there are provisions such as the one for sexual exploitation that apply after the age of 14 and up to the age of 18. There are some exceptions to that general rule.
As the Hon. Member knows, I am not presently a member of the Justice Committee. I would be pleased to look at the Bill in some detail and if I find that there are provisions that are inconsistent, I would be pleased to discuss them with the Hon. Member.


Mr. Fretz:: Mr. Speaker, I appreciated the speech made by the Hon. Member for Capilano (Mrs. Collins). I wonder if she would share with the House her opinion on what effect the circulation of explicit child pornography has on the increased number of cases of child molestation. Perhaps she could tell us how important it is in her opinion to curtail the distribution of that kind of material.


Mary Collins: Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his questions. As he knows, later in the Session we will be dealing with amendments to the Criminal Code dealing with pornography. The Bill which was previously before the House contained special clauses dealing with child pornography.
I am not an expert on this and I cannot honestly say what kind of linkage there is. There is the perception that there is a linkage between child pornography and potential incidents of sexual abuse of children. I have read reports that go one way and the other on that so I cannot comment categorically on the true linkage. In my own opinion, child pornography is heinous and we should take very strong measures to ensure that it is eradicated from the shelves of supermarkets and from video cassettes.
Child pornography is degrading. Earlier, we talked of some of the consequences of sexual abuse. In some instances, the sexual abuse may be unwanted fondling or kissing but even that is degrading to someone who does not want to be touched or offended in that manner. It is particularly important for women to build their independence because women have often been the victims of this kind of pornography and abuse. I think it is important that it is made very clear that we do not accept that, whether it is in video cassettes, in magazines or in actual life. We need laws that deal very sternly and effectively with all of that.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 66, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the Hon. Member for London East (Mr. Jepson) Bankruptcies- Suppliers' right to repossess goods; the Hon. Member for Saint-Leonard-Anjou (Mr. Gagliano)-Canada Post-(a) Plan to promote postal rate increases, (b) Utilization of human and material resources-Request for explanation; the Hon. Member for Willowdale (Mr. Oostrom)-Abortion- Collection of statistics.
November 4, 1986



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Hnatyshyn that Bill C-15, an Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Canada Evidence Act, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.
Ms. Sheila Copps (Hamilton East):: Mr. Speaker, in part, I am happy to be able to participate in this debate. I am happy that there is all-party consent to move ahead with these very positive amendments contained in Bill C-15, but I must also point out that I am a little unhappy because most of the people who have chosen to speak on this issue in the House have been women. I know some of the men have spoken out. Certainly we have heard from a spokesman from each Party. It is unfortunate that in the main the parliamentary push tends to come from women to deal with issues such as child abuse, pornography, and issues which affect the fabric of family life.
I would like to return for a moment to some of the practical applications not only of this Bill but of the whole issue of prosecution in child abuse cases. I had the privilege of serving as a Member of the Ontario Legislature on the Social Development Committee, which produced two reports on child abuse. This Committee travelled to a number of communities across Ontario.
One thing that came out loud and clear in the course of those hearings on child abuse was that notwithstanding very positive changes in the Criminal Code, or any efforts that we might make as parliamentarians, until child abuse as an issue comes out of the closet, there will continue to be children who will be molested, and families who harbour the molestation of children. Certainly those children whose families have the courage to confront the aggressor through the criminal justice system more often than not are spurned and have an experience which frankly would lead people away from reporting.
On a couple of occasions when we as Members of the Ontario Legislature investigated, a well-meaning parent or relative who became aware of the situation of child abuse had convinced the child to come forward. In some cases the child was of an age where they were able to testify under the old rules. Yet, because of the court process and the extremely complicated and lengthy jurisprudence involved in following up a child abuse case, in many instances the abused child had to go into court and repeat over and over the allegations. In many cases an acquittal resulted simply because of the insufficiency of the laws and the insufficiency of the uncorroborated testimony.
Although a number of these changes will serve to encourage people to report and get to the root of the cause of child abuse, it is my fear that unless we as a society and as a Parliament
Criminal Code
start speaking out more strongly on issues like child abuse and are prepared to talk about them, not only in the context of Parliament, but also in the work that we do on a daily basis across the country, too many child abuse cases will remain closet cases.
There was a case in my community where an acquittal resulted simply because the current cumbersome criminal justice system does not serve our children well. There are some positive changes. Certainly one is in the announcement by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Hnatyshyn) where he talks about the possibility of having videotaped testimony. I recognize the inherent dangers that this might present in terms of civil liberties and being able to confront your accuser.
If you talk to experts in the field, for example people from the Toronto Sick Children's Hospital, which has a division specializing in investigating cases of child abuse from a medical and psychological point of view, they will tell you that it is extremely important when dealing with the evidence and the testimony of a child of a certain age to telescope the number of interviews, interventions, and the number of adults who are involved in questioning a child who has been potentially subjected to child abuse. With every subsequent interview and court appearance, the notion that that child somehow is guilty of the offence is reinforced.
This is something that the changes in the law will serve to modify. They are recognizing the fact that a child who is not over the age of 14 can provide testimony which is uncorroborated and that the onus is upon the defendant, not upon the child and the child's lawyer, to make sure that that child is not capable of providing witness in a courtroom.
There are some other issues which have to be addressed. The Government chose to tread rather lightly in light of having been burned in the last session of Parliament on some of the rather wide-ranging and unacceptable changes to the pornography law, and wisely decided to break up the issue dealing specifically with child abuse from the general over-all issue of pornography. But at the.same time there is an element in the question of pornography which deserves to be dealt with in very short order. That is the issue of child pornography. It falls into the same category as the type of Bill that we are looking at today. There will hardly be a parliamentarian in the House who says that they do not support a move which will get tougher with child abusers. It is accepted that all Members of Parliament welcome the changes and would prefer that they become part of the Criminal Code as quickly as possible so that these people who are perpetrating heinous acts on young children will be punished.
The same sense of disgust and urgency appears when we deal with the issue of child pornography. At this point there has been no specific legislation in the House dealing with a curb on child pornography. What we have seen and what the Government is going to have to take some of the blame for is the cut-back on border enforcement. The Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) made a comment in the House today about the crisis epidemic in drug abuse. It is fine to talk about the

is a plus; that is a positive thing. There is a number of positive changes in this piece of legislation.

Mr. Speaker, if we really want a family policy, it is not enough simply to talk about changes to the Criminal Code, because such changes do not cost us anything. However, what would be useful in addition to these amendments, which are valid and which will have the support of everyone in the House in my opinion, would be to do something about pornography, for instance. We know that, because of the new cutbacks at the excise division offices, where the Government has reduced the number of employees, we are admitting to Canada a much greater volume of pornographic material, involving both adults and children.
I think that it is important for the Government to reassert that we should not only protect our children, but also do what we must to pay the cost, because it will cost something to give all children under the age of four the right to child care services in Canada. From birth to the age of four, all children should have access to child care provided either by the parents, by sitters at home or by other people.
A long time ago, it would probably have been heresy to believe that everyone in Canada had the right to a high-school or even a university education. This was not a given right in the 20s, 30s, 40s, 50s or 60s. Canadians did not have a given right to post-secondary education. They now have this right because, in Canada, equality is a precious gift.
Mr. Speaker, I believe that the principle of equality must apply first and foremost to our young children. Anyone who has studied psychology knows that children are psychologically and developmentally affected the most deeply by what happens to them between birth and the age of three. These are the findings of psychologists who have carried out numerous studies on children.
If we forego the responsibility in the case of single parent families or families where both parents work outside the home and provide no assistance for child care, it is obvious that all children will not be treated equally.
Mr. Speaker, if we support this Bill, which deals directly with changes to the Criminal Code in cases of child abuse, we should also urge the Government to introduce in the House a comprehensive family policy which would deal not only with the criminals brought before the Courts, but also with a strategy to reinforce the examination of pornographic material from abroad.
The Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) reminded us again today in the House of the drug problem which affects many young people and which leads a lot of them to prostitution, for instance, to support their drug habits. It is not good enough to speak against these things, and the Government should have also a policy which would make it possible to hire more personnel for border enforcement in order to prevent any pornographic material involving children from coming to this country, just as we stop drugs from entering this country.
Criminal Code
What we are doing here is good and does not cost anything.
I think it would be good for the Canadian people to be aware that the House is willing and ready, not only to amend the Criminal Code, but also to allocate funds to develop a family policy which would encompass such issues as day care centres, pornography, the family council, etc. Those are very significant issues for Canada, and I think that we are taking today a major step forward. However, if we do not want to take two steps backward, we will have to back our policies with a decision to provide funds for this project; failing which, those would remain empty promises which cost nothing.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Are there any questions or comments? If not, resuming debate with the Hon. Member for Lethbridge-Foothills (Mr. Thacker).


Blaine Allen Thacker: Mr. Speaker, I know the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis) is the last speaker for the NDP and he will be returning from his office shortly to take part in this debate. Perhaps in the meantime I could say a word or two on the Bill.
We need to see Bill C-15 as another major step in the modernization of our Criminal Code, which is now almost 100 years old. Our society has changed rather dramatically over the last 90 some years, so it is clearly time for a major restructuring of the Code. Members will remember Bill C-18 from the first session of this Parliament where we made dramatic changes to the drunk driving sections of the Criminal Code. As a result, the number of accidents and deaths on the highway dropped precipitously.
As well, in 1979, before your time, Mr. Speaker, the then Minister of Justice, now Senator Jacques Flynn, under the leadership of Prime Minister Joe Clark, started a process involving the renewal of our Criminal Code. The Law Reform Commission looked at the entire Criminal Code. Now, very likely this month, we will be tabling in the House a first draft of the new model Criminal Code which will deal with substantive sections. Later on there will be a proposal with respect to procedure in the Criminal Code. As Members know, a commission dealing with sentencing will shortly be reporting.
It is my hope, as chairman of the Standing Committee on Justice and Solicitor General, that Parliament will come together either with the committee, a subcommittee or indeed a special committee to take up these three streams of criminal law reform and pull them together so that by the centenary of our existing Criminal Code, which I think is 1992, we will have passed and proclaimed a brand new and modern Criminal Code which will take us into the 21st century.
1 would like to first deal with the comments made by the Hon. Member for Vancouver East (Ms. Mitchell). I do not know that she was speaking officially for the NDP, but there is a provision in the law which says an accused may be excluded from the court while the allegedly abused child is giving his or

November 4, 1986
Criminal Code
her evidence. That seems sensible. We all know there can be continuing intimidation by someone in a position of power and authority over a young child. Yet we do not want to forget the principle of criminal law which says that the accused has the right to be present in court and to hear his accusers and hear the evidence against him or her. The judge, under this Bill, will have the discretion to exclude the accused.
If I understand the NDP position, and I may not, they want the Code amended so that the accused shall be excluded when the evidence of the child is being given. I would very much argue against that in principle. I believe we should leave that decision to a judge. For example, assume the accused is defending him or herself. How would you physically handle that? If the Code says they "shall" be excluded, then they shall be excluded. It seems to me there has to be some discretionary power here and I hope the NDP will review its position on that point.
I am sure that most Members will appreciate that this Bill provides a two-pronged approach to dealing with the rather alarming incidents of child sexual abuse by creating three new offences to protect children from sexual abuse. At the same time it amends the Canada Evidence Act to enable more children to testify in court. The Badgley Commission reported an alarming incidence of child sexual abuse but I will not go into the figures which were placed on the record by my colleague from Capilano. Suffice it to say that it is a problem which is at least being reported.
I am not sure that there is any more sexual abuse today than there ever has been, but it may be that there is an increase as a result of family breakups. In any case, it is clearly acknowledged today that there is a vast number of young people who have been sexually abused. I guess the real tragedy is that it is often done by someone in a position of trust, whether it be a parent, uncle, aunt or other relative. Obviously we need speedy passage of this Bill so that our children, who we all agree represent the future of this country, can grow up to be strong, straight and normal human beings.
With respect to the three new criminal offences, they are sexual interference, sexual exploitation and invitation to sexual touching. This would ensure that children under 14 years of age are protected almost absolutely from all manner of sexual contact, while children up to the age of 18 years would be protected from sexual exploitation by anyone in a position of trust or authority or on whom the child is dependant. At the age of 18 the young person would have full sexual autonomy and no longer receive special protection. The offence of sexual interference would protect both boys and girls under 14 from all manner of sexual contact.
This new offence would cover a range of activities from fondling of the child's genitals to full acts of vaginal or anal intercourse. Children 14 to 18 years of age could consent, as they are able to now, to all forms of sexual activity not otherwise prohibited by law, an example being buggery. However, the same child would be protected from sexual
exploitation by a person in authority or in a position of trust or a person on whom the child is dependant.
I see that my friend, the Member for Kamloops-Shuswap, is now back in the House. Since I will have the opportunity to deal with this Bill for hours and hours at committee, I will now stand down in order that he might rise.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Are there questions or comments on the speech of the Hon. Member? There being none, I will recognize the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis) for debate.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I must thank my very good friend, the Member for Lethbridge-Foothills (Mr. Thacker), for allowing me the opportunity to make a few remarks on Bill C-15. As he has indicated, as a member of the committee he will have an opportunity to comment during the committee hearings as well as at third reading stage. I appreciate the opportunity which he has provided to me today.
This Bill is an Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Canada Evidence Act. It provides for amendments to the Criminal Code to protect young people from sexual abuse and exploitation. Parliament is taking a very important and long overdue step today which deals with the tragedy of child sexual abuse. I am sure that every Member of this House believes that it is a tragedy that such a growing number of young people in our country are caught up in this disastrous situation. ' As responsible Members of Parliament, we have an obligation to deal with child sexual abuse as quickly and effectively as possible as one step toward bringing an end to this very serious tragedy.
The tragedy associated with child sexual abuse was reported on extensively by the Badgely Committee. That report identified the present situation of child sexual abuse in Canada as a hidden tragedy. The report called it a hidden tragedy because for so many years its widespread nature was not well known or understood. It is now coming more and more into the public eye. I am told that in Kamloops approximately six or seven cases of child sexual abuse are reported to the authorities every week. Those are only the cases which are reported. I suspect that, as with so many other things, for every case which is reported there are many more which are unreported and remain part of this hidden tragedy. Of course, that is to say nothing of the hundreds of young boys and girls in my constituency of Kamloops-Shuswap who are in what social workers call "care", meaning that they have been forced to leave their normal homes and are being cared for in one context or another.
The Badgely Commission uncovered an almost unbelievable level of child sexual abuse and exploitation. It referred to the cyclical nature of child sexual abuse. That, of course, refers to the fact that those who abuse young people sexually today were themselves victims of child sexual abuse earlier in their
November 4, 1986

lives. The challenge is for us to do whatever is necessary to bring an end to this vicious and hideous cycle of child sexual abuse.
In its report the Badgely Commission suggested that we must strengthen the Criminal Code to deal more effectively with child sexual abuse. I am sure that all Members of Parliament are often visited in their constituency offices by parents, and particularly by mothers, who report a fear for the lives of their children. They are shocked by events which become public in their own neighbourhoods. The Members for Vancouver Kingsway (Mr. Waddell) and Burnaby (Mr. Robinson) have spoken of the tragedy of young people on the streets of so many Canadian cities who have fallen victim to sexual abuse and exploitation of one kind or another. In our constituency offices we are informed of individual tragedies and urged to do whatever we can to bring an end to this very serious situation.
We New Democrats will do everything possible to expedite the passage of this Bill in order to bring it into effect as quickly as possible. We regret, however, that we could have been dealing with this matter much earlier. The Badgely Commission tabled its report in August of 1984. It is only today, more than two years later, that the Government has decided to introduce Bill C-15 which attempts to implement through law a number of the recommendations of the Badgely Commission. Therefore, while we are pleased to be finally dealing with this, it is unfortunate that it was not dealt with much earlier.
As I said, we New Democrats are very serious about this matter and will do whatever we can to facilitate the early passage of this legislation. We have some concerns and would like to make some suggestions to make the Bill more effective. When the Bill is referred to the Justice Committee, we will certainly make a number of suggestions in that regard. We will call for a number of groups and organizations to appear as witnesses to provide suggestions as to how this legislation can be made more effective. We will also seek suggestions of other ways in which we might deal with child sexual abuse.
The Bill before us protects children from sexual touching. It protects young people from those who might take advantage of their position of authority, trust and dependency. I need not recount reports which have become public over the past number of months of people who have taken advantage, in a sexual way, of their positions of authority, trust or dependency. This tragedy is often hidden because it often involves parents, other people in the home, members of an extended family or close friends, which makes the situation all the more hideous.
As well, this legislation addresses the exploitation of children as prostitutes, both in terms of the users of child prostitutes and those living off the avails of child prostitution. This is a most serious situation. Young people who become part of the community known as street people in our cities are often forced to prostitute themselves on our streets because the existing facilities and agencies are unable to meet their needs.
Criminal Code
I am pleased that this legislation is a step toward dealing with those who exploit these tragic young people. Those who are living off the avails of prostitution will be dealt with in an especially harsh way. It is open to discussion whether the measures are harsh enough and such discussion will take place in committee. However, I cannot imagine that we could be too harsh on people who take advantage of the plight of young people and exploit them sexually. Of course, the problem in the past has often been the insufficient number of cases that actually get to court. This legislation attempts to give new definitions of what is to be considered unacceptable behaviour when it comes to child sexual abuse, and a new definition of persons in authority in an effort to more closely identify who they are.
The Bill also calls for the judge to utilize the information that is provided by young girls and boys. There is some concern that these young people need to be above average intelligence before the judge or jury can use the information and evidence that they provide. We have some concerns that this above average intelligence test case situation, by definition, would probably eliminate half the children. I suggest we should use children who are able to provide appropriate, adequate evidence, regardless of what we might think about their level of intelligence. 1 believe it would be relatively easy for a judge or jury to determine that intelligence.
I am pleased that the Bill includes the admission of videotape evidence taken shortly after the offence. My hon. colleague, the Member for Burnaby, has indicated that this could also include audiotape evidence, particularly in those areas where it is difficult to obtain videotape, such as rural areas. This is another matter that can be developed more thoroughly in committee.
Furthermore, the Bill provides an opportunity for the judge and jury to view the body language of the child as the child is providing evidence. Those of us who are parents often know that we can often tell more about our children by their body language and facial expressions than by what they are saying. Therefore, I believe videotape evidence will be a useful new approach.
It is possible for three to five years to pass from the time of the incident to a judge actually delivering a decision. Such an interval can cause problems, particularly when the videotape evidence was given shortly after the offence. We may want to take advantage of using that type of evidence after the young boy or girl has had an opportunity to deal with the tragic event in their own way and perhaps provide further evidence later.
I believe this is the first time it has been proposed to exclude the accused from the courtroom. Since a young boy or girl may feel intimidated if the accused person was before them in the courtroom when they were providing evidence, I believe this is a major step forward. However, there are a number of concerns which must be examined in the committee.

November 4, 1986
Criminal Code
While I am pleased that we are dealing with amendments to the Criminal Code dealing with child sexual abuse, it is important that we recognize that it is simply one small step toward eliminating child sexual abuse in Canada. There are a number of other federal, provincial, and local government initiatives that should be taken, particularly by providing the resources to assist in the counselling of victims of child sexual abuse. Too often there are not enough adequate resources to provide proper counselling to the hundreds of thousands of young people who are exposed to sexual exploitation. This aids and abets the child sexual abuse cycle to which I referred earlier, to say nothing about adults who seek counselling or legal means to deal with sexual abuse they experienced as children.
We should also recognize that the offenders who are involved must be treated. It is not appropriate to ignore people who have committed or been convicted of child sexual abuse, knowing full well it will be a matter of months or years before they are on the streets of Canada again. It is in the best interests of our society to deal with these offenders by treating them through proper counselling.
The existing programs must be better co-ordinated. The Hon. Member for Burnaby indicated that most provinces today do not recognize child sexual abuse as a definition of behaviour requiring child protection in provincial jurisdiction. Not only must this be changed, it is an example of so many problems that need co-ordination in order to maximize their effectiveness.
The case overload for those professionals dealing with child sexual abuse or violence associated with young people is becoming normal. I have many friends in my constituency who are social workers. They have described their caseloads to me and I cannot imagine how they can begin to deal effectively with any of the cases when they are so overworked and the demand on the system is so horrendous. If the Government is serious about dealing with the abuse of children, it should take the opportunity to provide the professionals and the support systems with resources to do the job that is required.
Let me point out to the House that in June, 1986, the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp) promised the people of Canada that he would appoint a special adviser to co-ordinate the Government's response to child sexual abuse. I remind the House, particularly members of the Cabinet who are here today, that five months have passed since that announcement. I cannot imagine a more welcome appointment, particularly with the introduction of this legislation, and I hope the Minister makes that announcement soon.
Let us examine the degree to which the Government is concerned about child sexual abuse. The Bill is a step in the right direction and we have heard some very thoughtful speeches in the House of Commons today. However, let us consider what the Government is spending to deal with child sexual abuse. It recently announced that it plans to spend $20 million over five years. That is probably what it spends in one
year for brandy and cigars during entertainment parties. The expenditure of $20 million over five years to combat child sexual abuse in Canada is simply inadequate and inappropriate. The Government can show its concern and commitment to deal effectively with eliminating child sexual abuse by providing the adequate resources and funds to ensure that the appropriate programs, agencies, organizations and individuals are mobilized to combat this tragedy.
In closing, I suggest we must carefully consider what we do as Members of Parliament. I want to refer to Section 43 of the Criminal Code which essentially legalizes violence against children, whether that is in the schools through corporal punishment or by spanking. It is legalized in our Criminal Code and I believe that when we are concerned about violence, violence against children in this case, we should recognize that we ought to remove that section from the Criminal Code.
We must also recognize the violence and abuse associated with poverty in our country. All Hon. Members have spoken about the increasing levels of poverty in Canada. We know that many children in our constituencies come from very poor families and we are aware of the abuse in their lives as a result of that poverty. We in the New Democratic Party will support this Bill in principle and will work to improve it.
I want to conclude by suggesting that if we are concerned about child sexual abuse, the exploitation of children, and violence against children in one form or another, we should take a second look at the kind of entertainment we provide through television and the kind of toys sold in our stores. The Rambo-style doll, the violence and killing shown on television and the violent games on the video machines young people involve themselves with, I suppose, makes it an extension of a young person's life to kill indirectly through television or the video screen perhaps thousands and thousands of people. They see it often glorified in the Rambo-style entertainment. That is something which is topic for another discussion, but in my opinion, when we talk about ways and means of ridding our country of child sexual abuse and violence, it is something we should keep in mind.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Questions or comments. The Hon. Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice (Mr. Gerin) has the floor.


François Gérin: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Hon. Member for offering to cooperate with the Government and indicating her party's intention to support this Bill. I think this goes along the line of the Badgley and Fraser Commission reports which were asking all Canadians, all political parties, all people interested in this matter to set aside all political bias and to move forward in the best interest of Canadian children. My hon. colleague's co-operation, therefore, is consistent with these views.
Now, I have listened attentively to her recommendations concerning Section 43 of the Criminal Code, and I suggest
November 4, 1986

they should be carefully looked into. For that matter, this Bill is based on a concept which is somewhat new, that is to say a relationship of trust and dependency to which we are not really accustomed in our legislation and which, I think, may provide a solution to many problems.
This dependency which is stated at the outset of this Bill and establishes quite clearly that when a person is in a situation of authority towards another, or when a child is in a relationship of dependency towards an adult or another person, such a person would be guilty of an indictable offence and liable to more severe penalties, and could not use as a defence the consent of the victimized child.
These new provisions, I think, are consistent with what my hon. colleague has suggested under Section 43, and I should like to hear her comments concerning this new concept of authority in the light of her suggestion about Section 43 of the Criminal Code.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments of the Hon. Member. I simply want to reiterate that since we are at second reading stage of the Bill and discussing its principle, I cannot express strongly enough how much my party and I support the principle of the Bill. It is long overdue. I wish we would have had the opportunity two years ago to debate this Bill with the new Government. I wish we would have had the opportunity to debate the Bill many years ago with the previous Government. However, we are debating it today and we appreciate that.
Protecting young people from those who might take advantage of them, those in positions of authority, trust and dependency, is a most appropriate part of the Bill. There have been many examples made public recently of people in positions of authority-I think they are well known and publicized so I will not refer to specific cases-and members of the family, fathers, uncles, and so on. Individuals who exploit special situations where people are dependent upon them must be dealt with severely. The Bill attempts to define more carefully what these positions are, and the definitions associated with them, in the hope of being able to deal more effectively in the courts with people who find themselves falling within the definition of "authority and trust".
It is important to recognize that when dealing with this very fundamental and basic question, some very startling figures come to mind. Ninety-eight per cent of people who use and abuse customers who are children, young boys and girls, are men. Men are the consumers, the customers and, unfortunately, they are pimps who are involved in the business associated with child sexual abuse. These people must be dealt with. We have to recognize that sexual responses in today's society are certainly by and large a learned behaviour, particularly in the kinds of situations with which we are dealing in this legislation. It is time that we as a society and as Members of Parliament do what we can to get away from this macho image
Criminal Code
of sexuality where the male is the dominant superior participant and deal with sex on a completely different basis, where there is no master, no superior participant. In the socialization of our society this is a clear model and is something we must all do what we can to eliminate and change.
To react directly to the points made by the Hon. Member, this is a very important piece of legislation and while we will co-operate and act as expeditiously as is reasonable, we feel it should receive debate and discussion. Quite frankly, I have heard some of the most valuable and thoughtful presentations today in the House from all sides. I think we have struck a chord. We are dealing with an issue, a tragedy, about which all of us feel very strongly and we are pleased to be making an effort today, at least as a first step, to remove and eliminate child sexual abuse in Canada.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I just have a very brief question in the spirit of co-operation. I am quite impressed with the quality of the speeches. I do think we have a message to give to the public and that is we indeed want their input. We are asking them to be present at the committee stage so we will have an overview of the situation as it applies to the problem at hand.
I believe I may have heard the Hon. Member badly or not clearly-


Mr. Prud'homme:: No, you heard him well.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: -when he said that the previous Government had done nothing to study this problem. I think he will remember that in 1978, at least from my memory, the Law Reform Commission tabled some recommendations dealing with the child sexual abuse problems. Indeed, there was a Bill presented to the House which was very contentious and gave rise to the Badgley Commission which, as we all know, reported here in August of 1984. Therefore, there has been a very intense debate for eight years with Canadians on the one aspect of this whole problem, that is sexual abuse of children. I do think that Parliamentarians as a whole take a very active interest in this problem and would like to be supported and receive the benefit of suggestions from those groups which do have something to say about it.
Does the Hon. Member not agree that the input of the various groups which deal with both the accused and, more importantly, the children, would be important to a debate which we all feel is important? Sometimes we are accused of not grabbing the attention of the public and that on certain topics there has only been one day of debate. Some people say that we have not debated the Bill long enough in order to draw their attention to it. The point is how do we get members of the public to work with us to solve these problems?


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for Ottawa-[DOT] Vanier (Mr. Gauthier) poses, as usual, a thoughtful interjection. I want to recognize that it was his Government which

November 4, 1986
Criminal Code
initiated the Fraser and Badgley Commissions. I do this to give recognition where it is due.
In terms of the points made by the Hon. Member, we are indeed anxious to seek as much public input as is possible and reasonable under the circumstances. That is why we all feel that we do not want to move hastily with this Bill, that people who have been watching and listening today would have found it a most useful debate. I think a few more contributors would simply add to the educational process, especially in terms of alerting the public to what is involved.
I do not want to suggest that we hurry with this legislation but that we deal with it thoughtfully and expeditiously.


Blaine Allen Thacker: Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a comment first. I hope the Hon. Member does not want us to go back and have the testimony of the witnesses who came before the Badgley and Fraser Commissions repeated. These commissions consulted with virtually hundreds and hundreds of people. The time for discussion is over. There is a piece of legislation before us and we ought to deal with it quickly and promptly at the legislative committee stage.
I seek my friend's advice with respect to how he feels criminal law can become involved at any point in time vis-avis professional associations. For example in the case of a doctor accused vis-a-vis his patient we find that in a certain sense the professional association will protect the doctor. In the province of the Hon. Member there were the cases of male teachers involved with a large number of young men. In a sense the professional association had to protect their union members. The same is true in the case of lawyers.
Will the Hon. Member share his views with us concerning teachers, since they are truly in trust relationships with young children? Does the Hon. Member think that teachers' associations should have different types of laws, almost criminal-type laws, or does he think we parliamentarians should provide some sort of law which would get beyond the corporate protection these associations and societies provide to their members?


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member asks an appropriate question. Professional associations, and teachers' associations in particular, certainly ought to be more open in terms of monitoring different situations and in terms of having more of an opportunity to render discipline within their organizations. This would have ensured that the problems that we experienced in British Columbia over the last two or three years would never have occurred. However, I think it is within the professional associations themselves where this vigilance ought to occur. Through the proper procedures and openness, an accounting more or less of individual members, this can be achieved. This might be something more appropriately dealt with during the hearings of the committee by witnesses who are knowledgeable in these areas.


Rob Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be able to make a few comments with respect to Bill
C-15 which deals with amendments to the Criminal Code and amendments to the Canada Evidence Act. Specifically, it deals with the subject of child sexual abuse and exploitation.
I can tell Hon. Members that legislation of this type is welcome throughout the country. I know it will be welcomed by my constituents in Niagara Falls who applaud the Government and the House for moving forward with legislation in this area. One thing we should do with a law of this type is put it into context in terms of what we as a Government have tried to do with the Criminal Code. My colleague, the Hon. Member for Lethbridge-Foothills (Mr. Thacker), has indicated that we are approaching the one-hundredth anniversary of the Criminal Code. It is certainly my opinion, and one shared by many of my colleagues in the Government and other Members of the House, that many revisions have been necessary to the Criminal Code. Some of them have been made already and, obviously, there will be more to come. I put those amendments in this context as well.
I believe that the provisions of this legislation fit in well with other moves taken by the Government which have tried to take better care and show more concern for the victims of crime. In terms of the legislation which is before us the victims, of course, are children. Other moves that we have taken have provided protection for all Canadians. This is a good and valid point, and something with which the House has had to deal. The Criminal Code, as well as the interpretation of it, has for too long and in too many instances been not enough concerned with victims' rights. This was made clear to me when the House was recalled during the summer to pass the legislation dealing with dangerous offenders.
After that legislation was passed, someone from the press said that there was criticism being expressed in the country that we are not concerned enough with the rehabilitation of criminals. I replied quite honestly. I said that the people who sent me from Niagara Falls to this House are law-abiding people. They are people who have something to say and who want to be protected by the Criminal Code. For too long and in too many cases their rights and concerns have not been expressed.
I can tell Hon. Members that I am proud to be a member of the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs. It has been a very active committee. I will not go so far as to say that it is the most active since someone may correct me on that point. However, I will say it is as active and as busy a committee as we have seen in the Thirty-third Parliament.
Our committee has dealt with a number of issues. Hon. Members will remember that shortly after our election a decision came down from the Supreme Court of Canada which struck down the Criminal Code provisions with respect to the importation of hard-core pornography. I was pleased that we did not wait two or three years to do something about that decision. We did not hum and haw and say that that is the way things go, that the garbage will now come across the border into our country. Within 10 days the then Solicitor General tabled legislation in the House making it illegal to import
November 4, 1986

hard-core pornography into the country. That is one example of the Government's worry about those who are exploited by hard-core pornography and how we protect the values which we as Canadians hold. What the Government has done is to move toward protecting in a more responsible way the victims of crime. The Speech from the Throne reiterated our commitment to family values. I believe this is something on which the people of Canada count. Our record with respect to justice matters bears that out.
We had the whole subject of prostitution and, in particular, street soliciting before the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs in the form of Bill C-49. Those of my colleagues who sat with me on that committee and those who watched the debates in the House of Commons were told again and again by the critics of the Bill all the dire, terrible things that would happen. We were told that all we would have to do is wave at someone and we would find ourselves in jail. In fact, what has happened in the last few months since the Bill's passage is that we have seen a beneficial effect for a great number of people in the country. In my riding of Niagara Falls where this has been a particular problem, I have been told again and again by the merchants and by those who are responsible for enforcing the law that it is working. The situation has been controlled.
I was very interested to read a comment made by a woman who had been engaged in prostitution in the City of Ottawa. She said that the way things were going, she would have to get out of the business. There are many members of my party and I am sure of the other parties in the House who would welcome that. That is not the kind of profession in which we wish to see people. That move away from prostitution was one of the by-products of Bill C-49. We made the point very clearly in that legislation and we are making it in this legislation as well.
An interesting comment was made by an Hon. Member concerning the entire subject of sexual abuse and the role to be played by all of us in society. She mentioned specifically the early warning signs that can be seen by child care workers. It has been my privilege these last few months to be a member of the Special Committee on Child Care, a special committee very ably chaired by my colleague, the Hon. Member for Lincoln (Mrs. Martin), who has done an outstanding job in organizing and co-ordinating the Government's investigation into that subject. We heard that child care workers across the country are in a unique position to observe the effects of and to detect child abuse. It is so important to detect such a thing at that age because of the pernicious nature of child sexual abuse and the damage it can do to children. It is incumbent upon all of us to deal with this problem as early as possible. Many times, a child's first exposure to the outside world takes place in a daycare centre or a family child care centre.
Without prejudging what the committee will do, it was made clear to us that we must impress upon those who deal with children at a very early age the importance of recognizing
Criminal Code
the signs of child abuse. We as a society must encourage the detection of child abuse. People told us that they were afraid to speak up. Perhaps they suspected something was wrong but they were afraid to come forward. They thought that they might somehow be liable or subjects of reprisals. We as a society must encourage people again and again. We must tell them about the different signs for which they should look and remind them of their obligations to children and to Canadian society as a whole.
The fight against child sexual abuse is not confined only to daycare centres. The responsibility to do something about human exploitation rests on all of us as a society. In the last few years, how many of us have entered neighbourhood candy stores and video rental stores to see some of the hard-core pornography and kiddy porn that is on the shelves? I believe we have a responsibility to do something about this.
Simply expecting the Government to do something seems to be a Canadian disease. Everyone thinks that if there is a problem in Canada, Ottawa had better do something about it and spend money on it. However, I believe it is the responsibility of all of us. When we go into corner candy stores and see garbage on the shelves that is offensive to us and our children, we have the obligation to speak up and say that that is not the kind of thing we want to see on the shelves.
When I went to candy stores 25 years ago, comic books were being sold. I remember people saying that I should not be reading comic books because they were not good for me and would hurt my development in the English language, the one in which I was brought up. I think most parents would say now that if only comic books were in the corner candy stores, they could accept that. Now, however, many corner candy stores carry what is in my opinion hard-core pornography. I believe we must do something about that.
Earlier in this Session, I posed a question to the Minister of Justice (Mr. Hnatyshyn). I told him that I, the people of Niagara Falls and many of my colleagues would welcome new legislation designed to deal with violent and hard-core pornography. I received an assurance from the Minister of Justice that something would be done and I welcomed that assurance just as I welcome this law.
There are many aspects to this law. I am particularly pleased that we will deal with the problems of sexual interference and invitation to sexual touching. The new Criminal Code provisions will make it an offence to touch anyone under the age of 14 for a sexual purpose. As well, the new legislation will make it an offence to invite or urge a child under 14 to touch another person in a sexual way. As several of my colleagues have pointed out, we have concluded that the age of sexual autonomy for most purposes will be the age of 18, and I believe that is valid. We as a society have an obligation to protect children under the age of 18 in the way outlined in this piece of legislation.
Among other things, this legislation deals with the problem of sexual exploitation and attempts to protect children under

November 4, 1986
Criminal Code
the age of 18 from that. A number of people have pointed out that this is a very serious problem. I believe it was the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis) who said that it is a hidden crime and I must agree with him. For too long, this sort of thing has gone on.
I have referred to some of the bad things that have happened to Canadian society in terms of tolerance of pornography, but I can say that there is a growing awareness of the problems faced by children and other persons who are in a position to be exploited by persons in positions of trust. I will be very pleased to see that matter referred to the committee for discussion.
As well, this legislation deals with the subject of prostitution. It provides that a customer who seeks to obtain the sexual services of an individual under the age of 18 is liable to five years in prison. I believe that that is a tremendous provision. That is one of the reasons Bill C-49, the law on street soliciting, works. It goes after the customers as well. There is nothing that will clean up juvenile prostitution or prostitution in general quicker than to get at the customers. When the customers are afraid to get involved, it becomes possible for those who want to get out of this business to do so, to get on with their lives in a way I think most people would think proper.
I am pleased that those who live off the avails of juvenile prostitution, the pimps, have been dealt with in this legislation as well. The penalties for that crime have been increased from 10 years to 14 years imprisonment and that is good as well.
I see I have only a few moments left, Mr. Speaker. I would like to make some comments about changes to the Canada Evidence Act. One of the clauses in the Bill deals with the problems involved when children take oaths. This can be a frustrating and difficult part of a case involving child sexual abuse.
I was in court one day as counsel and was able to observe what happened with respect to a child who was accusing a young man of sexual abuse. I believe the child was eight or nine years old. As you are aware, Mr. Speaker, under the Canada Evidence Act, the judge has to make inquiries as to whether or not the complainant understands the nature and quality of an oath. In that particular case, the judge could have ruled either way. I do not think the child understood the oath in the traditional way, the way I was brought up to understand it.
If it is decided that a child does not understand an oath, the consequences are that the child's evidence must be corroborated. The combination of the two can be fatal. If the child does not understand the nature and quality of an oath and if there is no corroboration, there generally is no case. In most cases of child sexual abuse there are no witnesses. It is done in an alley or in someone's basement. It is done away from other people or witnesses. The changes are very good. I am encouraged to see that improvement.
I also notice that videotaped statements are now permitted where a child claims sexual abuse. That videotaped evidence is to be taken very soon after the complaint is made. One of the problems is that it becomes an excruciatingly difficult and trying time for the child who has made this accusation. They are questioned again and again. Mr. Speaker, you are aware of the legal process in this country. Generally, it is many months before a preliminary hearing. It may be a couple of years before the trial.
There are a number of things by which all of us can be very encouraged. The Government is to be commended. This is the type of legislation that Canadians want and deserve. It fits in with the other positive moves made in the Criminal Code. I welcome them. I would urge my colleagues to get this to the committee stage as quickly as possible, so that this very soon can become the law of the land.


Svend Johannes Robinson: I have listened with interest to the comments of my colleague from Niagara Falls (Mr. Nicholson) who is a member of the Standing Committee on Justice and Solicitor General. He was recently elected as the vice-chairman of that committee. I congratulate him in the House on his election to that lofty position.
I would like to ask the Hon. Member a question with respect to the evidentiary provisions of the legislation. One of the concerns that has been raised about the Bill as it is presently drafted is that children should be able to communicate their concerns and position with respect to possible child abuse and sexual abuse to the courts without any intervention or any type of intelligence test.
The Bill as it is now drafted would require that the judge determine that the child in question is of sufficient intelligence before that child could tell his or her story to the court. This provision has been criticized by a number of organizations, including the Canadian Council on Children and Youth. I know that the member is a fair-minded member who approaches this legislation on the basis of its merits. I would like to ask the Hon. Member whether he, as a member of the committee, recognizes that this is a concern with the legislation. Hopefully we could, rather than insisting that judges impose some sort of intelligence test on children before they can testify, recognize that the primary concern is whether or not that child is able to communicate.


Rob Nicholson: I thank the Hon. Member for that question. The law as it is presently drafted did not come about by accident. All of us are very concerned about the rights of the accused. Many times it is very devastating, particularly to an individual accused of a sexual crime. I have previously spoken in the House on my opinion that those who are charged with sexual offences should not have their names published in the newspaper until there is a conviction. The reason for that is that it is devastating to a person who is charged with an offence like that. In the end it did not make
November 4, 1986

any difference whether they were cleared of that charge, or the charges were withdrawn.
I conclude by saying that it is valid to say that the child has to be sufficiently intelligent to understand what he or she is saying because of the dire consequences it can be for an individual charged with the offence. I would be very pleased to deal with these matters more explicitly and in more detail when they reach the committee stage.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Questions or comments. The Hon. Member for Saint-Denis (Mr. Prud'homme) has the floor.


George Albert Proud: Very briefly, Mr. Speaker, because I know my colleague and friend the Hon. Member from Montreal-Mercier (Mrs. Jacques) definitely wants to rise in the debate. So I would say that all speeches in my view have been clear and specific. We all want this legislation to be passed as soon as possible. I support this legislation. I wanted to be here to prove it, but I would like the Minister to listen closely.

I wish the Minister would listen very attentively. We have passed this resolution in one day. I hope that the Minister and my colleague who spoke before me will agree that in view of its importance and to show that we want to protect our youth as they should be protected, it would be wise to call witnesses. I know that it will be up to the committee to decide, but I hope we will have the Minister's approval to call witnesses. I will look at his face and I will understand if he says yes. Then I will say publicly that the Minister indicates that yes, indeed, he is in favour of us calling some witnesses. You approve of that, 1 am sure, Mr. Minister. You can look at me and indicate if you do.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would like to make sure that some progress is made in this matter. There is at least one other Hon. Member who would like to address a few remarks. I hope that she will not be prevented from doing this today. Perhaps she will have an opportunity of speaking tomorrow.
In connection with the whole question, I know that the committee will give this matter serious attention. As far as I am concerned, there is no problem in having a reasonable examination so that the matter may be resolved on a proper basis. 1 know that the Hon. Member would not want me to intrude as a representative of the Government with my views as to how long the deliberations should take. Knowing the people involved in the legislative committee, I know that they will give this matter serious attention and will hear appropriate witnesses.


George Albert Proud: Good.
(Translation]


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Debate. The Hon. Member for Montreal-Mercier (Mrs. Jacques).
Adjournment Debate


Carole Jacques: Mr. Speaker, over the last two decades we have seen an increase in the incidence of sexual violence against children, especially child prostitution. The concerns raised in that respect and a better understanding of their nature are the reasons for the important amendments to the legislation and to social programs as proposed by this Government. This is why today the Minister of Justice and the Solicitor General of Canada (Mr. Hnatyshyn) tabled in Parliament the amendments to the Criminal Code and to the Canada Evidence Act that are aimed at protecting children against sexual abuse and exploitation. Those amendments were first tabled in June last, following the tabling of the Badgley Committee Report on sexual offences against children. Those measures at the time met with strong support from Parliament and the whole society. The Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp) was appointed as the federal minister in charge of co-ordinating the social and educational measures connected with it. Since then, he has confirmed the decision to appoint a special council on the sexual exploitation of children and a regional advisor, and indicated that the Secretariat for children that are victims of sexual violence in Health and Welfare Canada has held consultations with federal and provincial departments and the non-government sector.
In the last Throne Speech, Mr. Speaker, the Government confirmed its intention to re-introduce those amendments as soon as possible, and this is what we have done today. So I urge the House, Mr. Speaker, to pass this legislation as soon as possible in order to protect our young Canadians.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Mr. Hnatyshyn seconded by Mr. McKnight, moves that Bill C-15, an Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Canada Evidence Act, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.

[Stage Direction]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 66 deemed to have been moved.

Mr. Jim Jepson (London East):: Mr. Speaker, on October 15 I directed a question to the Minister of Consumer and

November 4, 1986
Adjournment Debate
Corporate Affairs (Mr. Andre) with respect to the Government's upcoming legislation on bankruptcy as it will pertain to suppliers' rights to repossess goods for which they were not paid. The Minister assured me that the Government would hopefully bring forward recommendations for change to the Bankruptcy Act in the near future.
As indeed most Members of the House are aware, there are many shortcomings in the existing bankruptcy legislation. I commend the Minister for addressing this matter which has been overlooked for too long. However, it is imperative that I indicate to the Minister the dangers of leaving unattended the inadequacies contained within the Bankruptcy Act, as they fail to pertain to the protection of the Canadian supplier and wage-earner. One has only to look around in Canadian society at the problems caused by the failure of the Act to protect the Canadian supplier and wage-earner.
As the Minister is well aware, Parliament passed the Bankruptcy Act in 1949. However, since then there have been increasing problems with the legislation. This is amply illustrated by the fact that there have been six unsuccessful attempts to change its provisions over the past few years.
Under current law no special consideration is given to suppliers in bankruptcy situations. For example, a supplier could deliver goods to a business on a Friday and the business could be closed or bankrupt by the Saturday, and the supplier is unprotected. Of course this points out a very grave shortcoming. I ask the Minister to consider a measure taken in Quebec some time ago giving the suppliers of bankrupt businesses 30 days after the appointment of a trustee in bankruptcy in which to repossess goods for which they had not been paid.
As well, wage-earners have received the short end of the stick in bankruptcy legislation for far too long. It is time that wage-earners be suitably protected with new bankruptcy laws up to a limit of $2,000. They should be given priority to secured creditors, namely, banks, Crown corporations and Crown agencies. These men and women have rightfully earned the wages and rely upon them as their sole means of sustenance.
The matter has been neglected far too long. It is not only wage-earners, but those persons employed on a commission basis in the area of sales. Sales commissions and expenses should also be considered in the same manner as wages. Salesmen who were on the road and incurred expenses can be left high and dry under the current law.
Once again I urge the Minister to reconsider changing the Bankruptcy Act and to ensure that suppliers of goods, wage-earners, and sales people on commission receive priority treatment ahead of secured creditors such as banks, Crown corporations, Crown agencies, Revenue Canada, sales tax departments, and so on. It is long overdue. These people should get what is rightfully theirs.
Again I commend the Minister on his initiative, but I also say to him that it is time to redress a grave injustice to many Canadians.


Mrs. Gabrielle Bertrand (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to provide additional information to the answer given by the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Andre) to a question put on October 15, 1986 by the Hon. Member for London East (Mr. Jepson). That question dealt with the status of suppliers of goods in the proposed amendments to the Bankruptcy Act. The Hon. Member was hoping that provisions would be introduced to allow an unpaid supplier to repossess the goods delivered to an insolvent debtor. He was referring to the system in effect in Quebec, under which suppliers of goods enjoy that right in that province.
As indicated by the Minister, the issue of unpaid suppliers is now under consideration by him. I must stress however that a decision has been made to review the Bankruptcy Act by stages.
Over the past 16 years, 6 attempts at completely remodelling the Bankruptcy Act have failed. For that reason, a list of questions to be dealt with has been compiled, and it has been decided that the most urgent would be adressed as a priority. The five issues identified as having top priority are: the protection of wage earners; provisions with respect to the activities of secured creditors and receivers; provisions to promote financial reorganizations; provisions dealing with bankruptcies and consumer offers; and, finally, the Crown's preference as a creditor. At the same time, a number of amendments of a rather technical nature, aimed at improving the efficiency of the bankruptcy system, will be tabled.
Although the importance of the problem of suppliers of goods is fully recognized, the aforementioned issues have been identified as the most urgent and ready to be solved. On the other hand, I am in a position to assure the House that the Minister intends to address the matter of suppliers in a later stage of that review.
The matter of unpaid suppliers is still under consideration. Incidentally, the possibility of using a system similar to that in Quebec has been considered, but as yet no decision has been made.
I think it would be useful to clarify the extent to which unpaid suppliers enjoy a right to repossess under the Quebec Civil Code. The Hon. Member should be aware that this right in Quebec applies only under certain conditions, namely that the goods delivered have not been sold to a third party, that those goods were in the same condition as when sold, and only if the request for repossession is made within 30 days following delivery of the goods.
November 4, 1986

Earlier this year, the Government passed a law to help farmers experiencing financial difficulty. I am of course referring to the Farm Debt Review Act. This was the first element of a series of measures intended to improve federal bankruptcy legislation.
Hopefully, the Government will be able to introduce the next, and second element soon. That would be the package of amendments I referred to earlier. Following that, it is intended that additional outstanding issues, including the status of unpaid suppliers, be addressed as expeditiously as possible.


CANADA POST-PLAN TO PROMOTE POSTAL RATE INCREASES- UTILIZATION OF HUMAN AND MATERIAL RESOURCES- REQUEST FOR EXPLANATION
Alfonso Gagliano: This
evening, Mr. Speaker, I should like to refer to a question I directed to the Minister responsible for Canada Post last October 28. We had just learned that Canada Post had prepared a communication plan, a rather thick document, in an attempt to manipulate Canadians and sell them on the forthcoming postal rate increase.
A few days later, Mr. Speaker, we learned through the postal workers' own paper-with a circulation of 60,000 copies- that a rather expensive advertising campaign had been launched to explain the new home delivery system through community boxes.
Indeed here is the question I put to the Minister: How can he allow Canada Post to devote so much energy and so many human and material resources to sell Canadians on a postal rate increase they do not want and a delivery system which they never did and never will accept? If they were to accept this, if the community box delivery system were to become the Government's permanent policy as of tomorrow, we would be creating second class citizens. In other words, people go to the trouble of investing and buying new houses which spur the construction industry and create jobs, yet these people will be penalized, Mr. Speaker, because they will not be getting home delivery like all other Canadians do. I think that it is a social injustice that this Government is creating.
Mr. Speaker, I should like to refer to Recommendation No. 8 of the Marchment Report which stated, and I quote:
Communities in urban areas which do not enjoy daily door-to-door delivery be consulted with a view to offering the choice between alternate day letter carrier service or daily mail service through the use of group, community or post office boxes.
There was no proper consultation, Mr. Speaker. Also, the same report had recommended that another five years be granted to Canada Post to get rid of its deficit. Here is what the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) announced on February 26, 1986, and I should like to quote from page 8 of his Budget's speech:
The Marchment Committee has recommended another five years to reach the break-even point. This is not acceptable.
Following discussions with the President of Canada Post, the Government has requested a new operating plan to improve productivity at Canada Post so that the Corporation will reduce its operating deficit to zero by the end of fiscal 1987-
Adjournment Debate
88. The Government is confident that by taking further steps to improve productivity and efficiency, Canada Post and its workers can meet the objctive of self-sufficiency while improving reliability of service to the people of Canada.
Mr. Speaker, the Government has obviously decided to go completely against these two recommendations of the Marchment Commission, and we know that Canada Post wants now to increase by 2 cents the cost of stamps for first class mail.
Mr. Speaker, I should like to use the short time remaining at my disposal to mention also that this is the second increase in the cost of stamps since the Progressive Conservative Party came to power. As a matter of fact, when the former Minister responsible for Canada Post announced on June 20, 1985, that the Government was giving the green light to Post Canada to increase by 2 cents the cost of stamps, he said, and I quote in English, Mr. Speaker:
Mr. Beatty said that, before future rate increases are considered by the federal government, Cabinet will expect Canada Post to implement new measures to improve productivity.
Canadians do not believe that any new measures have been implemented to improve productivity. The only thing which was implemented was community boxes. People in new homes in Canada are not receiving home delivery. Therefore, the Government and the Canada Post Corporation is discriminating against Canadians and creating second-class citizens. Perhaps tomorrow Canadians will learn the truth. All Canadians await the so-called postal business plan which the Government is supposed to announce to indicate how we will receive our mail in the future. We hope that tomorrow we will still have only one class of citizen in Canada.


Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, in my judgment in the past two years Canada Post has shown a remarkable capacity and ability to do more with less. As the Hon. Member indicated, tomorrow at three o'clock in this Chamber the Minister will be tabling the corporate plan for Canada Post. We do not have to wait for the future to identify the progress already being made and that which has been made in the last couple of years.
Over the past two years the volume of mail handled by the Corporation has increased by almost 7 per cent. At the same time the number of employees has been reduced by 2,000, a saving of some $60 million. Not only has the volume of mail increased, but Canada Post is serving more and more homes and businesses. Service has been extended to over 200,000 new homes and businesses since September of 1984.
The Minister will be reporting on strides being made in improving the reliability of service. These have been made by the introduction of new and consistent standards, systems and procedures into the Corporation's operations in order to keep the mail flowing smoothly and to handle any potential problems as they start to develop.
1086

November 4, 1986
Adjournment Debate
At the same time as these improvements have been implemented, Canada Post has gone through a period of downsizing. One thousand vacant positions have not been filled in the past two years. As I just indicated, in the same period,
2,000	employees have left the Corporation through normal and accelerated attrition. I might add that this has not been at the expense of those employees actively involved in moving the mail. The administrative and management group which has been criticized as being top heavy has been reduced by 10 per cent. Senior management, in fact, has been reduced by some 26 per cent.
Non-salary expenses have also been remarkably contained. Through strict control, these expenses have only been raised by $5 million. I note that inflation alone would have added $50 million in itself.
Canada Post is a business, of course, and like all businesses the heart of its financial structure is in revenue. In the same two-year period we have been discussing, Canada Post increased its revenue by some 15 per cent. Although the Corporation did raise its rates in June of last year, 60 per cent of this increase in revenue is directly linked to sales growth and other factors.
I do not mean to bombard my hon. colleagues with figures, I simply want to point out that there is much evidence that Canada Post Corporation has begun its much needed turnaround.
The past few years should give us confidence that breaking even can be achieved and should give us reason to look forward to the corporate plan when it is introduced tomorrow.
Perhaps I can suggest that we applaud the Post Office instead of bashing it.


ABORTION-COLLECTION OF STATISTICS
Mr. John Oostrom (Willowdale):: Mr. Speaker, in August of this year Statistics Canada announced in a letter to health care administrators that it will no longer compile statistics on therapeutic abortions in Canada. The decision was taken to cease funding for the collection and analysis of abortion statistics as part of an over-all expenditure reduction. Statistics Canada is now processing 1985 abortion data, however it has stated that 1986 data already gathered will not be processed.
When I questioned the Minister responsible for Statistics Canada last week, I was told that meetings were being held between Statistics Canada and officials of the Department of National Health and Welfare, and that the Minister was awaiting a report from this group. There were indications at that time from the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp) that his Department could compile statistics on abortion from medicare payments to doctors.
It is incredible that it is not a priority of our national statistical record-keeping agency to keep statistics on abortion which is the most controversial social issue facing Canadians
today. Surely an agency that can tell us how many bathrooms there are in this country should be able to tell us how many unborn Canadians are killed by abortion each year.
The suggestion that the Department of Health and Welfare gather abortion data from provincial medicare payments simply will not work. In 1977, the committee on the operation of the abortion law, under Chairman Robin Badgley, stated that:
Provincial medicare insurance commissions maintain information on the procedures paid for under existing fee payment schedules for physicians. Because there are sizeable variations between the provinces in how procedures are classified for payment, and in particular, how these relate to induced abortion, no uniform summary from these sources can be made for the country.
I submit that in order to properly compile and analyse the data needed to provide the level of information now published under the therapeutic abortion program, the Department of National Health and Welfare would in fact need to duplicate the services and expertise now available from Statistics Canada, with the result being no cost saving to the taxpayers of Canada at all.
We need to know more, not less, about abortion if we are to resolve this social dilemma. We need to tell Canadians that one in five women seeking abortion is in fact seeking a second or third abortion. We need to tell Canadians that nearly 200 babies killed each year in Canadian hospitals are over 20 weeks of gestation. In order to absorb the ghastly statistics, we need to realize that 10 times the number of Canadians have been killed in the womb than in war. We need to wonder why one out of every four children conceived in the Province of British Columbia is aborted.	-
The information published each year by StatsCan has provided us with gruesome but necessary information on the practice of abortion in this country. We are able to assess the ages of the women involved, whether they are married or single, the age at which they abort their children, trends in urban and rural areas and provincial differences in the rate of abortion. All of this information helps those who address this problem in terms of supporting and caring for women seeking abortion. Alternatives to abortions will be much harder to establish if we cannot give an accurate profile of those who seek it in the first place.
One of the reasons given by Statistics Canada for the cutting of the therapeutic abortion data is that the data collected does not reflect the true numbers of abortions performed in Canada. StatsCan has collected data on legal abortions and not on the thousands of illegal abortions taking place in free standing clinics, mainly in the Province of Quebec.
In other words, the number of illegal abortions has risen to the extent that information on abortions performed in hospitals no longer gives valid data with which to assess the problem. Surely the solution to this dilemma cannot be to stop gathering the data because it is not the statistics themselves which are
November 4, 1986

the problem, but the illegal abortions being performed contrary to the duly enacted Criminal Code of this country. The federal Government must make it known to the provinces, Quebec and Ontario in particular, that Section 251 of the Criminal Code must be enforced.
Each year nearly 65,000 unborn Canadians are killed in Canadian hospitals. Sheer numbers alone indicate the magnitude of the problem. But we need more than total numbers. We need all the information we can get on abortion, statistical and otherwise, if we are ever to solve this problem. The gathering of therapeutic abortion data by Statistics Canada must be re-established immediately to help all Canadians resolve the issue of abortion in Canada.


Hon. Monique Vezina (Minister of Supply and Services):: Mr. Speaker, I share the opinion of the Toronto Member for Willowdale (Mr. Oostrom) that we must have objective and reliable data on abortions in Canada. The issues related to the debate on abortion are complex and if the statistical data can help us to gain a better understanding of them, I think that it is important for us to have these data.
In fact, Mr. Speaker, since I have been the Minister responsible for Statistics Canada, I have been able to see for myself to what extent this agency plays an essential role by providing data on all major issues facing Canadian society. Few subjects are debated in this House without our relying on data from Statistics Canada.
Having said this, Mr. Speaker, like all federal agencies, Statistics Canada always tries to improve its programs and is completely supportive of the efforts made by our Government to control its expenditures.
In this context, last spring, my predecessor undertook, in close cooperation with the chief statistician, a review of all departmental programs to establish our priorities.
Good statistics on abortion would certainly have been viewed as a priority, but the program then in existence was judged less important because the data compiled dealt only
Adjournment Debate
with therapeutic abortions authorized under Section 18 of the Criminal Code 1969 Amendment Act. Since the data was incomplete, our investigation had only limited usefulness and could even be misleading in certain cases.
Mr. Speaker, as a woman and a minister in a government concerned with social issues, I recognize the needs expressed by many people who wish to obtain statistical data on abortion. Consequently, my colleague, the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp), and myself have asked the officials of our Departments to examine all possible solutions which would enable Statistics Canada to continue to provide relevant information on this issue.
I am happy to announce today that the publication of data on abortion will be maintained. A new method for compiling the data will however be used. Our yearly estimates will from now on be based on data from the provincial records of doctors' fees. These estimates will be more complete than the present data since they will include abortions practiced in Quebec clinics.
On the other hand, they will be less detailed because these records contain little information on socio-demographic and medical factors. However, Statistics Canada officials have identified a means to counter this problem. Their review of the information on socio-demographic characteristics previously compiled has shown that changes are relatively slow to occur. It was therefore decided that this information would be published every three years rather than annually.
To implement this program, we shall need the cooperation of hospitals and other provincials organizations. I expect that the provinces will accept to cooperate with us in this most important matter.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m. pursuant to Standing Order 3(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 6.27 p.m.
[Stage Direction]

Wednesday, November 5, 1986