1987-12-07

Mr. John A. MacDougall (Timiskaming):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the sixth report of the Standing Committee on Elections, Privileges and Procedure.
[Editor's note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]


PETITIONS
Ms. Audrey McLaughlin (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present petitions from the Yukon Territory from a number of communities, including Whitehorse, Teslin, and Watson Lake. The petitioners are expressing their objection to the proposed plutonium flights over the North. Because of the environmental dangers, and the dangers from the risk of hijacking, the petitioners are asking the Parliament of Canada to say no to the transport of plutonium over northern Canadian territory.


Hon. Allan B. McKinnon (Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, it is my honour and pleasure to present petitions filled out and signed by 377 members of the Canadian public. The petitioners pray and call upon Parliament to transfer to the City of Victoria the entire parcel of public land surrounding the Gonzales Hill Observatory heritage site in order to officially create a park, and thus preserve the scenic, irreplaceable land for the benefit and enjoyment of present and future generations of all the
residents of Victoria, British Columbia. And as in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.


Mrs. Therese Killens (Saint-Michel-Ahuntsic):: Mr. Speaker, the petitions I am tabling today were signed by 158 residents of Canada from London, Niagara Falls and Whitby, Ontario, and Victoria, British Columbia. Your petitioners deplore the fact that more than 100,000 people were without shelter in Canada during 1987, that the number of homeless young people, women and families is increasing steadily, that the number of affordable housing units is still decreasing, and that the Government has yet to take steps to deal with this problem.
Wherefore your petitioners humbly pray that Parliament take immediate action so that all Canadians can have access to decent housing and that social reintegration programs be established to help these needy Canadians find their place in Canadian society.
t 10)


Mr. Fernand Robichaud (Westmorland-Kent):: Mr. Speaker, today it is again my duty and my privilege to table petitions from my constituents, and more specifically from residents of Buctouch, Harcourt, Ste-Marie, St-Louis-de-Kent, Balmoral-which is not in my riding-St-Ignace, Richibucto, Pointe-de-Butte and Port Elgin.
Mr. Speaker, your petitioners humbly pray Parliament to reject any mesure that would have the effect of putting a tax on food.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Mr. Jim Hawkes (Parliamentary Secretary to Deputy Prime Minister and President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Revised Statutes



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Mr. Speaker:: I am informed that apparently there is unanimous consent that this matter be referred to Committee of the Whole. Is that the understanding of the House?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Hon. Ray Hnatyshyn (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada) moved: that Bill C-94, an Act to bring into force the Revised Statutes of Canada, 1985, be read the second time and referred to Committee of the Whole.
He said: Mr. Speaker, this Bill, an Act to bring into force the Revised Statutes of Canada, 1985, concerns the current general revision of the Statutes of Canada, the first since 1970 and the sixth since Confederation. It gives Parliament's sanction to the new Revised Statutes, which reflect the law found in the public general statutes of Canada on December 31, 1984.
The contents of the Revised Statutes were approved earlier this year, in accordance with the Statute Revision Act of 1974, by the Standing Committee on Justice and Solicitor General of this House and the Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs of the Senate. Both committees approved the revision and recommended that this Bill be introduced. The committees made several other recommendations relating to future revisions and recommended, as well, the inclusion in the present revision of the Geneva Conventions Act. That Act had been omitted from the revision, although it would have remained in force as law, by the Statute Revision Commission as being an Act not of current general interest. Following the recommendations of the committees, that Act is now included.
The Bill before us deals with technical subjects such as the coming into force of the Revised Statutes, the repeal of the statutes they replace, and the rule that the revision does not change the substance of the existing law. The Bill also provides for the preparation of the supplements to the Revised Statutes containing the Acts passed since the end of 1984, in a version adapted to numbering and terminology of the statute revision. Finally, it contains transitional provisions deeming references to the old law that are found in the present text of the Acts passed after 1984 and of existing regulations to be written as if they were references to the revised law.
What these technical provisions do not highlight is the advances the revision will make to important areas of government policy to which I wish to draw the attention of the House. These are advances in the area of accessibility of the law and in the area of equality of and respect for both official languages.
Respect for the law depends to a great extent on the accessibility of its text. As all Hon. Members know, it is not always easy to piece together the present text of a frequently amended Act by consulting the last Revised Statutes and what has become, since the last revision in 1970, nearly 20 volumes of subsequent legislation. I therefore decided to publish, beginning with this revision, a loose-leaf edition of the Statutes of Canada that will be updated regularly. Bound volumes will also remain available.

Let us now deal with the Government's second objective which in this case relates to the official languages.
Until about the mid 1970s, that is long after the previous revision, federal laws were drafted in English, more often than not without any consideration for the genius of that language. Thanks to a qualified and mostly bilingual staff, lawyers and draft revisers seconded by a linguist, the Commission prepared a new or almost new French version of the 200-odd laws which most needed it. Needless to say, this was the best time to standardize the wording and improve the text coherence.

The present statute revision has greatly improved the two versions of most public Acts. I am confident that, with the statutes henceforth available in both an updated loose-leaf edition and the yearly bound volumes, the quality of the presentation of federal legislation is now approaching what I believe to be the quality of its substance.


Hon. Bob Kaplan (York Centre):: Madam Speaker, I am happy to indicate first that indeed the Government has unanimous consent of the House to proceed with this Bill in all three readings in one session and to refer it to Committee of the Whole.
I was a member of the Standing Committee on Justice and Solicitor General at the time when reference was made for the Bill, in its course as required by the statute through which the Bill has been brought forward, to be brought before our committee. It came before our committee, and we had an excellent briefing. Mary Dawson, to whom I want to pay personal tribute, was the chief person responsible for the drafting. It was good to see her. I had some professional relationship with her when I was Minister and she was doing drafting in the Department. I was glad to have her there to answer questions and to see that effort had been made to use this occasion not only to bring forward the legislation but to make improvements to it to which I want to refer.
However, one must begin by wondering why it took so long from the last revision, all the way from 1970 to 1985, to bring forward this legislation. Although I did not press the officials to give us the explanation of why it took 15 years to do something in principle which perhaps should be done every 10 years, probably the reason was that they were very busy in the 1970s and the 1980s with the Liberal Government which was always needing important legislation from them on an urgent


basis and with reforms which resulted in this particular reform being put on the back burner.
When a Conservative government came to office the Order Paper and Notices was practically empty and hardly any matters were brought forward for consideration by Parliament compared to what was more characteristic of the Liberal Government. The Conservatives had the time to devote to the revision of legislation which is more characteristic of Conservatives than Liberals.
This legislation will largely be of interest and help to lawyers and I am pleased that it is being brought forward. As a lawyer who was in practice, I can say it is a considerable advantage to have the legislation updated as it will be. I think the loose-leaf revision is a reform. I hope the Minister will have some other achievements in his career as Minister of Justice (Mr. Hnatyshyn) that one can call reforms. Indeed, he is the Minister responsible for the loose-leaf version of the Revised Statutes of Canada. He will go down in history for it. Perhaps it will not be such a large item in the history of Canada but it is an important one.
One wonders why the bound version is necessary anymore. 1 phoned to find out how much one will cost. I learned that it will be about $700 while the loose-leaf version will be something like $600. For my part, I would buy the loose-leaf form and have the update. Perhaps we could save the Government some money down the road by discontinuing the bound version of the statute.
On the subject of timing, perhaps the Minister can tell me in committee why the cutoff date is December 31, 1984. We are already in 1987 and 1988 will be here in a few weeks. One would have hoped that with the benefit of computers, organization and so on the Government might have been able to pick a cut-off date closer to a current date. There have been very few legislative amendments since December 31, 1984 with a Conservative government in office. Perhaps there is less that people who buy the bound volume will have missed than before. Madam Speaker is nodding in agreement, or is it disagreement? I do not want to characterize the intervention of the Speaker but I am glad to see that she is listening so intently to my remarks.
Some of the points made in this revision are worth looking at. The Minister has focused on one. There was one other but let me deal with both.
The French versions of a number of statutes are immeasurably improved.

True enough, past tradition was to prepare the English draft and have it translated, a translation far removed for the original version. So 20 years ago when Canadians began to be serious about bilingualism in this country and in the national
Revised Statutes
Parliament, we had very nice pieces of legislation which they could take as examples of good French and good English.
As to earlier statutes, those which are being revised but were enacted decades ago, doing a good translation proved to be quite a challenge. I did note a number of fundamental improvements, and the Minister deserve commendation not only for his French, for the speech he made, but also for the talent and creativity he and his officials have shown in the translation of hundreds-I do not know the exact number- hundreds of statutes which now look like French statutes, not only obvious translations of the English version.
Therefore we should congratulate those responsible for the translation and the support given by the Government to this endeavour.
The other area where there has been a major reform is that of the English pronouns of masculine or feminine gender, usually of the masculine gender. There is a problem in English which does not exist in French, for we must take the gender of nouns into account if we want to write sentences which are grammatically correct.

In French, as francophones know, the sex of a pronoun is taken from the noun that it modifies and not from the subject of the sentence. One does not run into problems in French with having to carry forward the gender identification of the subject. In English there is only a choice of masculine and feminine and it matters a lot. I regret to say that one has to come to the conclusion that you can only go so far in eliminating gender pronouns. You cannot eliminate them 100 per cent without, in some marginal cases, having very complicated, lengthy and tortured language. Of course, in a statute where clarity is important and where clarity to the layman should always be our goal, we have to be reasonable in deciding where to draw the line on eliminating completely the word "his" and pronouns like that.
We raised the subject with the draftsman. I think we had an effect on them because they did some more work to try to remove the word "his" and other similar gender pronouns. We ended up with a smaller number than we would have had before. In any event, the draftsmen were conscious of this problem and did a much better job. The draftswomen as well-


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: The draftspersons.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Yes, the draftspersons did a lot better job on this than on the last revision. This is an achievement of this legislation and I wanted to acknowledge that.
My final point on second reading is that the revision does not include all of the public acts of Canada. The Income Tax Act has been left out. Since December 31, 1984, it has been changed much. The Government has brought in a lot of legislation concerning the Income Tax Act with which we have disagreed over the last three years, but because it is so often


Revised Statutes
amended it is better left out of revision. Anyone who wanted to look at it by consulting the Revised Statutes of Canada would probably be misled by not having amendments which seem to come out every few months.
There are other public acts considered to have a lesser public interest. The two identified in the committee to be discussed were the Geneva Conventions Act and the War Crimes Act. It was my feeling with the interest in bringing war criminals to justice that Canadians might like to have those two statutes ready at hand. It would be helpful to Canadians to see them in the books. The Geneva Conventions Act, as the Minister indicated, has been put into the Revised Statutes and that will be appreciated by Canadians. The War Crimes Act is of considerable interest, but perhaps with the amendments which the Minister of Justice has brought forward to the Criminal Code dealing with war criminals for the first time this may make the War Crimes Act of less interest. It is still a statute of Canada. It may well be referred to in some of the criminal trials, if there are any, which could result from the Criminal Code amendments on war criminals.
I want to indicate our support for this process. It may be that if the loose-leaf versions of the Revised Statutes of Canada take hold that further revisions of acts like this may be unnecessary. Computer changes may develop in such a way that hard paper Revised Statutes every 10 or 15 years may never again be required. In that sense, we would close a chapter in our history by putting forward what could be the last Revised Statutes of Canada that will ever be needed in the formal paper sense. I am very pleased to be here for that occasion, providing something that I know is useful to all Canadians.


Ms. Marion Dewar (Hamilton Mountain):: Madam
Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I rise to speak in this debate on behalf of my Party. I am probably the only person who is not a lawyer who will speak on this matter today.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Marion Dewar: I must say that I am quite comfortable speaking to the Bill because I think this legislation does concern me as a Member of Parliament, as a woman and as a New Democrat.
First, I would like to deal with the lack of sexist language in the Revised Statutes of Canada. There is a need to include gender-neutral language in the statutes of Canada. I think sometimes we take this need lightly, but it is very important.
We are talking about societal changes here. When talking about those societal changes, we know that we are talking about changes in the attitude toward women. It is very important that the language in the statutes remain gender-neutral. I think the Minister has certain done an excellent job in this regard, and I do appreciate that.
A few years ago we went through a process of changing the definition of rape to sexual assault. This made quite a difference in the attitude of society.
My colleague, the Hon. Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson), our spokesperson for justice, has been urging the Government to work in the direction of non-sexist language provisions in the statute law of Canada for many years. Recently he was a member of the legislative committee dealing with Bill C-53, an Act to amend the Supreme Court of Canada Act and other Acts in consequence thereof. The Bill was debated in the House at second reading and referred to a legislative committee on September 14, 1987.
It was in committee that my colleague pointed out to the Government that it was continuing to put forward legislation which included sexist language. I would like to quote from that committee report as I believe what was discussed is very relevant here today. In committee, the Hon. Member for Burnaby said:
Why is it that the Department of Justice is still not capable of drafting in non-sexist language? I had hoped, Mr. Chairman, those that were brought before this House could by now be drafted in non-sexist language. We go through this each time bills appear before the committee. We amend them. Surely to God it is not that difficult to prepare legislation in non-sexist language.
The Minister replied by saying:
It is a good reminder. You are the watchdog on sexist language. The Department of Justice has failed and I take responsibility for that. However, you will be there with your amendments to ensure that there is not . . . The message is received. My deputy is here. We will take it into account.
The Government took the criticism and provided for amendments to the legislation when it was reported back to the House on October 7. My colleague from Vancouver- Kingsway then spoke to those amendments on October 23. He thanked the Minister of Justice (Mr. Hnatyshyn), as I do now, for recognizing the problem and for going about correcting it.
What I find most surprising about this recent example is that today we are dealing with legislation that will correct past anomalies and errors. This legislation will deal with some elements of sexist language but it does not end the job. The recent amendments to Bill C-53 provide a very specific example of how even today there is a need to maintain vigilance in this area. The drafters of legislation must always remember that there are subtle ways in which sexism is promoted.
In passing Bill C-94 today, I would like to remind the Government that the work to remove sexist language from the statute law of Canada and in fact from all areas of the law must not stop until the job is complete. An important first step will be to begin drafting legislation in non-sexist and gender-neutral terms. If the legislation is drafted without such glaring errors, there will be no need to correct and amend legislation in the future. I would encourage the Government to seriously consider ways in which such problems could be avoided in future.


I would now like to turn to the question of consultation on the Revised Statutes of Canada. I have spoken with my colleague, the Hon. Member for Burnaby, who has indicated that the process involved in the adoption of the Revised Statutes could certainly be changed in the future. I would suggest on behalf of my hon. friend from Burnaby that Parliament receive the Revised Statutes ahead of time in future. Instead of being presented with a fait accompli here today, it would have been useful to have seen the Revised Statutes in advance in order to discuss them with interested groups. I am thinking particularly of the National Association of Women and the Law which has expressed some interest in this legislation but will not have had any further consultation beyond discussion with our justice spokesperson.
I have just spoken on the question of continued inclusion of sexist language in recent legislation and have now commented on the need for increased consultation with Members of Parliament and the justice community before passing such legislation in future. I would point out that the Government has more than once been caught drafting legislation without gender-neutral language, and in order to avoid this specific problem in the Revised Statutes, I would encourage the Government to broaden the consultation process. By doing this, the problem of sexist language can be more fully addressed. Increased consultation would also allow for any other concerns to be raised well before the passage of such housekeeping legislation.
Again I would like to commend the Minister for bringing forward the Revised Statutes. In closing, I would like to indicate that the New Democratic Party will be allowing this legislation to pass in all three stages today. The time has finally come for dealing with the Revised Statutes of Canada, and after many years I am happy that this legislation will pass.
I would like to briefly mention the work of the many people in the bureaucracy who have worked hard and tirelessly to bring about this important consolidation. The implementation of the Revised Statutes will not only help those who use them on a regular basis but will also, I hope, make them more accessible and understandable to people who are not lawyers such as myself. The two concerns I have spoken of are very important and I would encourage the Government to consider them closely.


Mr. Dave Nickerson (Western Arctic):: Madam Speaker, I will be very brief. I too would like to congratulate the Minister of Justice (Mr. Hnatyshyn) on this matter. As the former Solicitor General said, it is true that on the day these volumes are to be published they will already be three years out of date. I wonder if in future it might be possible to do this without such delay.
I also wonder about the Consolidated Regulations of Canada. I understand that it has been quite some time since these were brought up to date. I wonder if the Minister of Justice is considering a new publication of the consolidated regulations.
Revised Statutes
It is true, as the former Solicitor General said, that the most use of these volumes will be made by lawyers, but of course they are also of interest to people in law enforcement of one kind or another and the general public at large. For those who live in remote areas away from up-to-date legal libraries, it is sometimes prohibitively difficult to find out what the law and regulations are on many subjects. One must write away for the statute and three weeks later receive by mail what one thinks is the correct statute, but then it refers to something else and one must send away for another publication.
Would it not perhaps be possible to have a computerized system where, if you want to know what the statute is on a particular subject, or the regulations because they are often as important as the statute, you could punch in certain numbers or letters and have it at hand? I commend that matter for the attention of the Minister of Justice and the people in his department.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the second time and, by unanimous consent, the House went into committee thereon, Mrs. Champagne in the chair.
The Assistant Deputy Chairman:: Order. House in Committee of the Whole on Bill C-94, an Act to bring into force the Revised Statues of Canada.
Shall Clause 2 carry?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
Clause 2 agreed to.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Shall Clause 3 carry?
On Clause 3-


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Madam Chairman, I wanted to ask the Minister about that three-year period which was of such interest to a Member of his own Party. Why is the cut-off date so far in the past?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Madam Chairman, I have listened with interest to the remarks of the Hon. Member for York Centre as well as those of the Hon. Member for Western Arctic concerning the cut-off date for the Revised Statutes. I think it is fair to say that this is purely a consequence of the administrative work required to bring the Revised Statutes into place at a particular point in time. Officials have required that amount of time in order to complete the work.
I remind Hon. Members that not only have we been dealing with a very large volume of legislation, a lot of work has been done in preparing the legislation in its French version which is so important to the equality of the two languages. That added an additional dimension. It is the old story; we could have set it for a subsequent date but that would have delayed the whole process.


Revised Statutes
My hon. friend made reference to the fact that the new Government has perhaps not passed as much legislation as the previous Government. I am a bit ambivalent about that observation because, as you know, the traditional Conservative philosophy is the less law, the better. Less intrusive government is better government. Freedom of the people is our main concern and we do not want government telling us what to do at every step, but I do not want to get involved in a philosophical discussion with the Opposition which I would necessarily win.
In 1985 we had 63 new chapters enacted in law. In 1986 it was 55. To date in 1987, 43 have been passed. That does not include Private Members' Bills. What can I say? The average number of Bills passed by our predecessor Government between 1980 and 1984 was in the vicinity of 43 per year. We hope to emphasize quality over quantity and we have some repair work to do. Maybe in our next term we will get down to a more appropriate number.
That is a bit of a long answer but the fact is that the time has been required. There have been improvements to the text. There was the work on the French version. There was work as a result of the observations made by Hon. Members with respect to the loose-leaf form which will be of assistance to the general public. All these considerations, innovations and improvements augur well for accessibility of the statutes of Canada to the general public. After all, that should be preeminent in our thinking. We want to make sure we are serving the public in the best way possible.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Madam Chairman, I would like to give the Minister the opportunity to discuss revision of the regulations. Is that process under way and what sort of a date are we looking at?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: As my friend from York Centre will appreciate, regulations flow from statutes. The sequence is to bring the statutes into line and up-to-date and then turn our attention to the question of the regulations under those statutes.
In all candor, we have not yet entered into that area, which is very important, but once we get this out of the way I intend to have discussions with my officials in order to canvass the options available to us so we can bring some appropriate response to the mounds of regulations we have in this country.
In that connection, the Hon. Member for York Centre is in the very important position of co-chairing the Joint Committee on Regulations and Other Statutory Instruments. I am very familiar with that committee, having served on it for many years. It does excellent work and I want to take this opportunity of expressing my appreciation to the Hon. Member. When I was appointed to it I thought it was a form of punishment, but over the course of attending meetings it becomes quite a fascinating committee where you really get a chance to understand the volume and importance of regulations in our society. I know the Hon. Member has a legitimate interest in
this subject and I appreciate any suggestions from him and members of his committee.


Mr. Boudria:: Madam Chairman, approximately when does the Minister think the statutes will be available? Will all Members be provided copies in our offices as has been customary in the past upon publication of new statutes?
I was amazed when I was elected in 1984-


Mr. Keeper:: That was amazing.


Don Boudria: Maybe that in itself was amazing given the Conservative tide. Perhaps the Member for Winnipeg North Centre is correct.
However, I was quite amazed when I asked for a set of statutes and a set of regulations after being elected and was told that I could not get either. I thought it was a bit much for a legislator, upon asking for a publication of the laws which Parliament has passed, to be told that they were not available. I hope that when they are printed, they will be printed in sufficient quantity to ensure that, in the unlikely event that any Member of this House is defeated in the next election, the new Member will have available to him or her a copy of the statutes in order that they can discharge the duties they are elected to perform with the most basic of tools.
I realize that one of the reasons we stopped publishing them some time ago is we were awaiting this fresh consolidation. However, I was elected on September 4, 1984. It is now December 7, 1987 and we do not yet have the statutes. I realize that practically all of the work is done by the time this Bill comes into the House. The Minister is looking for authority to publish work which is probably complete.
I wanted to raise those few points with the Minister and would like to take this opportunity to bring forward a similar issue, that is, that it is almost as difficult to get a copy of the revised regulations as it is to get the statutes. I believe it should be a policy of the Department of Justice, after new Members are sworn in, to provide them with an up-to-date set of statutes and regulations. I am not saying that a Member who is reelected should be given a second set, but each Member should have available to him or her the most up-to-date statutes in existence at that time.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Madam Chairman, I would like to thank the Hon. Member for his comments and observations. The Publication of Statutes Act does specify those individuals who are entitled, as a matter of right, to receive the statutes of Canada. My hon. friend will be pleased to know that Members of Parliament are included along with such other luminaries as the Section 96 judges.
I cannot explain why the Hon. Member has not received the statutes. It is very likely because of the revision which is now going forward. I am sure that we will have this relatively up to date revised set of statutes by March of the coming year,


provided that the matter is dealt with expeditiously by the House.
In addition, three supplements will be published of subsequent enactments of the House which will bring it up to date as of the end of the last session. Our target date for that is September, 1988.
I have been Minister of Justice for only a year and a half- tempus fugit as we say in the Department of Justice. I believe that I have acted with some vigour and authority with regard to the Revised Statutes of Canada. There have been some delays but I hope that we can get this Bill through in order that all Members of Parliament will have the most current version of the laws. I hope that the improvements that are manifest in these amendments will be of assistance to Members. Let us say that in March of 1988 the Hon. Member will have the new, improved Revised Statutes of Canada. If he wishes, I will personally autograph his copy.


Don Boudria: Madam Chairman, that last remark really makes it all worth while. It will be a precious set of statutes which has the Minister's autograph.
I would like to ask him in little more detail about publication and availability for the future. I assume it has always been the case that upon publication every Member gets a copy. However, I am really asking whether any new Member elected at the next election will be provided with that as a matter of right. I believe they should be.
If the Minister's answer is that that is automatically done, there was then a breach of the Act last time because I did not get one and I am quite sure, Madam Chairman, that you and any other Member who was elected for the first time in 1984 did not get one either because we were told that they were out of stock at that time.
I am looking for the assurance that the statutes and regulations will be provided automatically, not only at time of publication but between publications, to any Member who is elected in the interval between the date of publication and distribution of these statutes and the next date of printing.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Madam Chairman, the people who are entitled to receive, as a matter of right, the statutes of Canada include the Governor General, the Lieutenant Governors of the provinces, the Speaker of the Senate, the Speaker of the House of Commons, the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate, the Leader of the Opposition in the House of Commons, Ministers of the Government of Canada, Members of the Parliament of Canada not otherwise included on this list, members of the judiciary of Canada including provincial court judges and magistrates, Attorneys General, Ministers of Justice and Solicitors General of the governments of the provinces, the chief or senior legislative counsel of each province, chief librarians of court houses in Canada, chief librarians of law schools in Canada, members and officials of the government of any foreign country and persons holding positions in universities and other institutions in that country if
Revised Statutes
reciprocal arrangements exist for similar distribution without charge in Canada or if the Minister of Justice, the Secretary of State for External Affairs, the National Librarian or the Parliamentary Librarian recommend the free distribution.
With regard to the dilemma faced by the Hon. Member when he was elected and found no statutes of Canada, I am informed that Members of Parliament are expected not to keep their copies when they resign or retire but are supposed to hand them to their successors. I cannot recall the Hon. Member's case exactly, but if he goes to the Livestock Review Board he may find his own personalized version available for him. His distinguished predecessor has probably forgotten to hand it over to him.


Mr. Thacker:: Madam Chairman, I would like to ask a question of the Minister vis-a-vis the future. This is a historic day, not only for lawyers, law students and judges, but certainly for academics, civil servants and any of our citizens who work with the laws of Canada. It is a pleasure to be in the House today.
As well, as former chairman of the Standing Committee on Justice and Solicitor General, I want to thank the drafters. People do not generally appreciate that the Revised Statutes of Canada are probably six feet in length, consisting of small print in big volumes. It is an enormous job to write all the English statutes into the new modern English phraseology, as well as revising from whole cloth the French version of the statutes to be equally authoritative so that anyone reading the French would know that it is not a translation from the English, word for word, but written from whole cloth. That is a wonderful development in this country.
I believe that the standing committees of the House and the Senate also deserve our appreciation. It is an example of the amount of work that goes on behind the scenes for which no one ever gets credit. Certainly, Members of Parliament from all Parties who spend many hours at committee stage sitting on these committees get very little credit.
We found that during the first meetings of the standing committee the process had gone to such an advanced stage that it was very difficult for the standing committees here and in the Senate to recommend very major changes. Under the old process, during the previous administration, standing committees did not play as great a role as they do now. Since the House agreed to the new standing orders, the standing committees play a larger role.
Since this will be an ongoing process, which is another new and novel feature, will the Minister give his assurance that the standing committee will be brought in on more frequent occasions to give its advice?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Madam Chairperson, I want to thank the Hon. Member for Lethbridge-Foothills, as former chairman of the Standing Committee on Justice and Solicitor General,


Revised Statutes
as well as all Members of the committee who worked so diligently and effectively with respect to this matter.
This is the first time that Parliament has been consulted about the Revised Statutes of Canada. It is as a result of the law revision legislation of 1974, which 1 understand provided for parliamentarians to become involved, that this process was undertaken.
I think it poses a bit of a dilemma inasmuch as the officials who are responsible for assembling the material are obliged under the existing law to bring it forward at a point when they have in fact revised and perfected the statutes of Canada. In this particular instance there was some creativity involved because, as the Hon. Member pointed out, for the first time the French version was developed not as a translation but as an original text in French which, as I said in my remarks at second reading, reflects the evolution of the equality of the two languages in our country. I suggest that all Members would want to applaud this development.
While we will examine the provisions of the Act, I suspect we will be faced with the practical matter that we must have something to present to the committees. Whether or not we can involve Members of Parliament at an earlier stage is something that we could examine. Once we finish this revision, I suppose it is the beginning of the consideration of the next revision which will take place later.
I wanted to address the point about loose-leaf and bound volume versions of the Revised Statutes of Canada, which was referred to earlier. The only official version of the Revised Statutes of Canada is the bound version. As yet, we have not sanctified the loose-leaf version because these are rather more of a convenience to the people of Canada, including lawyers, legislators and the general public.
The bound volumes are still the official version. The original bound volume was signed by myself, Her Excellency the Governor General, clerks of the Parliament. They are deposited with the clerk of the Parliament in the other place as the official text.
Therefore, at this point in the development of our approach to the statutes, the bound volumes are the official versions. The loose-leafs are a convenience and something that I as a practising lawyer have long awaited. In order to research any particular statute one had to become rather agile in running up and down shelves of statutes and juggling two or three volumes on one's lap, ultimately having to inscribe little notes in statutes as to what was the final version of a law at a particular time. In any event, 1 am sure that people probably now know more than they care to about the Revised Statutes of Canada.
It is an important date. I share the view of the Hon. Member for Lethbridge-Foothills that this is a historic day because it has not happened very often since Confederation. With improving technology, I share the view of the Hon. Member for York Centre that we may be entering into an era
when we will be able to perfect this revision to the point that we will not be required to go through the process of having to come back periodically to pass Revised Statutes. It will become an ongoing, continuous procedure. I think that would certainly be a happy day as far as the officials of my department are concerned, if not the Minister.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Madam Chairperson, I have a brief question that one of my colleagues wanted to ask. How many copies of the Revised Statutes does the Government intend to print? The Member for Ottawa-Vanier, who wanted to ask the question, would probably be content to receive an answer as soon as the Minister has one.
Perhaps I might raise another point. I did not raise it in committee, but one of the things that might be considered in this revision, and which would be very welcome to the profession, would be to have the section number clearly indicated on each page. In a long statute with long sections, it often happens that a section will run over a number of pages. The Minister himself made me think of it when he reminded me of sitting down with about two volumes on one's lap trying to track a statute from the RSCs through a number of other volumes where it may or may not have been revised. It causes the problem of not being able to easily find what section of the statute one is looking at on the page and having to turn back, very often a long way, to find the actual section. Perhaps the Minister has already thought of this or perhaps it is already in the plans of the revision drafters to identify the section on each page. I would be interested in the Minister's reaction.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: I think, Madam Chairman, that the suggestion is an excellent one. Unfortunately, it is too late to be of any effectiveness because the statutes have been printed. However, the Hon. Member's point is well taken and there will be a note made of this in the annals of the Department of Justice so that when the next revision comes down it will become known in the history of our country as the Robert Kaplan suggestion with respect to the numbering of statutes and the clear identification on each page of long and involved sections or amendments.
My recollection of a statute which has a long and involved section is the Income Tax Act. While these provisions are required to be long and so on for technical reasons, by and large they are as incomprehensible to most Canadians who are literate. The Hon. Member's suggestion is a very good suggestion, indeed. We have not revised the Income Tax Act, so this may be a good chance to use the Hon. Members's suggestion, for which I will give the Hon. Member full credit.
Clauses 3 to 18 inclusive agreed to.
Clause 1 agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Preamble agreed to.
Title agreed to.
[Stage Direction]

Bill reported.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: When shall the Bill be read the third time? By leave, now?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: that Bill C-94, an Act to bring into force the Revised Statutes of Canada, 1985, be read the third time and passed.
He said: Madam Speaker, I will be brief.
I just want to thank Hon. Members for their co-operation with respect to Bill C-94. This co-operation had been indicated during the course of debate on the floor of the House and in committee, and has been extended by Members of Parliament and members of the Standing Committee on Justice and Solicitor General who were good enough to receive the proposed Revised Statutes and give them their consideration under the new provision of law, the Law Revision Act, 1974, with dispatch. This allows us to meet the deadline of having the Bill passed in the House of Commons and in the other place before Christmas, thereby meeting the deadline required in order to have the statutes as of December 31, 1984 published as the Revised Statutes of Canada.
There is one point which was raised during the course of committee of the whole as to the number of volumes of the Revised Statutes. A number of Revised Statutes of Canada will be published. I do not have that information now but I will ensure that the Hon. Member for Ottawa Vanier (Mr. Gauthier) receives that figure as soon as I am able to ascertain it from the Department. I know it will be making provision to meet reasonable demand. Not only on the basis of those which are obligatory, of course, but also on the basis of experience, they will have sufficient numbers of statutes printed. Virtually every law firm in the country will require a new copy and there are a number of other agencies which will want to have copies available to them, in addition to those required to be given sets by statute.
In conclusion, I would say that this is a very large task that is undertaken from time to time. The reality is that we are passing more laws in our country. There is more legislation involved. I believe it is a sign of the times. It is something that one occasionally reflects upon, whether or not we need all the laws that are in fact dealt with in the House. Perhaps some of these provisions could be dealt with in other ways. However, the fact is there has been an evolution, as I tried to indicate by giving some of the statistics as to the number of statutes passed each year over the course of the last few years. We see this as not diminishing. In fact, it is increasing. Society is more complex and perhaps that is something we cannot avoid. On the other hand, I think we in this Chamber are all devoted to
Revised Statutes
the principle that quality of law is more important than quantity.
As I indicated in my opening remarks, this process of Revised Statutes will assist with a very important element for Canadians, that is, the accessibility of the law to the average citizen. The Hon. Member for Western Arctic (Mr. Nickerson) pointed out that sometimes people in remote areas have difficulty getting access to the statutes, not only of the country but of the provinces, and ordinances of the territories. There is a legal axiom that a citizen of our country is deemed to know the law. Therefore, I think it is incumbent upon us to do what we can in terms of various programs, and I am proud, certainly during the time I have been Minister, that we have given a high priority to programs involving public legal education. We have taken the step during the time I have been Minister to get the Revised Statutes in place, and to give the French text a new and more meaningful presence in terms of Canadian law.
For the spirit of co-operation shown today, I thank Hon. Members, and I pledge to them that I, as Minister of Justice, will do those things which will assist in the accessibility of the law and the understandability which was referred to by the Hon. Member for York Centre (Mr. Kaplan). These are matters that are important, and I share the enthusiasm of all Members to get this matter through before the lunch hour.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, I wanted to rise on third reading to indicate my appreciation of the Minister's kind remarks about myself. This is an important matter. It is not his only achievement, as I might have implied in an earlier comment that I made, but it is an important achievement. I look forward to March when Canadians can see the result of our work here, and when they will receive their copies of the Revised Statutes of Canada, with all the improvements that we have already discussed.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Is the House ready for the question?


Some Hon. Members:: Yes!


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The question is on the following motion: Mr. Hnatyshyn, seconded by Mrs. MacDonald (Kingston and the Islands), moved that Bill C-94, an Act to bring into force the Revised Statutes of Canada, 1985, be read the third time and do pass.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


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


Criminal Code


CRIMINAL CODE
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Friday, December 4, consideration of the motion of Mr. Hnatyshyn that Bill C-54, an Act to amend the Criminal Code and other Acts in consequence thereof, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee, and the amendment of Mr. Robinson (p. 11291).
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell (Mr. Boudria) had the floor.


Don Boudria: Madam Speaker, last Friday I was commenting on Bill C-54 in the House, and I understand I have a few minutes left in which to conclude the remarks 1 was making at that time.

As I was saying last Friday, Madam Speaker, the Bill as proposed by the Government is certainly not perfect, but I suggest nevertheless that the House should carry on with its consideration of it, and once it is read the second time, it should then be referred to a legislative committee where amendments could be put forward which, I hope, would improve this Bill dealing with pornography.
Madam Speaker, the House is aware that this is a controversial issue in Canada. As a matter of fact, altough Canadians do not want to lose their freedom of expression, on the one hand, they feel it is very important to protect women and children who could be victimized by pornographic material, on the other, and it is a fact that this pornographic material is often blamed as one of the causes of violence against women and children. Although this Bill is not perfect, and 1 intend to express my concern about it by voting against it on second reading, I should like the House and all Canadians to know that, if major improvements were made by the legislative committee, and if the Government is prepared to listen to our proposals, I should be quite willing to vote for Bill C-54 on third reading.
In concluding, I repeat that I disagree totally with the motion presented by those who say we should ask the Government to drop this Bill. We realize the New Democratic Party tabled a motion in the House to terminate Bill C-54 because it felt it was unsatisfactory. However, although the Bill does need improving, I sincerely believe we would be seriously mistaken if we were to decide to drop the Bill altogether because it is not perfect.
I agree that the previous Bill, Bill C-114, contained errors so serious as to make it unacceptable to most Canadians. Bill C-54, which is itself an amendment and an improvement on the previous Bill, is better, though not perfect, and I think we should go ahead and make the necessary amendments to make this a Bill that is realistic and gives Canadians the kind of
protection and the kind of legislation they want against pornography.
Madam Speaker, in concluding I want to say that 1 hope the Bill will be referred very shortly to a legislative committee so that the requisite amendments can be made.


Mr. Gauthier:: Madam Speaker, I would like to start by congratulating the Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott- Russell (Mr. Boudria) on his speech which I read carefully today, and since I had the advantage of having Friday's Hansard, I also had a chance to read his comments on the weekend.
The Bill contains no distinction, at least no clear distinction, between what is meant by pornography and erotica. This is probably one of the most difficult provisions in the Bill, because while pornography implies violence, exploitation and many other degrading activities, erotica may be entirely acceptable and even pleasing to certain people. I would ask the Hon. Member whether he has considered this question and whether it would not be preferable to make a distinction between pornography, which is bad, and erotica, which may be acceptable, and to clearly explain to Canadians that there is a difference between pornography and erotica.


Don Boudria: Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member is right. We do need a far clearer definition to distinguish between erotica and pornography. In Bill C-54, one might say that the only definition of erotica it seems to give is nudity, and the rest appears to be pornography, according to the Bill. I think contemporary views would dictate that this is certainly not the case and that certain acts, gestures or publications may be considered erotic without being pornographic. However, when we refer to films or advertising that advocate violence or depict violence associated with sexual acts, it is obvious that in that case, that we are talking about pornography, and it is exactly the kind of pornography Canadians want stopped.
We have all seen in corner stores, convenience stores and elsewhere video cassettes for rent or for sale and we certainly see from the ads that the material concerned in some cases is related to violence and sex. This is the kind of thing which this House unanimously want to bring to an end as soon as possible. And 1 am sure that all Members share that view, or at least I think they should share it.
There are other shortcomings in this Bill which should also be considered by the legislative committe. For instance, no distinction is made between the penalties for producer, and importers of pornographic material. Thus, under this Bill anyway, the owner of a convenience store who sells or rents a cassette and probably makes a few cents profit would be treated just like the producer or importer of pornographic material. We know that those people make big profits, etc..
I think that it would be necessary to make such distinctions in addition to those we suggested a while ago.


However, this being said, I think that the best forum for discussing those details would be the legislative committee and I hope Parliament will decide in a rather near future to defer it to such a committee where it will be submitted to a detailed consideration and will be improved as much as possible.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Madam Speaker, can I take it from the Elon. Member's last comment that he intends to vote against the amendment? If the Hon. Member has specific changes in wording to suggest, I wonder whether he could share them with the House. Are they changes which accord with out legal history and experience which would do the job better?


Don Boudria: Madam Speaker, I am not entirely clear what is Hon. Member's the question. If he is asking whether I support the NDP amendment, I made a fairly lengthy speech both today and on Friday explaining how I thought that proposition was unreasonable.
Notwithstanding the fact that perhaps we can disagree on the content of legislation, I think we are unanimous, or we should be, in agreeing that our constituents expect us to adopt an anti-pornography Bill.
The Hon. Member asks what specific wording should be included in the amendments. For instance, when we talk about the fact that promoters, importers and so on, of pornographic material will be penalized according to the present Bill in a similar if not identical way as someone operating a small corner store, renting a video cassette, and realizing a 50-cent profit, distinctions should be made in terms of penalty. That is a concrete example of a modification to the Bill which is possible.
I indicated to the Hon. Member that if our Party can obtain a number of such amendments to ensure that the Bill is a little more in tune with contemporary society and that other deficiencies in the Bill are straightened out at third reading stage, such as the penalty clauses to which I have just referred, then I for one would be prepared to support the legislation. If it has been amended in that way, it can be supported by the critic of our Party and by Members of Parliament generally.


Cyril Keeper: Madam Speaker, I have a very short question for my hon. friend. I point out that the reasoned amendment of our justice critic which is before the House dealing with the Government's pornography legislation reads as follows:
That this House declines to give second reading to Bill C-54 because it fails to clearly define pornography as material that condones violence, coercion, abuse and degradation in its depiction of human beings or portrays or promotes the sexual exploitation of children; and also, because it does not distinguish pornography from material of an artistic, literary, educational or scientific nature in a fashion acceptable to the Canadian public, including artists.
I was somewhat surprised that my hon. friend said that he would not support that resolution. Surely the Government has
Criminal Code
gone too far and lacks a definition of pornography. A definition of pornography should include the kinds of concerns which are raised in our reasoned amendment.
Could the Hon. Member elaborate on why he fails to support the direction in which we have pointed?


Don Boudria: Madam Speaker, I will gladly respond to the Hon. Member's question. Notwithstanding the nine or ten lines of that "reasoned" amendment, one should remember that the two first lines read as follows:
That this House declines to give second reading to Bill C-54-
The rest of the amendment contains the details. The fact is that by adopting the amendment the House would kill the Bill.
I say to the Hon. Member that Canadians expect us to pass a Bill. Yes, it needs to be improved. I agree with that. Let us bring it before committee and provide amendments which will make the Bill acceptable to a larger number of Canadians than it is now.
The original Bill-I guess it was Bill C-114-was totally unacceptable in my opinion. I feel that the one before us can be salvaged with amendments. Let us do it, let us send it to committee, and let us try to improve it. If we can improve it in a good and appropriate manner, I would like to vote in favour of the legislation at third reading.
It is not in a state now with which I would like to be associated. I indicate publicly that it needs to be improved, by voting against it at second reading, but I will not support an amendment which indicates that we should kill the Bill, because Canadians do not want us to kill the Bill and to forget about the issue. They want us to adopt legislation, and they expect us to do it now.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Madam Speaker, I rise to speak today on the amendment proposed by the Hon. Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson) to Bill C-54, an Act to amend the Criminal Code. As we have been discussing, basically it deals with the very difficult issue of pornography.
First I should like to say personally that for about eight years I have been very involved in the particular issue as one- and I believe it is the case with probably all Members of the House-who finds violent and degrading pornography extremely abhorrent and unacceptable. I believe that most of us are attempting to focus on that area here.
Similarly, one could have no disagreement with provisions which attempt to deal with the very serious question of child pornography. As a former child welfare worker, I saw a number of situations which involved the exploitation of children. It was certainly one of the reasons that I worked on the issue and felt extremely emotional and strongly that something must be done.
Not only is violent pornographic material degrading to women, but it reflects a society that is not healthy, a society in respect of which many of us would not like to be a part. In terms of child pornography, certainly no one in this House


Criminal Code
would support that. With that caveat let me say there is no disagreement about amendments directed toward controlling child pornography.
This issue is a very difficult one because it raises questions of censorship, freedom of expression and, in particular, definition. What is the difference between erotica and pornography?
I remember several years ago working with a group through the National Action Committee who had put together as an educational tool a slide show of some clips from some of the really violent kinds of pornographic videos that we are discussing. It was extremely effective. A criminal element was involved in the sale of these pornographic videos, et cetera, and it was a multi-billion dollar industry. People were also not aware of the kinds of threats and intimidation which these women who put together this educational material were under. These women and their spouses were threatened. That was almost as shocking as the material. I suppose I led a very naive existence and did not realize that this was the kind of multibillion industry that it is.
The problems one finds with this Bill are exemplified by the fact that with this legislation the group who put together that educational material, which was to tell church groups, politicians and many others that this is what is happening, that they had better see the reality so we can all do something about it, would now not be able to use and show it.
i would like to address the lack of clear definitions for erotica and pornography, and the lack of clarification about what can be used for educational purposes. I must question as well that the innocent or a defendant is presumed guilty until he or she is able to prove himself or herself innocent. Not being a lawyer I do not profess to be an expert, but I do believe that the basic tenet of our justice system is that one is innocent until proven guilty and not the reverse.
One of the areas that is so difficult in this legislation is the definition. Let me quote a few sentences from Pierre Berton who wrote in The Toronto Star on May 16, 1987. He identified one of the difficulties which many of us have. He wrote, "I can turn on the television news and see dead bodies strewn all over Nicaragua. I can see films, photographs and TV crime shows in which men and women shoot each other, knife each other, blow each up and burn each other alive as long as they don't do it in a sexual context".
Those of us who have children and attempt at times to do a bit of censorship of our own of the television understand how detrimental that kind of violence is. When it is then put in a sexual context it is all the more serious.
Bill C-54 is, in my view, retrogressive. It will not necessarily address all of the kinds of issue. It, indeed, misses some very pertinent issues that I believe it is the intent of all people in this House to address. I am sure that most people are not even
talking about erotica. They are trying to address what is often colloquially known as hard core pornography which is violence in the sexual form. To call it pornography is, in many ways, misleading and obscuring the argument.
There is, however, in this Bill-and why we proposed the amendment-a rather big brother aspect. In order to deal with a fairly specific problem, there is now sweeping legislation which will catch in its net, as it were, a lot of other material which is considered literature in our society, and is not seen, I believe, in any way as pornographic by the ordinary community standard. Most of us can remember when books such as Margaret Laurence's were under great criticism from individuals who felt that her books should not be in high schools.
One is very sensitive to the fact that being discreet in the legislation and being specific is extremely important. Otherwise you end up restricting not only the freedom of expression of artists but the freedom of individuals to read material which I believe is not the kind of material that perhaps the drafters of this legislation hope to reach.
As I mentioned earlier, I am sure there is certainly unanimous agreement about attempts to address the very serious question of child pornography. Let me also state that the New Democratic Party has been extremely involved in discussions on the issue of pornography, recognizing the very serious and detrimental effects that such violent and degrading pornography can have. I would like to read into the record the New Democrats policy on pornography. I believe this in essence addresses the issues as we would feel they would be best addressed. The federal New Democratic Party:
(1)	defines as pornography material which condones violence, coercion, abuse and degradation in its depiction of human beings and condemns the production and distribution of such material whether in film, video, print, or any other form;
(2)	condemns the production and distribution of material which portrays or promotes the sexual exploitation of children and calls for severe penalties for offenders.
In that case we are in agreement with this legislation. The New Democratic Party:
(3)	calls for the strengthening of Section 159 of the Criminal Code of Canada to reflect these concerns.
(4)	calls for amendments to the Broadcasting Act to prohibit the broadcasting of such pornographic material with severe penalties for violation including the possibility of revocation of licence.
We have attempted to be very clear about the issue that we are trying to address.
I would now like to say a few words about some of the problems with the lack of clarity in the definition between eroticism and pornography. The United Church of Canada, for example, in June, 1987, in a letter to the Minister of Justice (Mr. Hnatyshyn), expressed its concern. I know that particular church has been very involved and concerned about the issue of pornography. These are concerns not by someone who has a vested interest but a church which very clearly has a deep concern about the issue. Basically the United Church of


Canada is asking for changes to distinguish between erotica and pornography in terms of a degree of explicit activity. The Church writes:
The difference is simply one of quantity, more or less sexual activity. We believe the difference between erotica and pornography is a matter of quality of relationship rather than mere quantity of activity or inactivity. We submit that the difference between unhealthy pornography and healthy erotica cannot be measured in degrees of explicitness, but rather is determined in terms of context.
What bothers me is that in this particular Bill, we have gone much further in attempting to redress the wrong but have not really been specific about how those distinctions could be made. We have left the distinctions to be made by customs officers, judges and the like.
This legislation could mean that classics such as Romeo and Juliet, for example, could be classified as pornographic and distributors of it subject to criminal prosecution. While this seems unlikely, I mentioned earlier the example of one of Margaret Laurence's books. I believe, alas, that it is not as unlikely as it may seem at first glance.
The other issue I mentioned earlier and would like to say a bit more about is the fact that the onus of proof of what may be of artistic merit is on the artist or the writer. Unfortunately, many artists and writers in our society are not well off, and proving artistic merit could be a considerable expense. More importantly, perhaps, this challenges Canada's fundamental assumption that a person is innocent until proven guilty by placing the burden of proof on the individual. Surely this is not a precedent we wish to see enshrined in law at this time.
I mentioned earlier that I had worked with a number of groups concerned about pornography. As we know, many groups express opposition to this legislation, from the group which clearly wants to see no kind of limitation or restriction on material at all, to that which wants to see some censorship of violent or degrading material but not of erotica, to the third group which wants to see censorship of all sexual material. The National Action Committee on the Status of Women would fall as does the New Democratic Party into that second category. We do want to see restrictions on violent and degrading sexual material but not on erotica.
The National Action Committee has criticized this proposed legislation and has called on the Government to ensure that any legislation focus on violence rather than on sexual acts and that any legislation put the onus on the Crown to prove that the material does not have artistic merit.
An article in The Globe and Mail of May 27, 1987, underscores again the concern regarding the legal aspect of this legislation. The article says that, unlike the existing obscenity provision in the Criminal Code which obliges the Crown to convince a judge that the accused has unduly exploited sex, the proposed law places the burden of proof on the defendant who may be found guilty without the Crown
Criminal Code
having to say a word unless he can convince a judge that has duly exploited the subject.
Other comments have been made about this legislation by many other groups as well as members of the media. The Toronto Sun has said that the Bill is clouded by silliness. The Toronto Star said that the Bill has been widely perceived as a cynical attempt by a prudish Government to appease its most extreme adherents, authoritarian individuals and interest groups which are only too anxious to deny others their fundamental rights.
The Globe and Mail argues that this repressive view of the world is at odds with the existence of human beings as sexual creatures. Keith Spicer has explained that he feels that this legislation indicates that the Government has fallen head first into a puritan quicksand of trying to define official standards of love and beauty and that every judge, every policeman and every customs officer in the country will have to be an art critic, a literary critic and an arbiter of taste.
Many others have expressed the same kind of concern, from artists to members of the media and a variety of other groups. One particular group with which I am quite familiar is the Committee Against Pornography. This group is composed of women with legal, social, psychological and educational backgrounds who have made a very comprehensive review of this Bill. As happens so often, these kinds of issues are quite incorrectly defined as women's issues. 1 think they are society's issues, not women's issues.
This group, to which I have referred, along with the National Action Committee and the United Church have certainly worked very hard on a volunteer basis in analysing this kind of legislation. These groups do this because they are so committed to and concerned about the issue. This particular review is extremely long and comprehensive.
The group has made a number of recommendations, but I will not go into all of them. Suffice it to say that even this group, a group of women who have studied the issue and are very strongly and vociferously against the kind of degrading pornography to which I have referred, makes a number of suggestions for changes and expresses, interestingly enough, some concern that because of the lack of definition there may in fact be some material which would not be restricted under this legislation which should be restricted. The group has made a number of major recommendations which have been substantiated by considerable material.
I have not quoted the artist groups a great deal, though perhaps they have been the most vociferous in the media, because they could be seen to have a vested interest. However, a number of concerns have been expressed by groups of librarians, for instance. I mentioned earlier an example of the use of educational materials that might depict people in situations that could, under this legislation, be identified as pornographic. However, if all of that were censored, it would simply have no educational value whatsoever.


We all know that it is extremely important to clearly explain the seriousness of these issues in order to ensure that people can clearly see for themselves what are the problems. The AIDS Committee of Toronto, for example, in the context of education, has expressed the concern that this Bill would have a very serious effect on its ability to provide sex education and information which is vitally needed to fight this very serious disease. That is an extremely serious effect that this Bill could possibly have. It is for that reason that we feel this must be redressed and that my hon. colleague proposed the amendment.
In conclusion, I would like to say that all of us recognize the need to address something which has become an extremely serious issue in society in the last 10 or 15 years, that is the issue of child pornography. I believe there is absolutely no dispute about the fact that that is a problem.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The Hon. Member's time has now expired. We will proceed with questions and comments when the House resumes Government Orders after Question Period.
It being 1 p.m., I do now leave the chair until 2 p.m.
At 1 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.


Mr. George Henderson (Egmont):: Mr. Speaker, once again I stand in this House to ask the Government to keep its commitment to our Armed Forces personnel at CFB Summer-side. On January 24, 1985, a headline in the Summerside Journal-Pioneer read:
New Combined Mess Slated for CFB S'Side -Actual Construction By Fall 1986-
The news story went on to say:
Senator Orville Phillips said this morning he and Malpeque Member of Parliament, Mel Gass, have been advised by Defence Minister Robert Coates the Department of National Defence will be awarding a design contract for the project.
It is expected the contract for actual construction of the mess will be awarded by October, 1986. Construction is expected to take about 18 months, with an April 1988 completion date projected.
This is December 7, 1987. I am now told by reliable sources that the working drawings are not expected by DND until this time next year, and construction will not start until 1989, if then.
With these kinds of misleading announcements, is it any wonder why Canadians have lost all trust in the Government? I call on the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Beatty) and the Government to stop their procrastination and get on with this worth-while project at CFB Summerside. This facility for Armed Forces personnel is long overdue and construction will mean a badly needed boost for P.E.I. construction workers.



ABORTION


Mr. Bill Gottselig (Moose Jaw):: Mr. Speaker, abortion is a matter of grave concern to Canadians who abhor the destruction of human life. For many years the Pro-Life Movement has attempted to make known to all Canadians the humanity of the child killed in the womb by abortion. However, the unborn child is not the only victim of abortion. Women are victims as well.
An increasing body of evidence now shows that postabortion syndrome is fast becoming the most serious mental health issue facing women. Symptoms include denial, anger, guilt, and depression. Those problems can in turn lead to substance abuse, sexual dysfunction, relationship dysfunction, and a general decrease in coping skills.
Research has shown that up to 82 per cent of American women suffer from acute symptoms of post-abortion syndrome for up to three years following abortion. Latent symptoms can manifest themselves five to ten years following the abortion.
The United States Surgeon General recently authorized a study of post-abortion syndrome. In Britain the effect of abortion on women will be studied by a bipartisan Conservative-Labour committee. The Canadian Pro-Life Movement is concerned not only for the unborn victim of abortion, but for the women who are also victims. It would welcome a study by the federal Government on the devastating effects of postabortion syndrome in Canada.



DAY CARE


Marion Dewar: Mr. Speaker, the real assessment of the Government strategy concening child care centres will be based on results obtained. Will there be more spaces for our children in day care centres? Will service quality be guaranteed? Will costs be reasonable?


The Government has proposed to create 400,000 spaces in Canadian centres, but some 2.5 million children do need day care. That is the first failure of the Government.

Operating grants to child care centres work out to $1.85 a day for each child at the end of seven years. This will ensure that high standards are starved out and caregiver wages will remain exploitively low. This pitiful amount will be further diluted into profits for commercial day care chains. Strike two on quality.
Finally, diverting funds to regressive tax deductions will deny many lower-income families any government aid on fees. Those primarily discriminated against will be single-parent working mothers such as waitresses, office workers, and store clerks. Strike three on affordability.
After spending millions of dollars studying this issue, after keeping Canadians waiting three years, after solemn promises by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney), Canadian families and children deserve a national child care policy. How tragic that they have been presented with this scattered, piecemeal bust.



DISARMAMENT


Mrs. Gabrielle Bertrand (Brome-Missisquoi):: Mr. Speaker, today Washington is the scene of the opening of a historic disarmament summit between the heads of the two major powers, the United States and the Soviet Union. I take this opportunity to say to my colleagues and remind them that young Canadians are very much aware of the problems created by wars and violence in the world.
Last October 30, International Peace Day, I was the guest of two schools in my riding-Knowlton's Saint-Edouard and Farnham's Polyvalente Jean-Jacques-Bertrand-where I listened to these young people and answered their questions.
They talked to me about disarmament, nuclear weapons, and anything to do with violence, including toys found on store shelves and TV programs.
Mr. Speaker, in this world faced with wars, famine and violence, it is important to highlight the initiative of these young students who have sought to make their elders and elected Members more aware of the great theme of peace. My response to their concerns was to try to convince them that there is peace only where freedom prevails, and that in that respect our country, Canada, stands as an example to the rest of the world.



CANADA-UNITED STATES TRADE AGREEMENT-POSITION OF FARM GROUPS

Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Mr. Speaker, there is a rising tide of opposition among farm groups throughout Canada to the Government's trade deal with the United States. Fruit and vegetable producers and grape growers in British Columbia are opposed to it, the majority of Saskatchewan Wheat Pool delegates opposed it, the Ontario Federation of Agriculture is opposed to it, many Maritime farm producers oppose it, and the UPA in Quebec is opposed to this deal. It went further and accused the junior Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Blais) of lying to them about the trade deal.
The Quebec Government has demanded that the Government of Canada enshrine Article XI of the GATT in the trade agreement which provides for farm commodities to be put on the import control list that are under supply management and marketing boards.
The dairy farmers of Canada are demanding that dairy products like ice cream and yoghurt be placed on this control list before the agreement is signed on January 2, 1988. I call upon the Government to take at least these two actions before the trade deal is signed.



CANADA-UNITED STATES TRADE AGREEMENT-REMOVAL OF TARIFFS

Mr. Gordon Taylor (Bow River):: Mr. Speaker, the free trade agreement with the United States is a trading arrangement through which tariffs at the border will gradually be removed. This means that extra money that Canadians now pay for food, goods, and machines which come from the United States will no longer have to be paid. Canadians will benefit and save many dollars each month.
The NDP and the Liberals know this, but instead of telling it as it is they are trying to pull the wool over the eyes of the people who will benefit, by alleging that Canada will lose its sovereignty. Stop and think. How can a trading arrangement result in lost sovereignty? If you buy a sack of potatoes from your neighbour, does he then run your household? Of course not, and the Americans will have no part in running Canada after the trading arrangement is completed.
But, the NDP and the Liberals keep alleging that Canada will lose its sovereignty. "We are selling Canada" the NDP allege; "We will lose jobs" the Liberals allege. Well, I deny the allegations and I defy the "alligators".



NUCLEAR ENERGY


Mr. Jim Manly (Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, 70 years ago between 2,000 and 3,000 Halifax residents died in a devastating naval explosion. More than 10,000 people were injured and about 200 blinded. The December 6, 1917, collision in Halifax Harbour between the munitions carrier Mont Blanc and the Belgian ship Imo levelled more than 1,600 buildings within a 25-kilometre radius, and 12,000 buildings were seriously damaged.
Recent research explores the possible results of an accident which could happen at any time involving nuclear powered or armed vessels in a Canadian harbour. The horror of this scenario which, for the study, was set in Esquimalt Harbour, makes the Halifax explosion pale to near insignificance. The potential aftermath-latent cancer, severe genetic defects, environmental damage, and economic dislocation-is even more horrifying.
Canada has no adequate plans to deal with an accident of these proportions. The Government of Canada refuses even to insist on knowing whether or not visiting ships are nuclear armed. What will it take to make the Government realize that it is playing fast and loose with the lives and safety of Canadian citizens?



FREE TRADE-CANADIANS' INTERESTS

Mr. Clement M. Cote (Lac-Saint-Jean):: Mr. Speaker, for the benefit of those who are opposed to the Free Trade Agreement, 1 would like to quote part of what was said by Professor Bernard Landry, former Quebec Minister of Trade and International Relations, in his testimony before the Standing Committee on External Affairs and International Trade. I quote:
The first point I want to make is that this 35-page agreement drawn up by the Canadian and American negotiators is the envy of almost all Western countries. I do not think that has been stressed enough. The main client of most countries in the world, both in the East and the West, is the United States of America. This is true of the Federal Republic of Germany as well as Japan, France and Italy. They have to make do with multilateral negotiations. They all have to sit down at the GATT table. The EEC countries must first get together for negotiations among themselves and settle their own business before dealing with the United States of America in Geneva or wherever the GATT negotiations are taking place.
Here we have the United States' main trading partner, Canada, managing to obtain an agreement that establishes its
particular position. Out of all the countries in the world it is the one that trades most and is the most closely linked economically with the United States, and here we have that status taking a legal form.
Mr. Speaker, this kind of achievement will serve the interests of Canadians of all ages and will serve them well.



TAX REFORM


Mr. Jean-Claude Malepart (Montreal-Sainte-Marie):: Mr. Speaker, this morning, together with my colleagues, the Finance critic and the Hon. Member for Saint-Michel- Ahuntsic (Mrs. Killens), I had the pleasure of meeting with representatives of senior citizens' groups, the Coalition du troisieme age du Quebec, which represents 400,000 senior citizens. They came to share their comments on the tax reform proposals made by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson). They say no to fiscal injustice. Pensioners condemn the Conservative Government's tax reform. Mr. Speaker, according to these people, the Conservative Government failed to learn a lesson when it was forced to backtrack on de-indexation of Old Age Security pensions. These people are asking that companies pay their fair share and that pensioners no longer be sacrificed.
Second, they want investment income to be maintained and converted into a tax credit, and they want full indexation of the personal income tax system.
Mr. Speaker, all these representatives of Quebec's senior citizens' groups were disappointed when they left their meeting with representatives of the Minister of Finance, and they wondered what the Minister of State (Finance) (Mr. Hockin) was doing to defend their interests. Was it all a lot of bluffing or was it real?



CANADA-UNITED STATES TRADE AGREEMENT-POSITION OF MANITOBA PREMIER

Mr. Felix Holtmann (Selkirk-Interlake):: Mr. Speaker, guess what Howard Pawley's NDPers are doing now to convince Manitobans to oppose free trade? You guessed it, he is forcing his Ministers into Manitoba public schools, proclaiming a military invasion of Canada by the U.S. Marines.
On December 3, at Daniel McIntyre School in Winnipeg, Business Development Minister, A1 Mackling, said: "If the


Americans don't like part of the agreement, they will just send in the marines and take what they want anyway".
If you think that is comical, let me tell you what Jerry Storey, another NDP MLA, said in Arbourg in my riding: "I would hate to see, because of this free trade agreement, a person in northern Manitoba freezing so that someone in Arizona can have their air conditioning on".
Now, before you buckle over in your Chair with laughter, Mr. Speaker, I want to inform the House and the constituents of Manitoba that it is Mr. Pawley and his Government, and in all likelihood this free trade agreement, that will allow the sale of Manitoba hydro to Arizona to run the air conditioners. Manitoba schoolchildren prefer Mother Goose and her stories to this NDP nonsense.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps the Hon. Member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez) can reply.


Mr. Rodriguez:: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, but I have other fish to fry.



CANADA-UNITED STATES TRADE AGREEMENT-POSITION OF LIBERAL PARTY

John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, Canadians want to know where the Liberal Party stands on the Mulroney-Reagan trade agreement. Back on October 26, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner) wrapped himself up in the Canadian flag and proclaimed: "We will not live with it", and "We are going to tear the deal up".
After two years of wrangling on the issue, the people of Canada thought the Liberals had finally made a firm commitment on an issue which is of fundamental importance to the people of this country. But lo and behold, just last Monday the Leader of the Opposition told the newspaper La Presse that he was in favour of the principle of free trade and that he wished to improve some parts of the agreement.
Does the Leader of the Opposition believe that the Americans will make concessions to Canada once the deal is signed, sealed, and delivered? Does he believe a few superficial changes can dress up an agreement which is fundamentally bad for Canada?
Clearly, Canadians cannot depend on the Leader of the Official Opposition to provide serious and effective opposition to the Mulroney-Reagan trade deal. He is a leopard whose spots are continually changing. In fact one can now detect shades of red, white, and blue.
Only the New Democratic Party has consistently stood up for Canada and is in a position to oppose a trade agreement
which blatantly betrays Canadian interest and Canadian sovereignty.



DAY CARE


Mr. Jean-Pierre Blackburn (Jonquiere):: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of the new national strategy on child care is to give Canadian parents a choice for child care services and ensure that there will be a greater number of more affordable and better child care services. The measures proposed in the new strategy aim at making the very legitimate choice of a woman to work at home or outside the home more valid, and at providing easier access to child care services for Canadian families. With this program, the Government will create 200,000 child care spaces and up to 40,000 new jobs.
Mr. Speaker, since 1984, over 500,000 women have found work in Canada and our new national child care strategy will benefit children, traditional families and single parents.
According to Statistics Canada, there were under two children per family in 1986. Our policy aims at increasing this number by helping Canadian families and providing more child care facilities. Investing in our children and families shows that we believe in the future of this country. This is what our Government has done and will continue to do.



INDUSTRY


Ms. Sheila Copps (Hamilton East):: Mr. Speaker, last week we saw the final legacy of the former Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion (Mr. Stevens). In the city of Hamilton there is a company once called Canadian Porcelain which the City, the region, and the workers attempted to buy two years ago. The City, the region and the workers were refused by this Government which said it would prefer a takeover by an American company.
At that time I predicted that if the American company took over Canadian Porcelain it would not be long before the doors were shut and the jobs were eliminated. In fact, last Lriday, the company, now called Lapp Insulators, announced it is closing its doors in the city of Hamilton. It is pulling out.


Oral Questions
1 think it is because of the Government's refusal to investigate foreign investment in this country that we are now seeing the closure of Canadian Porcelain and the loss of over 200 jobs in the city of Hamilton. What a legacy from a Government which is not prepared to protect Canadian jobs. What a legacy from a Government that actually refused an offer put forth by the workers of that company to purchase the company, but instead chose to sell it off to an American company which is now closing the doors.



EMPLOYMENT


Mr. Gabriel Fontaine (Levis):: Mr. Speaker, on November 8, 1984, our Minister of Finance tabled his economic statement in this House. The Leader of the socialist party immediately predicted that Canada as a whole would lose 100,000 jobs. In May 1985, the Minister of Finance tabled his Budget. The Leader of the Liberal Party then said that the budget would cost Canada between 100,000 and 125,000 jobs.
As usual, Mr. Speaker, the two Opposition Leaders were both wrong. Since 1984, Canada has not lost any jobs; on the contrary, the Conservative Government has created 1,042,000 new jobs.
Thanks to this Government, unemployment across Canada has gone down by 3.5 per cent to reach 8.2 per cent, the lowest it has been since November 1981.
The two Opposition Leaders are predicting hundreds of thousands of jobs lost because of free trade. This will not happen, Mr. Speaker, because the Free Trade Agreement will bring about the creation of over 350,000 new jobs. Indeed, free trade will create employment, reduce the cost of living for Canadians and provide our productive business people with a much larger and more reliable market.
It is time for Canadians to compare the statements of the two Opposition Leaders with our achievements. We have shown that we can deliver while the Opposition Parties can only criticize without justification.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Right Hon. John N. Turner (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. In response to the Opposition's attack, and public outcry
following the voyage of the Polar Sea through our Arctic waters, the Secretary of State for External Affairs told this House of Commons on September 10, 1985, the following, and I am using his words. "The exercise of functional jurisdiction in Arctic waters is essential to Canadian interests. However, it is no substitute for Canada's full sovereignty over the waters of the Arctic .. . Full sovereignty is vital to Canada's security . .. It is vital to Canada's national identity . . . We will accept no substitute . . . Any co-operation with the United States-will only be on the basis of full respect for Canada's sovereignty".
Those were the Minister's words. The Secretary of State admitted yesterday that a secret deal has been signed between Canada and the United States which allows the Americans access to our northern waters, waters which we claim as national waters, but does not recognize full sovereignty of Canada over those waters.
I ask the Deputy Prime Minister why did the Government of Canada conclude a secret deal which makes a mockery of the Secretary of State's undertaking to the House of Commons?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hon. Pat Carney (Acting Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I should point out that the Right Hon. Member-


Maurice Brydon Foster: Part of the trade deal.


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, this is the lead question and answer. Surely the Opposition will give us the opportunity to respond to the question of the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition.
The Leader of the Opposition was quoting from a statement made by the Secretary of State for External Affairs, who is presently in Europe.
It is a leaked document that the Right Hon. Member is dealing with, so I will not comment on the allegations of a leaked document.
However, the House may be interested in the proposals which are under discussion. The issue with the Americans has been the passage of ice-breakers like the Polar Sea. The House will be happy to know that the proposals under discussion will ensure that there could never be another incident like the Polar Sea. For that, I would expect to have the congratulations of the Opposition, and not the catcalling that they are now doing.


John Napier Turner: It may or may not be a leaked document, Mr. Speaker, but the Secretary of State has admitted the existence of a secret deal with the United States.


[ Translation]


APPARENT RENUNCIATION OF SOVEREIGNTY OVER ARCTIC WATERS-GOVERNMENT POSITION
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, the Secretary of State for External affairs also stated in this House, that same day, September 10, 1985, that the Government would immediately enact a bill empowering it to apply Canadian law in our Arctic waters.
Now, two years and three months later, the House has yet to see that legislation.
Instead, we have a secret deal with the United States that does not expressly recognizes our ownership of those waters, our sovereignty over the Arctic, but instead that gives the Americans access to our Arctic waters. The United States are not asking Canada for permission to send their ships into our waters, they tell us when and how they will be using our Arctic waters.
Here is my question to the Minister: Why does the Government of Canada accept to give up our sovereignty rights over Arctic waters?


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, I am perplexed by the Right Hon. Member's repeated statement that this is a secret deal. Our negotiations with the Americans have been known and have been ongoing for some time, and have been made public on many occasions by the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for External Affairs. There is no secret deal. There are ongoing discussions. When we come down to the point of consent, that is precisely what the current proposal would achieve. The Americans have never, ever conceded the Canadian demand that we have to consent to passage through the Northwest Passage.
In the proposals regarding ice-breakers, which are being discussed, the Americans would have to seek and get Canadian consent before ice-breakers could traverse the Northwest Passage. That is what Canada has been trying to achieve, and that is an exertion of our sovereignty.


CANADA-UNITED STATES NEGOTIATIONS
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, the Minister cannot have it both ways; the document can't be leaked, and yet not have a secret deal. The Minister can work that out when she has the opportunity.
1 have always said that the trade agreement between Canada and the United States put Canadian sovereignty at risk. It is ironic that before the ink is dry on the final text of the trade agreement, if there is a final text, that the Government of Canada was secretly negotiating away our sovereignty in the Arctic. It has not escaped the attention of Canadians that the Arctic sell-out was being negotiated at the same time as our trade sell-out.
Oral Questions
I want to ask the Minister, and perhaps it is not coincidence that she stands to respond to the question: was the price of this trade deal, a final text for this trade deal, the selling out of our sovereignty in the Arctic?


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, I can assure the Right Hon. Member that I am speaking in my capacity as Acting Minister, in the absence of the Secretary of State for External Affairs.
I can assure him, once again, that the proposals which are being discussed and to which the Member has referred assert our sovereignty. They exercise our sovereignty. They would require the Americans to acknowledge that they have to seek our consent before sending a Polar Sea through the Northwest Passage.
I know something more about the Northwest Passage than the gentleman opposite, Mr. Speaker, and I can assure you that what is being proposed by the Canadians, that before the Americans could ever send an American Polar Sea through our Northwest Passage they would have to seek and they would have to get our consent, is the exercise of sovereignty, not the benign neglect that the former Liberal Government gave to our North.


TOXIN TAINTED MUSSELS-RELEASE OF INFORMATION
Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Last Friday the Minister of Health tried to explain his gross negligence in delaying a public alert to the poisonous mussels by saying that he was awaiting tests from his Department. Now we know that lab animals actually began dying on November 27, four days before the Government issued a public alert.
Why did the Minister place the health of Canadians at risk by keeping the real mussel story secret?


Hon. Jake Epp (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I did not keep any story secret. I have been very up front about this issue. I have all the details here, day by day, hour by hour, but for brevity in the House let me put it this way.
On Sunday, a week ago yesterday, the Government, through the Department of Health-


Mr. Tobin:: Goodbye, Jake.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, 1 hope Hon. Members think that this is serious enough, especially the Hon. Member


Oral Questions
from Newfoundland, that they would want at least to give it the attention it deserves.
On Sunday-I can give the exact date and I can make all this material available to the House-November 29, after preliminary reports a decision was made by the Bureau of Field Operations, HPB in Ottawa, to stop distribution of any further product from P.E.E At 10.15 a.m. it was discussed with fisheries officials. At 10.30 a.m. the Atlantic Region of HPB advised headquarters of further arrangements. Then on Sunday the sale was stopped, not because of a health link, but what the Department through its experience calls, "the sale was stopped on the basis of reason to believe".
On Monday, the tests continued. I got my first briefing on Monday. 1 said to the Department: "Give me every piece of information". I got the information at approximately on Tuesday of last week, 5 to 5.30 in the evening. We developed the health alert, and 1 believe at 6.55 on that same night I was already in front of national television on this.


An Hon. Member:: You were late.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: No, I was not late at all, Mr. Speaker. It is important that Ministers and the Government have the right to put information like this forward. I think it is responsible for the Opposition, as well, not to throw out allegations such as they do unless they have proof, and understanding in this place that some people have to be believed when they put out the information.


MINISTER'S POSITION
Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, I have here a telex from B. C. Williams, Bureau of Field Operations, Health Protection Branch. It was a health issue, and he states that "HPB was first notified of an illness in Montreal on November 25, 1987. Further investigations. On November 25, DFO Moncton Inspection Office was also informed".
We had two separate health incidents that were relayed to the Ministry of Health on November 25. In fact, the Minister thought that it was serious enough that he told all companies to stop shipments on Saturday morning, at 10 a.m. It was not until Monday night, at 7 p.m., that he informed the public, and I would suggest that the only reason the Minister can explain for the delay, contrary to the untruths that he told outside the House on Friday-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: I am sure that the Hon. Member knows that what she wants to say outside this Chamber about what anybody else said outside the Chamber is any Member's responsibility, and he or she, of course, takes the risk under ordinary common law to which that person would be subjected if the individual chooses to do that.
The Hon. Member may very well not agree with what the Hon. Minister said, but perhaps she could put it in ways that say something to the effect that she does not agree with what he said. I think in the interests of order we could do without the other allegation.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, why did the Minister make misleading statements on the issue last Friday? Why did he not come forward with the information to the people of Canada at the same time that the information went forth to the shipping companies? Didn't the Minister really put the health of Canadians at risk? Doesn't he think he should resign?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: No, Mr. Speaker, I do not believe I should resign. I do not believe I should resign because I followed the position of the health link very carefully. The instructions I gave to the Department are that on every issue we will err on the side of safety. I did not interfere with the Department, with its professionals, with its scientists or with its toxicologists.
What the Member is trying to put forward is something before health links could be established and that is what the Department establishes. In fact, scientists and toxicologists were dealing with a new toxin not related to shellfish poisoning, and the Department got the co-operation of the Prince Edward Island mussel growers to pull back the shipment. We have to do lab work. Despite that, the pull-back took place.
If the Member wants to take her partisan shots, she can. The Member is entitled to that, but I would like to think that Canadians, officials, toxicologists, scientists in Health and Welfare are as interested in the health and safety of Canadians as anyone else. They were not trying to protect an industry. There were trying to protect the health of Canadians. I think it is about time that the Member and others looked very seriously at the work that was done, rather than making allegations which the Member likes to throw out hoping somehow that they might stick to someone.


SOVEREIGNTY
Hon. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister for International Trade which also pertains to the concession which the Government has made once again to the United States involving a question of Canadian sovereignty.
Just a moment ago the Minister indicated that the Government of Canada believes it is exercising its sovereignty in this accord. Will she now admit to the House that there is no reference whatever to sovereignty in the agreement that has been signed? Will she answer that?


Second, will the Minister concede that in the agreement, the secret agreement that has been signed, there is a specific clause that allows the United States to continue to challenge our sovereignty in the disputed territory that the Americans alone want to dispute?
Finally, will the Minister admit that the Government did sell us out once again as a last concession in the free trade deal?


Pat Carney: No, Mr. Speaker, we did not sacrifice anything in the free trade deal with respect to our sovereignty. We exerted and exercised our sovereignty in the free trade deal. The Hon. Member should be ashamed to so impute our motives in this House.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I simply join with 20 million other Canadians in making that imputation.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


CANADIAN POLICY
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister now whether she will answer the question. With specific reference to the commitment made by the responsible Minister in the House on September 10, 1985, who said:
The policy of this Government is to exercise full sovereignty in and on the
waters of the Arctic Archipelago and this applies to the airspace above as well.
We will accept no substitute.
The Minister has not conceded yet that there is a clause which leaves it open to the U.S. again to challenge the sovereignty question. Will she comment on that?
Second, will the Minister acknowledge that this commitment made by the Secretary of State for External Affairs has specific reference to the notion of U.S. submarines in the territory and that the secret agreement revealed on the weekend once again excludes that?
Will the Minister tell us what procedures, if any, U.S. submarines will now have to follow if they want to go through this water?


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, I do not think it is possible to answer that smorgasbord of questions which cover a wide range.


John Edward Broadbent: Try.


Pat Carney: Let me please just re-assert that the discussions which are taking place, which involve the exercise of our sovereignty over the Arctic, are seeking a major concession from the U.S., namely, that the Americans have to seek our consent before the passage of ice-breakers through the Northwest Passage.
There are other arrangements in place in terms of defence matters. There are other arrangements in place through our environmental laws for merchant shipping. The issue which the
Oral Questions
Member is addressing deals with ice-breakers. We are trying to avert another Polar Sea incident. Should we accomplish our objective of getting the Americans to acknowledge that we must give our consent, there will be no more Polar Sea incidents. That is the exercise of our sovereignty and that should be acceptable to all 25 million Canadians. I do not know the 20 million Canadians about whom the Hon. Member is speaking.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I was flattering the Minister by saying that only 20 million Canadians were opposed to the Government. I gave the Government credit for having some five million on its side. That was done in a mood of abundant generosity today or I would not have done it.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


SUBMARINES IN ARCTIC WATERS-GOVERNMENT POSITION
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, since it is a very serious matter, since it is clear that the Secretary of State for External Affairs in his commitment to the House was talking about ice-breakers and submarines, and since the agreement signed by the Government of Canada and signed by the United States simply refers to two Arctic neighbours-it says nothing about Canadian sovereignty-is the Minister telling us now, with the immediate answer she has just given to me, that there is a secret agreement between Canada and the United States that is pertinent to submarines? Or, will she admit that the Government got nothing at all in terms of controlling access to the waters by submarines. Once again, was there another capitulation by the Government to the United States?


Hon. Harvie Andre (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, as Acting Minister of Defence let me respond to the question of the Leader of the New Democratic Party about submarines in the Arctic.
I recognize his Party does not approve of the relationship we have with our NATO allies in sharing resources, assets, and information about the deployment of those assets. The reason we belong to NATO is to enhance the security and sovereignty of Canada. That is why we continue to belong.
It is not in the interests of Canada's security or sovereignty to go into details about that kind of information on submarines in our Arctic.


TOXICITY OF MUSSELS-MINISTER'S RESPONSIBILITY
Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare and deals with so important a matter that


Oral Questions
the stakes are the health and lives of Canadians, and his role on this matter is most important.
The Minister will recall that the department was informed as early as the 25th . . . And on the 27th, clinical tests started showing animals were dying. But the Minister only decided to act and inform the Canadian public on the evening of the 29th.
Can the Minister explain why it took him that long to inform the public about toxic mussels that could cause serious illness, and does the Minister not believe that he failed in his duty as a Minister to protect public health in waiting that long before telling the public?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, what the Hon. Member said is not correct. I was not informed on the 25th. That is absolutely incorrect, and 1 want to repeat it. I was not informed on the 25th.
1 would like to explain again to the Hon. Member and to the House what happened. Regarding the linkage between the illnesses in some Montreal hospitals and what the cause might be, information was given to the Health Protection Branch and the linkage had to be established. Officials were working through those details. Keep in mind that my officials and others say that it was a new toxin and a new illness.
Even without having the formal links on which the Department generally works in removing a product from the market, because there was reason to believe, without the scientific link, the shipments from the two suppliers were pulled on the Sunday. That is the fact. On Monday and Tuesday officials worked further on lab linkages and I gave the details Tuesday night. For the Hon. Member to say that I knew about this on the 25th is simply not true.
[ Translation]


QUERY WHY MINISTER DID NOT ALERT PUBLIC PROMPTLY THROUGH COMMUNIQUE
Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, the thirty people who are now ill in hospital are surely not satisfied with the Minister's reply that shipments of mussels have been stopped in Canada. Why did the Minister of Health and Welfare not rise to the defence of consumers and immediately publish a release, not four days after the notice, to advise shoppers in grocery stores, people in restaurants and at home that eating mussels was dangerous for their health? Why did the Minister fail to inform people for their own protection? Does he not feel that his failure and his incompetence force him to resign since people have lost all confidence in him?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, obviously I cannot put out a health warning until
we at least have some evidence of the reason for the warning. Even before we had the scientific linkage, shipments were stopped.
I am not trying to hide behind anyone, but I am dealing very directly with the manner in which we handle these health issues. Let me remind the Hon. Member that on Tuesday, within the hour after receiving the information, I gave the CBC crew that was waiting, the information. I can say-


Sheila Maureen Copps: That's why you brought it up.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: No, 1 did not. On the news of that evening, Dr. Hoey of the Montreal Urban Community, not a member of my staff, said the following:
I am actually astounded that we were able to move this quickly especially as
we were dealing with a disease which to our knowledge has never before been
described.
I simply say that even before the health alert came out on Tuesday night, the shipments had already been withdrawn without even having the full health linkage.
1 would say to the Hon. Member that he may do what he wants in terms of partisan actions, but do not frighten Canadians, and stay with the truth.


CANADA-UNITED STATES TRADE AGREEMENT-COMPLETION OF FINAL TEXT
Mr. Mike Cassidy (Ottawa Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister for International Trade and deals with the announcement made late last night or early this morning that the final text of the trade agreement was apparently completed this morning but that it would be another 48 to 84 or 86 hours before it becomes available to the public. Therefore, the text of the agreement will not be available to the public before the conclusion of public hearings by the Commons committee which will be concluded today. That ludicrous result will mean that no group and no witness will be able to comment on the text of the agreement before the Government signs it on January 2.
Are there many changes agreed to in the final signing of the agreement last night since October 3? Does the Minister believe that barely one week of public study by Parliament of the agreement, beginning late this week until late next week, will be sufficient for a commercial agreement which can affect this country for the next half century and which will see the sell-out of Canada to the United States?


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, I can tell the House that we have occasion to mark an historic agreement which the negotiators concluded on the weekend. The process that will be followed is that the lawyers are taking a last look at the language of the agreement. It will go to the respective Governments to be ratified, and it will be released as soon as it can be published.


Michael Morris Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, the process is a total shambles and the Minister knows it. What she says is happening now should have occurred some time before the end of October so that Canadians would have had an adequate chance to look at this agreement.


PROTECTION OF QUEBEC FARMERS
Michael Morris Cassidy: My supplementary question to the Minister is this: The Quebec Minister of Agriculture has indicated that the Quebec Government would no longer support the trade agreement with the United States if the interests of Quebec farmers were not recognized in the final text of the Agreement, insisting that Canada should retain in its trade deal with the United States its power to impose quotas on farm products under the GATT.
Does the Agreement take into account the wishes of Quebec farmers? Or is it another example of the Canadian Government ignoring a Canadian industry?


Hon. Pierre Blais (Minister of State (Agriculture)):: Mr. Speaker, if my friend the Hon. Member from Ottawa Centre had taken the trouble to check the statements which I personally made to Quebec farm producers last week-when I reiterated that their interests would be fully protected especially under the GATT and the other relevant clauses.
I have not yet had an opportunity to meet an NDP Member with enough intestinal fortitude and courage to tell the truth to Quebec farm producers. When the time comes, 1 will not be afraid to challenge any of you, friends, on the hustings!


CANADA LANDS COMPANY
[Stage Direction]
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott

Russell): Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister in the absence of the Prime Minister. It concerns the operation and disposition of lands by the Canada Lands Company at Mirabel. I have in hand a copy of documents in a lawsuit dated September 2, 1987, which has not yet reached trial stage so I understand that under the rules of sub judice I can raise the issue. In this lawsuit, an expropriated property owner, Mr. Gerard Poirier of Mirabel, is suing 2434-3972 Quebec Inc., the Canada Lands Company and others, alleging that he was coerced into giving up his right to buy back his own property.
In view of the fact that this incident is the second in two months questioning the practices of the Canada Lands Company, a Crown corporation directed by a relative of the Hon. Member for Joliette (Mr. La Salle) and former Minister of Public Works, will the Deputy Prime Minister now do the
Oral Questions
right thing and appoint a Royal Commission of Inquiry into the operation and the disposition of properties by the Canada Lands Company at Mirabel?
Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Solicitor General I would like to acknowledge the question of the Hon. Member who has in his possession a copy, certified, I suppose, of the proceedings in a court. I understand that the matter is before the court so I do not want to comment with respect to that matter. As the Hon. Member's Leader has said, I would not want to prejudice the case by making any comment either in or outside the House.
The RCMP has also indicated that it is involved in an investigation with respect to the matter. Therefore, using the exact words of the Hon. Member's Leader, I would like to caution the Hon. Member about raising the details of the matter and trying to do anything that might jeopardize any investigation that is taking place.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, it appears now that the Minister is confirming that there is an RCMP investigation and that is something we had not yet been told officially.


MIRABEL-INQUIRY WHAT GOVERNMENT INTENDS TO DO TO REDRESS SITUATION
Don Boudria: My
supplementary question also deals with the Canada Lands Company at Mirabel. I have in hand another document which is a promise or a bid to purchase signed by 2434-3972 Quebec Inc. and Mr. Gerard Poirier in which Mr. Poirier states that pressures were exerted on him and that as a condition he was required to keep his bid to that numbered and secret company for quite a long time. Considering that not more than two months ago, the media were referring to another transaction which could be considered as fishy, and involving, I think, the Canada Lands Company at Mirabel, what does the Deputy Prime Minister intend to do to put an end to that kind of scandal which is a scourge for his Government? What is he going to do to redress such an inequitable situation?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, possibly the Hon. Member would like to read Hansard of November 30, 1984, where his Leader, at page 771, talked about:
-reinstating the practice that used to apply in this House, and 1 believe still
should, reflecting the principle of presumption of innocence until proven
guilty?


John Napier Turner: You have already admitted there is an investigation.


Oral Questions


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: I suppose the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition wants to take another position on the presumption of innocence.


John Napier Turner: There is an investigation.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: There is an investigation and I think it would be inappropriate for any member of the Government to comment on that investigation. We should allow the matter to go ahead, uninterrupted and uninhibited by outside influences. That is a principle of justice in this country, and I do not think any off-the-wall allegations by the Hon. Member should be tolerated by his Leader.


Don Boudria: Can I have a further supplementary, Mr. Speaker?


Some Hon. Members:: Sit down!


Mr. Speaker:: 1 do not think a supplementary would be appropriate at this time, but I want to say something not only to Hon. Members but also to the public.
The questions put by the Hon. Member for Glengarry- Prescott-Russell were, as I think Hon. Members will know, especially experienced Hon. Members, extremely careful. The rule is that a civil action is not sub judice at least until a trial starts. While that has been a long-standing dictate of Beau-chesne to which Speakers have referred on many occasions, it still would not prohibit the Chair from making a contrary ruling if, in the total context, the Chair felt the question was about to prejudice the rights of either of the litigants. I did not believe that was the case. The Hon. Member quoted from pleadings, which, by the way, Hon. Members and the public should know, are all public documents.
The inquiry was on a serious matter. The Government, through the Minister of Justice, as is its right, said it does not want to comment on the merits of the case because it feels it might be prejudicial. The Government has stated there is an investigation going on. We have had carefully drafted questions and we have had replies.
I interrupt Question Period only to make this explanation so Hon. Members and the public understand what is appropriate in the Chamber, and that sometimes there is a fine line where something may not be appropriate. I allowed the questions because they were careful and appropriate.


NATIONAL REVENUE
Mr. Stan J. Hovdebo (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Revenue. The off-road fuel tax rebate program for primary producers ends on December 31, 1987. Does the Minister intend to raise the
price of farm fuel and other fuel for primary producers by 30 cents a gallon on January 1, 1988, or will he be extending the rebate program for at least another year?


Hon. Elmer M. MacKay (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to inform my hon. friend that this matter is under close review. I think he can be certain that the present program will be continued. That is my present understanding.


REQUEST FOR EARLY ANNOUNCEMENT
Stanley J. Hovdebo: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Minister for that answer. The producers will be glad to hear it.
There is concern that this program might be a casualty of the free trade deal. Can the Minister assure the House that the announcement of this extension would be a little earlier than two years ago when a considerable amount of concern was caused because it was so late and many farmers had already purchased their fuel?


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Mr. Speaker, I will be glad to take that as a representation. I want to assure my hon. friend that this has nothing whatsoever to do with the free trade negotiations and that farmers, in that regard, will be very pleased when these negotiations are finished and the agreement inures to their benefit.


CANADA LANDS COMPANY
Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. I want to return to the subject raised by my colleague, the Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell. I understand a lawsuit is under way. I understand there is now a criminal investigation under way. However, I want to ask questions about the enforcement and policing of the conflict of interest guidelines which are the responsibility of the Prime Minister.
Were any inquiries made by the Prime Minister, when the Hon. Member for Joliette left the Cabinet, into possible fallout in the matters that were heavy around him at the time he left? Was the former Minister spoken to? Were officials spoken to about the fall-out of his departure and the matters for which he was responsible?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, if I may be permitted to answer that question, I understand that the Hon. Member for York Centre has carefully crafted the question with respect to circumstances surrounding this whole matter. I am sure, as a former Solicitor General, he will understand that where there is an investigation it would not be appropriate for us to


comment with respect to the fact situation surrounding any transaction which may be under investigation. To do so may have implications for free and unfettered examination by the RCMP.
It is not from the point of view that the Deputy Prime Minister, or indeed any member of the Government, refuses to answer specific questions. It is just that I think the Hon. Member himself would want to make sure the police have an unfettered opportunity to come to their own conclusions, uncomplicated by versions of facts given on the floor of the House during the course of debate. They should be allowed to come to their own conclusions without being influenced by anything said on the floor of the House.


CONFLICT OF INTEREST GUIDELINES
Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, I am not rising to investigate the Hon. Member for Joliette. I am rising in my responsibility as a member of the Official Opposition to hold the Government to account for the conflict of interest guidelines it introduced.
The Minister will recall that the Prime Minister told us, when the Hon. Member for York-Peel left in a totally different situation, how limited the investigation into that matter was by the Prime Minister. He spoke only to the Minister and officials of the Deputy Registrar General who had spoken only to the Minister themselves. I want to ask if anything more was done in this case with the allegations that were around when the Hon. Member left the Cabinet. Did the Government, the Prime Minister or the Deputy Prime Minister do anything at all to assure the integrity of the Government?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, number one, I think any sensible and reasonable Canadian would expect that before any decisions are made on conflict of interest or any other matter, we would want a clear exposition of the facts. That is why the RCMP, a truly independent law enforcement agency, should be given the opportunity to get all the facts and bring them to light. Following that investigation, conclusions can be drawn.
To stand up at this point in time and make answers with respect to the activities of a Member of Parliament or former cabinet Minister would not be helpful and would probably be inappropriate on the part of the Government.
Oral Questions


ISSUANCE OF WORK PERMITS TO EMPLOYEES OF PERUVIAN COMPANIES-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Marion Dewar: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Employment and Immigration.
On November 30th, the Department of Employment and Immigration issued a dozen work permits to employees of Peruvian companies to fly domestic runs which are normally the responsibility of Air Canada. Since last Thursday, they have apparently made two flights a day between Vancouver and Hamilton.
A memo from his Department clearly indicates that temporary work permits may not be issued to foreigners if these permits are to be used to replace Canadian workers involved in a strike or lock-out situation.
Could the Minister explain why his Department has ignored this memo and allowed this Peruvian airline to fly domestic runs in Canada while Canadian workers are in a lock-out situation?
Hon Benoit Bouchard (Minister of Employment and Immigration): Mr. Speaker, I suggest that, under the circumstances, Air Canada had to ensure transportation services especially to the Vancouver destination. And the policy of first offering to Canadian workers the jobs in question has been followed. In view of the fact that we are dealing with Canadian companies, I suggest that the conditions as far as immigration is concerned have been met, and that the work permits were issued according to our usual procedure.


WORK PERMITS GRANTED TO PERUVIAN PILOTS
Marion Dewar: Mr. Speaker, Chapter 17 of the Manpower Directive says:
-temporary work authorizations cannot be issued to people from outside of
Canada to take the jobs of striking workers.
I wish the Minister would tell the House why they have granted temporary work permits to pilots from Peru when there are 1,200 pilots in Canada who have been laid off. We cannot get refugees in but can get temporary workers in to break strikes.


Hon. Benoit Bouchard (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I think that my Hon. friend should check her figures. As is usually the case whenever NDP Members make assumptions, they must be verified.
I will repeat what I said earlier: The policy concerning work permits for foreign workers is quite clear. The jobs are first


Corporations and Labour Unions Returns Act
offered to Canadian workers, and then to foreign workers employed by Canadian companies.
1 think my Hon. friend should have read the legislation before raising such issues in the House.


TOXIN TAINTED MUSSELS-PUBLIC WARNING
Hon. Herb Gray (Windsor West):: Mr. Speaker, 1 have a question for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. I see that he has just left the House so I will direct my question to the Deputy Prime Minister.
I want to return to the matter of the tainted mussels. The Minister of National Health and Welfare told us that lab animals first died after being tested with the tainted mussels on November 27. They continued to die on November 28. On the morning of November 29, apparently with the knowledge of the Minister, shipment of the mussels was stopped at the request of the Department, but public warning was not given until December 1, two days later.
Why was the public not informed of the danger of the mussels in question at least as soon as the industry was asked to stop shipments? Why this delay? How many people are in hospital now because of the negligence of the Government in not telling the public to stop eating these mussels at the same time as it told the industry to stop shipping them?


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Deputy Prime Minister, President of the Privy Council and President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, without agreeing in any way with the premise of the question I will take it as notice. I am sure the Hon. Minister will respond tomorrow. He has responded in some detail-


Sheila Maureen Copps: He is sneaking out.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: It is not a cop-out or sneaking out. He has responded in a very comprehensive fashion to the questions which were put. I am sure that the Minister will do so again. 1 will certainly ask him to do so tomorrow.


AVAILABILITY OF MEDICAL EVIDENCE
Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, if a sufficient medical link was established to show the connection between the mussels in question and the illnesses sufficient for the Department to tell the industry to stop the shipments in question, why was this same medical evidence not good enough to allow the public to be warned? Why the delay?
There is still no answer to this simple question. This is something important enough for the Deputy Prime Minister
himself to know the answer to. Why does he not have the answer?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, it is, of course, an important issue. Any time an Hon. Member uses the word "if' to preface his question there is hypothesis involved. This could very well be a hypothetical situation.
While in no way agreeing with the premise of the question, as I indicated, I will ask the Minister of National Health and Welfare to respond fully tomorrow.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The Hon. Pierre H. Cadieux (for the Minister of Supply
and Services) moved that Bill C-91, An Act to amend the Corporations and Labour Unions Returns Act, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Stanley J. Hovdebo: I cannot hear you.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion? Order. I apologize, I cannot speak any louder than I am right now. Has the House heard the motion? The Hon. Member for Windsor-Walkerville (Mr. McCurdy).


Mr. Howard McCurdy (Windsor-Walkerville):: Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise to speak on Bill C-91, an Act to amend the Corporations and Labour Unions Returns Act.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Order, please. 1 now realize that the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary meant to speak on behalf of the Government on this Bill. If the House would allow, I will give the floor to the Parliamentary Secretary. However, the hon. gentleman did not rise. I did ask the question three times and, if I heard him correctly, he even said "yes" to the question instead of rising and advising me that he wanted to speak. Do I have unanimous consent to give the floor to the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary?


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would like to say a few words about the situation in which we


find ourselves. It is indeed not your fault, Madam Speaker, that we are confused. Some of us thought that we would continue with the Bill which we were studying before Question Period, that is, Bill C-54. Others knew that we were going to proceed to Bill C-91. That created some confusion.
As you know, Madam Speaker, we have a speaker who wants to speak to Bill C-91. I take it that the Government will explain the Bill to us and to Canadians. We can then proceed with the normal routine.
We will comply with your wishes and cede to the Parliamentary Secretary.


John R. Rodriguez: Madam Speaker, I rise on the same point of order. You called Bill C-91. The Hon. Member for Windsor-[DOT] Walkerville (Mr. McCurdy) stood up. He was recognized and he started his speech. We are not going to start playing these games and reverting. If you wanted to speak, you should have been up.


Mr. Greenaway:: I was up.


John R. Rodriguez: They should have their act together. They should have been informed that there was a switch from Bill C-54 to Bill C-91. They obviously do not have their act together over there-


Lorne Everett Greenaway: Speak for yourself.


John R. Rodriguez: The Member has been recognized and I believe he should continue with his speech.


Lorne Everett Greenaway: Same point of order.


John R. Rodriguez: Go back to sleep.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Madam Speaker, I rise on the same point of order. I think informal discussions were held earlier this day with all three Parties, about the rhythm of business for the day. The Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier) is correct in saying that some people understood that and perhaps some others were not fully informed. It was the intention of the Government to move to Bill C-91 as the second order of business today, followed by Bill C-54, however, upon the request of the Opposition, concurred in by the Government, we agreed to move to Bill C-91 after Question Period and then return to Bill C-54 if time permitted.
As you were reading the motion there were many people in the House shouting "agreed". I know that the Member for Cariboo-Chilcotin (Mr. Greenaway) stood on at least three occasions, but it was not clear as to when the debate was going to begin and perhaps at the critical moment he was not on his feet because he had been up and down several times.
However, I think in the spirit in which we agreed to change the order of business for today it would be helpful if Members of the New Democratic Party were to give unanimous consent to hear the explanation of the Bill, to be followed by the Hon.
Corporations and Labour Unions
Member you had previously recognized. That would certainly be in keeping with the spirit which was established earlier this day, and the spirit with which the Government entered into rearrangement of the business. Failure to do that would send a different signal to the House and perhaps to the Government as well.


Lorne Everett Greenaway: Madam Speaker, I just want to make it clear that I was standing in my place on at least three occasions. If you people cannot see that, that is your tough luck. Get some glasses.


John R. Rodriguez: You were sleeping.


Lorne Everett Greenaway: I was not.


John R. Rodriguez: We do not recognize the Members, the Speaker does.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Order.


Mr. Rossi:: Madam Speaker, on the same point of order. When you referred to the motion in question, the Parliamentary Secretary was certainly not on his feet. I could see that from here. Sure, he is a friend of mine, but he was not on his feet. He just said: Question. Meanwhile, the Member for the New Democratic Party was on his feet to be recognized.


Cyril Keeper: On a point of order.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: I think all the different avenues have been-


Cyril Keeper: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. We on this side of the House would like to see the work of this Chamber proceed in an orderly manner.


Some Hon. Members:: Sit down, then.


Cyril Keeper: If I am going to hear catcalls from that side of the House, perhaps I will not say what I intended. I intended to say that in order to facilitate the business of the House we would like to hear from the Government side, in spite of the fact they were asleep at the switch. Then we will respond to what the Government has had to say.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: I understand there is unanimous consent to revert to the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary. I wish to extend my appreciation to all sides of the House and hopefully from this point we will have a pleasant afternoon.


Lorne Everett Greenaway: Madam Speaker, Bill C-91, an Act to amend the Corporations and Labour Unions Returns Act, known as CALURA, has received second reading today. This legislation which was passed in 1962 involves the reporting of ownership and financial information relating to corporations and labour unions operating in this country.


Corporations and Labour Unions
The information collected under CALURA has been reported to Parliament annually and has proven to be a unique and highly valuable reference on the extent and effects of foreign ownership and control of corporations in Canada, and on the affiliation of Canadian unions with international labour unions.
Its prime objective was and is to provide the Government and the general public with objective information on corporate concentration and the extent to which parts of the Canadian economy are owned and controlled from abroad.
When recent amendments to CALURA came into effect in 1983 corporations were required to report on a calendar year basis and to file financial data directly with the CALURA administration. This amendment, which removed the use of tax data for CALURA financial purposes, imposed a 16-page financial questionnaire on about 8,500 corporations. Many corporations were obligated to incur significant expense to meet these requirements. In addition, these same amendments introduced a complex four-page questionnaire on technology transfers.
At that time there were frequent and numerous requests to both the CALURA administration and to this Government to alleviate the paper burden imposed by this legislation on the corporate sector of the economy. This Government swiftly took action, which was warmly received by the business community. On October 8, 1985 the Minister responsible for Statistics Canada announced sweeping regulatory measures designed to reduce paper burden with respect to CALURA and to fulfil the Government's commitment to business to let the private sector operate more efficiently.
The regulatory changes exempted all corporations from filing financial returns under CALURA, whenever similar information is provided under the Income Tax Act or the Statistics Act. In addition, the complex four-page questionnaire on transfer of technology was streamlined from four pages to a few key questions. As a consequence of these initiatives, the Canadian business community has saved about $6 million annually.
During more than two decades of existence, CALURA has provided the most consistent, complete and detailed information source on the financial structures and degree of foreign ownership of the Canadian economy. This is information that has served royal commissions, government departments and the academic and business communities. Its ownership series have been the basis for virtually all Canadian reports and articles, both public and private, on corporate concentration and foreign ownership of the Canadian economy.
The CALURA reports have made it possible for us to have better knowledge of the structure and behaviour of the leading 500 non-financial enterprises in Canada. The reports show clearly how these enterprises have accounted for more than half of all sales, two-third of all assets, and almost three-fourths of profits. Of the 500 leading enterprises, just about half are foreign controlled. The United States controlled
corporations account for 75 per cent of the sales and 85 per cent of the profits of foreign controlled, non-financial corporations. These facts are essential to any discussion of the corporate sector in Canada, including competition policy and trade negotiations. They can only be established from CALURA annual reports.
CALURA ownership information is available to the public through the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. Due to widespread demands, Statistics Canada has regularly produced a highly popular directory entitled Inter-Corporate Ownership, which shows who owns and controls business in Canada. This publication has served many executives, market managers, investors, journalists and economists studying and writing on the corporate structure of the Canadian economy. Ownership data is distributed electronically by private enterprise to banks, financial institutions and other corporations across Canada.
I am told that in a previous federal budget a proposed corporate loss transfer system could not have been analysed without the CALURA ownership data. In many respects the business community itself is an important user of CALURA data, and is a prime beneficiary of this unique and valuable information.
There are other areas of CALURA where the business community has expressed concern. With this amendment the Government is taking the appropriate action to allay those concerns.
When the Act was amended in 1981 a provision was made allowing federal Government policy analysts access to financial and technology data. Since that time the business community has expressed strong concerns that this very sensitive information collected under CALURA should not be accessible outside Statistics Canada. This amending legislation will ensure the strict confidentiality of this data and reinstate a corporate fiscal year for CALURA reporting purposes. Consequently, business will be allowed to operate even more efficiently with less reporting burden and feel reassured with respect to the confidentiality of sensitive information.
The Government has already taken regulatory initiatives to significantly alleviate the burden imposed on business by CALURA, and is initiating the necessary legislative action to further reduce costs while reassuring the business community of the confidentiality of sensitive information.
In summary, this Government has fulfilled its commitment to let the private sector operate more efficiently, while protecting the public interests, by maintaining the unique information supplied by CALURA.


Don Boudria: Madam, Speaker, it is my pleasure to speak on behalf of the Liberal Party as the critic for Statistics Canada with respect to


Bill C-91, an Act to amend the Corporations and Labour Unions Returns Act, commonly referred to as CALURA.
The Government has wanted to amend this legislation for some time. In May of 1983 the previous Minister, the present Minister of Public Works (Mr. Mclnnes), had written to me suggesting at that time the changes he wanted to make to the Corporations and Labour Unions Returns Act. 1 should perhaps take this opportunity to thank the Minister for giving me the general outline of what he wanted to do at that time in terms of amending the legislation.
Subsequent to receiving that letter from the Minister I conferred with a number of people in the academic sector, and others as well, in order to ascertain the effects of making these changes to the Act in question. The Minister indicated he did not foresee any objection at all to the changes he wanted to institute, and I must report the Minister was correct. In fact, by and large, people were supportive of the initiative. However,
I should take a minute, nevertheless, to indicate, through the Parliamentary Secretary opposite, to the Minister and perhaps to the Minister's predecessor that I appreciate the advance notice given to me in describing in general terms the proposed amendment to the legislation.
The CALURA program was initiated in 1962 to determine who owns and controls businesses in Canada. The program gathers data on the degree of foreign control in the Canadian economy as well as the location where Canadian enterprises are concentrated.
This legislation provides on the one hand for the reporting of ownership and financial information for the corporations, while on the other hand provides for the reporting of membership and financial information for labour unions. The annual parliamentary reports of CALURA are a unique reference material. It gives the extent of foreign control of corporations in Canada and the affiliations of Canadians to international labour unions. That report, tabled with all Members of Parliament every year, a copy of which I have in hand, has been a very useful tool to me as a Member of Parliament in terms of determining what control foreign ownership has in our economy, and, of course, in our labour unions.
In 1983, the previous Government made a number of amendments to the legislation. It established at that time calendar year reporting. This was at the request of certain government Departments, particularly the Department of Regional Industrial Expansion, which felt it would be more useful to it to have the information on a calendar year basis. Another feature of the 1983 Bill was the imposition of a 16-page financial questionnaire on corporations and labour unions. That was in addition to a 4-page questionnaire on technology transfer which again has proven to be a useful tool.
Notwithstanding those useful changes, it soon became apparent that the requirement of filing on an annual basis was not convenient for corporations and labour unions simply because it is not the way in which a large number of them operate their enterprises. Most people operate their fiscal year
Corporations and Labour Unions
based on whatever is more convenient to them in their own business, having regard for the period of the year when they are less preoccupied with other things.
The Government some years ago also provided a number of regulatory changes to the Act. The Act does provide for the Minister to order certain procedures to be performed by regulation. Some of those regulatory changes made in 1983 concern corporations whose financial information can be obtained under the Income Tax Act or the Statistics Act. Therefore, the 1983 amendment made it possible to get the information elsewhere, saving some individuals from having to comply with the Corporations and Labour Unions Returns Act.
I understand that through the amendments that were made recently to the regulations, and with the passage of this Bill, the Government estimates that it will be able to save some $6 million annually for the business community because the majority of companies will now have been exempted from reporting financial information.
We do have a few concerns and I want to express them briefly, just to bring them to the attention of the Parliamentary Secretary and, through him, to his Minister.
The proposal in the Bill stipulates that the data collection be made on a fiscal year basis as opposed to the present calendar year collection. While I have no objection to that, because it will save money for corporations and possibly for labour unions, I think it is important to note that those changes should be done in such a way as to ensure that during the first year of change the information provided to Parliament in the annual report of CALURA remains as exact as possible. When we are transferring from calendar year to fiscal year there could be a certain degree of inaccuracy in the first year of change. I have met with officials of Statistics Canada. They have informed me that in fact the calendar year they had was really a "modified" calendar year. In other words, it did not operate purely from January to December. The present legislation provided that there could be a two or three month flexibility in terms of the reporting period. In view of the fact that a large number of corporations already have a year-end in November, December, January or February, there will be a certain degree of accuracy built in, because the existing system was not the pure calendar year, but a flexible or modified calendar year, as Statistics Canada has recently called it.
Therefore, there are provisions to correct that. Notwithstanding that, I am looking for the assurance from the Minister or the Parliamentary Secretary that the accuracy of the results in the transitional year will be as good as it has been in the past.
I wish to refer to the second part of the Bill, which is to amend the Corporations and Labour Unions Returns Act. It is an extremely valuable source of information in regard to foreign control of the Canadian economy, and we have all


Corporations and Labour Unions
acknowledged that fact. The Parliamentary Secretary did so in his speech, and so did I a few moments ago. It is reassuring to know that part of the Act referring to the mandate of CALU-RA will not be affected by the new Bill in question.
We must recognize that there has been very little demand from policy Departments for the confidential data. That was part of the existing legislation, and I am told that the last time any government Department requested confidential CALURA information as opposed to the one that is published, was in the years 1983-84 when the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources sought information for a survey that the Petroleum Monitoring Agency Canada was carrying out. I understand that there also could have been a request made by the International Trade Commission in the preparation of the so-called free trade negotiations that are under way, or perhaps just terminated.
Under the present system, I am told that the confidentiality of the information is ensured by requiring that the Minister of the policy Department make a formal request for the data and state the reason he requires or his Department requires the information.
It is not too clear to me why the Government is restating the objective of protecting confidentiality, when that is already there under existing legislation. Nevertheless, if it is a double assurance and it makes people feel a little less apprehensive about sharing their information, so be it. It is important for those who are providing information for statistical purposes to have all types of assurance and whatever assurance they require in order that the information we receive will be as accurate as possible.
It was the previous Liberal Government in 1981 that fought quite hard with the business community in particular to give a policy Department access to that information. It did raise some controversy at that time. The initiative that was taken then did raise the ire of some people. I think it has been proven through the last six or seven years that there has been no abuse of that system. I suppose, apart from everything else, it does highlight once more the confidence that I have in Statistics Canada in carrying out its mandate and keeping information confidential.
As I stated previously, the regulatory changes to CALURA will yield somewhere in the order of $6 million to the companies involved, because of the paper burden that will be removed from them. Those changes were made possible because of recent regulatory changes. I am told that, as a result of Bill C-91, there could be another $1 million saved by companies. We would also have to add to that the savings by Government. It is very important that all of us who are custodians of the public purse ensure that taxpayers' money is not squandered uselessly, particularly when some of the information is not used.
The last comment I wish to make is perhaps a little more in the area of a recommendation. We think that this matter should be taken up at a legislative committee rather than being
dealt with by Committee of the Whole of the House. Sometimes when non-controversial Bills such as this come up, we do agree among ourselves to deal with the legislation in the House in Committee of the Whole rather than to send it to a legislative committee.
Although the Government has not made a request at this time, I wish to go on record as indicating that it would be important for this Bill to be dealt with at a legislative committee. The reason for that is, in the event that there are concerns by the academic community and by the users of CALURA generally that those changes could cause anyone hardship, that it would give us an opportunity to hear those grievances and to amend the legislation accordingly, if amendments are necessary.

Madam Speaker, I would like to use the time I have left to reiterate the confidence that I imagine all Members of this House have in Statistics Canada, a federal Government agency that, in my opinion, does a good job. I am thinking particularly of a document Statistics Canada published a few years ago, which contained information on demographic, social, financial and other conditions in our respective ridings. All Members received a copy of this publication in the fall of 1984, only a few months after the election, and I found it very useful in my work.
I would like to take this opportunity to thank those who took the initiative of drafting this document and having it distributed. The document contains different information for each Member since our ridings are different, and can be very useful to those who are anxious to provide satisfactory representation for their constituents and to know what kind of impact Government legislation and measures have on our respective ridings.
At this point, perhaps I may suggest that now we have the data on the 1986 Census, perhaps Statistics Canada could provide Members with an updated version. Considering the fact that as of July 13 next year, electoral boundaries will be changed, I think it would be appropriate for Statistics Canada to make arrangements now for providing Members with a document on their electoral districts that would be updated in terms of the new boundaries we will have to cope with if elections are held after July 13, 1988.
As I said before, I want to take this opportunity to congratulate Statistics Canada on an initiative that has proved very useful. Madam Speaker, you may be wondering whether this last statement has any connection with the Bill before the House at this time. I am inclined to think so, because the document in question, which is quite detailed, probably uses some of the information provided under the Bill or the legislation we are now considering.
In any case, Madam Speaker, I would like to say, in concluding, that at least in our Party, we see no reason for preventing this Bill from going through the usual process and


being referred to the appropriate legislative committee, and that is why I would like to encourage Hon. Members to take the same line so that proceedings on this Bill will not take any longer than necessary and the Bill can be referred to a legislative committee as soon as possible.


Howard Douglas McCurdy: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak on second reading of Bill C-91, an Act to amend the Corporations and Labour Unions Returns Act. Let me say at the outset that my Party does not have serious difficulty with the piece of legislation, on the contrary, in that it simplifies the reporting requirements particularly for some 2,000 to 2,500 smaller corporations, we certainly support any initiative that will cut down on the degree of expense and inconvenience that small companies must bear.
As other speakers have indicated, of course it is important that the information be made available. The Corporations and Labour Unions Returns Act provides information in respect of ownership and international relationships among companies and unions in Canada. I was interested, I would have to note in passing, that according to the information being used by politicians or the peoples' representatives, the press, academics, and so on in respect of establishing the extent of foreign ownership of Canadian corporations, the Parliamentary Secretary indicated that some 500 major corporations in Canada are approximately 50 per cent owned by concerns in the United States. I should like to note in passing that these 500 companies are the only ones which will be substantially excluded from the new investment rules which will come into force as a result of the trade agreement with the United States. We are faced with a situation at the very outset in which half of the 500 corporations which will be excluded from the new rules are already owned by external interests. Of course, this is of great interest to us in terms of recording and being able to identify the extent of the ownership of Canadian industry.
CALURA will be of a great deal of significance a future time when it might be anticipated that there will be broader and greater ownership of Canadian industry and services as a result of the free trade agreement.
That being said, the legislation before us is relatively simple in that it proposes to amend two aspects of the Corporations and Labour Unions Returns Act. As matters now stand, the reporting period is roughly the calendar year. In fact, what it says is that reporting will be done between October 30 and January 31, and that that period of time should be a time during which the reporting period reported upon will be no less than 12 months and no more than 53 weeks.
As matters presently stand, larger corporations can submit the information provided in the income tax and Statistics Canada quarterly reports. The changes which are being introduced here establish that the reporting period will be the
Corporations and Labour Unions
fiscal year. There will be provided 90 days subsequent to a fiscal year during which the reporting is to be completed.
Of course this means that there will be no necessity for duplication of income tax returns, as an example, with CALURA reports. Inevitably that will mean considerable savings and simplification for the smaller companies which I cited at the outset. This seems rational.
There may be those people who may wonder whether this might somehow disturb the correspondence of information among various reporters in respect of the gathering of good and useful statistics, as my colleague in the Official Opposition indicated. However, it has already been found that the October to January period has not been very helpful in providing specific comparative analyses of performance. That objection need not be examined as having a very severe effect on the adequacy of Statistics Canada information.
The second amendment involves the removal of the rights of policy developers in the federal Government to access privileged information submitted by corporations in respect of balance sheets, statements of assets and liabilities, investments, retained earnings, and so on, and in respect of transactions involving the movement of technology from persons not resident in Canada.
It has been argued that this is not a power which has been used with great frequency and that, as it is of considerable concern to corporations that certain kinds of information be kept confidential. It is preferable from their point of view to make these changes. However, it occurs to me that some caution might be exercised in respect of this amendment.
Of course I think of what is happening with profits earned by foreign companies operating in Canada, what kinds of investments are being made, where those investments are being made, and where and by whom earnings are being retained. It is of some considerable significance to Canadians whether profits earned in Canada will be reinvested in Canada. In respect of what we think is an appropriate exercise of authority by Investment Canada, it would seem to us that that kind of information should be available to us.
In respect of technology, an area of some considerable importance, one must wonder whether or not we are putting ourselves in a position where we will not be able to evaluate the extent to which technology is gained by Canada through a specific corporation and to what extent technology is shipped out of the country, as it was by Bata Limited in an incident that I quoted not very long ago, in which technology developed in Canada was shipped outside Canada. If that is supposed to be beneficial to Canadians in a net way, surely it must be predicated upon the extent to which reciprocal transfer of technology into Canada has benefited us.
This is an area which I think requires more thorough examination, just as in general I think it is important to take note of the tendency on the part of the Government to attempt to know less and less, and therefore for Canadians to know less


Criminal Code
and less, about what is going on in the corporate world in respect of investment, ownership, how in fact Canadians benefit from such foreign owned companies, and where, having been provided that information, there needs to be some regulatory imposition on such companies to ensure that their operations here are to the benefit of Canada and Canadians.
However, we certainly support the simplification of the reporting regime which, as I indicated at the outset, will help small business more than any other group. We think small business has too much of a burden already and, to the extent that that can be lessened, we certainly support this legislation. I presume those other matters which 1 have raised will be considered in committee.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Is the House ready for the question?


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: 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]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Hnatyshyn that Bill C-54, an Act to amend the Criminal Code and other Acts in consequence thereof, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee; and the amendment of Mr. Robinson (p. 11291).
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: When debate was interrupted at one o'clock p.m, the Hon. Member for Yukon (Ms. McLaughlin) had completed her speech. As the Hon. Member is not in the House, the period for questions and comments cannot take place. The Chair is now prepared to recognize Hon. Members for debate. The Hon. Member for Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands (Mr. Manly).


James Douglas Manly: Madam Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to speak on Bill C-54 and on the whole question of pornography, which is not an easy topic for any Member of this House to address. I think, however, it is very important for us to try to deal with it, but I do not believe that Bill C-54 is necessarily the best or the most appropriate way to address the question of pornography.
I have received many letters from constituents both pro and con. To a lesser extent people are against this Bill, but I have
received a considerable amount of correspondence from people who are in favour of it.
Bill C-54 would amend the Criminal Code by deleting the present sections dealing with obscenity and adding new laws relating to the production, distribution, sale and possession of material which the Bill defines as either erotica or pornography, namely, visual or other material relating to various forms of sexual activity.
The concepts of erotica and pornography are fairly recent ones. The Oxford English dictionary indicates that the word "pornographer" was first used in 1850 about someone who wrote about prostitutes. The word "pornography" was first used in a medical dictionary in 1857 and defined as a description of prostitutes or of prostitution as a matter of public hygiene. The word "pornographic" was first used in 1880 in The Guardian which said:
The excess of the French press designated as "pornographic" have become
such as to compel the authorities to adopt strong measures against them.
While the use of the word "erotic" goes back to the 1650s, the specific use of the word "erotica" dates from the 1850s. These, therefore, are comparatively recent concepts but, of course, attempts to use law to control material about sexual activity go back much further.
I want to suggest to the House that erotica and pornography present problems to our society and in our society because sex itself is problematic in our particular society. We have a whole constellation of meanings and attitudes which cluster around accepted sex. On the one hand, physical pleasure, procreation, love, communication and sharing. On the other hand, there is a great deal of attitude surrounding sex dealing with power, dominance, frustration, impurities, sin and disease. So we have some very confusing attitudes and emotions when we start talking about sex.
D. H. Lawrence, who was falsely accused of writing pornography and suffered from censorship, wrote in one of his poems:
Why were we crucified into sex? Why were we not left rounded off and
Finished in ourselves?
As a society, we are not very successful in dealing with sex. Probably we are more successful in dealing with it in the 1980s than we were in the 1940s and 1950s when I was growing up. Certainly we are more successful in dealing with it now than we were in the Victorian or puritan ages which were very repressive on an official basis but where the double standard reigned supreme.
The sexual revolution of the 1960s and 1970s had some very positive values that I think we need to recognize as a society. At the same time, in some other ways,-and feminists have pointed this out, which I think is very important-the sexual revolution of the 1960s and 1970s reinforced sexism, and the proliferation of both soft-core and hard-core pornography is a symptom of that reinforced sexism. In turn, as a symptom, in a kind of cyclical concept it becomes a cause of further sexism.


The Fraser Commission on prostitution and pornography points out that the per capita circulation in Canada of 17 different magazines that dealt with so-called adult material between 1965 and 1981 increased 3.5 times. However, as the Fraser Commission pointed out later on, we still do not have much information about the actual patterns of the use of this kind of pornographic material.
It is important that we look at what some of the people told the Fraser Commission about the impact of pornography. I would like to read first from the brief of the Manitoba Advisory Council on the Status of Women in Winnipeg which said:
All pornography degrades women. The spectrum of soft to hard core is often alluded to, with the implicit or explicit connection that hard core pornography is dangerous, while soft core pornography is not, or at least, not so dangerous. We dispute this. All pornography is dangerous to women, because it robs us of our dignity, the right to be treated with respect as complete beings, and it squanders our needs as men and women to engage with others as equals.
The Ontario Advisory Council on the Status of Women in Toronto told the committee:
Pornography is unacceptable not because it portrays explicit sex but because it promotes hatred, violence, degradation and dehumanization. Pornography is sexist material that portrays women as a distinct sub-human species that does not feel pain or humiliation in the same way as men, and which desire violence and degradation for sexual pleasure. Pornography advocates, encourages and condones coercion, sexual violence and battering and portrays these activities as normal behaviour. As an expression of sexist ideology, pornography promotes a climate in which acts of sexual hostility directed against women are not only tolerated but ideologically encouraged.
Women are-terrorized by the message that male violence and power is so prevalent and menacing. Pornography alienates women and men. In no way does it foster healthy sexual or human relations any more than other forms of hate literature would foster healthy relations between races or religions.
The provincial Advisory Council on the Status of Women from St. John's, Newfoundland said:
-exposure to pornography leads to an increase in violent sexual crimes and aggressive anti-social behaviour. The person exposed to pornography is being conditioned to think that not only is violence socially acceptable but that it is sexually stimulating and that the person who is unwilling to be the recipient of the violent act will enjoy if forced to submit-
Pornography suggests that a woman's value lies in her physical appearance and her ability to sexually satisfy a man. All other capabilities are trivialized ... Pornography undermines values that are important to our society because it dehumanizes the participants, desensitizes the viewers to the sufferings of others, and distorts mutual, caring expression into a base act committed by a powerful figure upon a powerless object.
It is important that we recognize the impact of pornography upon the economic status of women. The economist Carl Beigie told the committee:
-it is pornography, the most visible and virulent symptom/ form of sexism that may continue to segregate women's abilities from the economic mainstream long after legislation protecting equal pay for work of equal value, or prohibiting sexual harassment, or even encouraging affirmative action is in place and is being practised . .. (Pornography is) as much to blame for the slow integration of women into our economic framework as any other manifestation of sexist attitudes.
Criminal Code
I believe that is an extremely important statement for this House to consider. By taking a generally derogatory approach to women, pornography makes it easier for our society to relegate women to a lower economic status than would otherwise be the case.
Of course, child pornography is a blatant exploitation of children that is absolutely, completely unacceptable in our society. I would like to refer to some of the things the Badgley Commission on sexual offences against children said in its report. It said:
Child pornography is a direct and palpable product of child sexual abuse. It comes into existence, and can only come into existence, through the base and coldly premeditated exploitation of a young person's sexual vulnerability ...
First, child pornography is produced directly through the sexual abuse of young persons.
It is a manifestation of that abuse which is sufficiently distinct and unacceptable to warrant separate treatment by the criminal law.
Second, child pornography constitutes a permanent record of a child's sexual exploitation and the harm and humiliation to the child are exacerbated by the circulation, distribution or sale of such materials.
Third, materials which depict children engaged in sexual conduct are often solicited by adults who use the material to persuade other children to engage in similar conduct or who are themselves child molesters. The Committee's findings in this regard bear out this fact.
The commission went on to say:
The availability of child pornography also constitutes a message to the consumers of this liatter that children are available for these purposes. Where a young person has been used in the making of pornographic visual material, it is of course irrelevant whether some view the material as having literary, artistic or aesthetic value. Plainly, the offences relating to obscene publications are based on different policy considerations than those which operate in the context of child pornography.
It is important for us to recognize that, quite apart from any artistic merit that anyone might want to recognize in child pornography, the pornography itself, the creation of visual child pornography, involves the exploitation of children and therefore cannot be condoned.
The committee went on:
The Committee's recommendations concerning child pornography are restricted to visual pornographic depictions of persons under the age of 18. Paedophilic literature and visual pornographic depictions involving persons 18 or older would be subject to the general obscenity provisions in ... the Criminal Code. In the Committee's judgment, a special child pornography prohibition attacks, not the legitimate expression of ideas, but rather a form of criminal conduct that is clearly inimical to the well-being of young children and youths.
Unfortunately, Bill C-54 does not focus on this kind of specific child pornography. Instead, it paints with a very broad brush. It ignores the recommendation made by the Badgley Commission that child pornography is deserving of and requires something specifically addressed to it.
The Fraser Commission, time and again, pointed to the lack of adequate research on the whole question of pornography, including research into the extent of its use in Canada and the extent to which its use affects individual and societal behaviour. However, I think the burden of proof is on the people who are using and producing it at this time. We are talking about


Criminal Code
an apparent connection between the use of pornography and the growing violence against women and children. There is a great deal of concern in society about this link, even though it cannot be statistically established.
The question we need to ask in this House is how effective the law can be in dealing with the problems posed to society by pornography. As I said, the issue of child pornography as outlined by the Badgley Commission is different. The value of law in dealing with a question such as pornography is limited at best. Any legislation must walk a very narrow line, perhaps a non-existent line, between a law that will not destroy the freedom of speech and the freedom of artistic expression, which is so important to society, on the one hand, and a law that will be effective in controlling the most objectionable aspects of pornography on the other. The more effective the law is in dealing with the question of objectionable pornography, the more violence it does to civil liberties.
As we all know, the present obscenity laws are largely ineffective and almost somewhat of a joke. I recall that about 30 years ago, some of my friends and I had the equivalent of a theological wild weekend in Seattle. We decided we would buy some books in Seattle and bring them back across the border, declaring them to be religious, because religious books could be brought into Canada at that time without paying any duty.
We bought four books. I forget what the fourth book was, but the first one was St. Augustine's The City of God, and it was to carry the freight for the other books because it was very obviously religious. No one could dispute that. The second was a collection of the writings of Sigmund Freud, and we were able to explain to the customs official that Sigmund Freud was very important in the modern theological world, which of course he is, and that therefore this should be categorized as religious.
Where we got into difficulty was with a collection of stories by Dostoyevsky. These stories were told by a group of travellers on different nights. Unfortunately for us, the chapter headings of these stories were: "The First Night, The Second Night, The Third Night" and so on. When the customs official saw this, he became very upset and agitated. He swore a mild oath and said he could not decide if this book was religious and should be let in duty-free or if it was pornographic and should be banned.
Mr. Bumble in Dickens' Oliver Twist said: "the law is a ass". Never more is the law an ass than when it is trying to deal with questions of pornography.


Cyril Keeper: If it's naked, its pornographic.


James Douglas Manly: Right.
Anne Cameron is a well-known writer from British Columbia. Her most recent book is called the Dzelarhons, and it is a collection of Indian legends from the northwest coast of British Columbia. One of these stories concerns a woman who mated with a bear.
Last summer, a Vancouver bookstore called Little Sisters ordered this book from its U.S. distributors instead of from the Canadian publishers, which it could have done. As the book came through Canada Customs, it was held up at the border because this story of the woman mating with the bear was considered to be bestiality. I would like to read the passage that was so offensive. I do not think it will offend anyone in this House. It reads:
But then all the others went to bed and left her alone with this young bear man who was now her husband. As we all know, or if we do not know we can certainly imagine, animals are not built the same way as people and it was never intended by creation that they mate together. The bear sat with his legs apart, and he grabbed the young woman, and he sat her down, almost, but not quite, on his lap. She wept, again, and she did not like the smell of him, nor the feel of his hairy body, and she certainly did not like the way he handled her. And when the bear finally lay down and went to sleep, the Muddlehead was exhausted and aching from his rough embraces.
That is hardly the sort of material that we need a law to prohibit from coming into Canada. The bookstore that was attempting to import this is called Little Sisters. Perhaps the fact that the bookstore attempting to import this specializes in gay literature and has been a constant target of harassment by customs officials explains the reason for holding up this material. Gay literature is often made a target for censorship.
In conclusion, is Bill C-54 any different from other obscenity legislation? Unfortunately, the definition of pornography is too broad. It says:
"pornography" means
(a) any visual matter that shows
(iv) a degrading act in a sexual context, including an act by which one person treats that person or any other person as an animal or object,-
We can all agree that it is not desirable to treat another person as an animal or object, but how can we define material like that? The definition talks about bestiality. Leda and the Swan is one of the founding myths of western society. The definition talks about incest. We have the biblical story of Lot sleeping with his two daughters to ensure survival of the race. We have the biblical story of the rape of Tamar.
I would give this Bill my reluctant support if the definition of pornography could be cleaned up and there could be some assurance of continued freedom of expression. Unfortunately, in its present form, I cannot support it.


Cyril Keeper: Madam Speaker, I noted on page six, Clause 159.6(a), the defence that:
(a) the accused took all reasonable steps to ensure that there was no erotica in the thing sold, rented, offered for sale or rental,-
What the legislation is saying is that someone accused of engaging in pornographic activities could use as a defence the fact that there was no erotica involved. It appears on first reading that there is no distinction made between erotica and pornography. Can my colleague comment on the fact that everything that could be described as erotica seems to fall


within the purview of this legislation? Should there not be some distinction between erotica and pornography here?


James Douglas Manly: Madam Speaker, the Bill does draw some distinction between erotica and pornography, but it is not clear enough. Some material which I think most Canadians would define as erotica is defined in this legislation as pornographic.
What we need to recognize when we are dealing with this question is that while erotica is something many Canadians, perhaps a majority, would see as being a desirable element of our society in culture, pornography is not. Yet by attempting to clamp down on pornography with this kind of legislation, which uses such a broad brush, we are confusing the line between the two. We are going to open the door to court challenges. I am sure all kinds of artists who will want to challenge this will be presenting material. Some of it will be very mediocre, but because it is artistic, it will require that the rest of the arts community defend it. We are setting ourselves up for a challenge in ways that this legislation will not be able to stand up to. Therefore, it will not do what it is intended to do and deal with the underlying questions of pornography, violence against women, and the sexism which continues to prevail in our society. We need a different approach.
if we can have a better and tighter definition of pornography, if we can have the kind of protection of freedom of expression and freedom of speech which our society wants, then I am prepared to give my reluctant consent to this. I say "reluctant" because I think any kind of legislation restricting human expression is a confession of failure. This legislation is a confession of the failure of our society to deal adequately with the question of sexuality. It is a reflection of our failure to deal with the question of violence.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Madam Speaker, I just want to be clear. I think what I heard the Hon. Member saying is that he prefers the present situation, which provides little if any protection to women and children from the kinds of things we are all concerned about, to the alternative of moving this Bill to committee, holding public hearings, considering amendments, and changing things to create the kind of world he talks about. He prefers a process which will stop us dead in our tracks. That means he prefers the present situation which provides little if any protection to women and children. Is that what I am hearing clearly from the Hon. Member? Is he saying, let us stay where we are instead of moving to a parliamentary committee to hear witnesses and have the chance to amend the Bill?


James Douglas Manly: Madam Speaker, absolutely not. The Hon. Member is completely distorting my position. The Badgley Commission suggested that there be separate and distinct legislation, for example, dealing with child pornography. I endorse that stand and I would like to see the House move on that. It could move very quickly if legislation were brought in.
With regard to the broader question of pornography, I believe that in the present situation it is necessary to have some
Criminal Code
restrictions. I feel that very reluctantly but I believe it is necessary. Yet this present legislation is too sweeping. It goes too far. I prefer that the Government take this Bill back, sit down and consult with the arts community and the people who are concerned about pornography, reread the Fraser Commission report and the Badgley Commission report, and bring in legislation acceptable to Canadians. Let it bring in legislation that would deal with this situation, rather than something that is unacceptable and will probably not stand up in court. It will just make a farce of the whole procedure.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Madam Speaker, we are debating an amendment which would stop this legislation dead and continue the current situation. I thought I heard a speech in support of the amendment. Does he intend to vote for the amendment or against it? If he votes for it and it succeeds, it stops the legislation dead and the present situation continues. Which is it?


James Douglas Manly: I have been very clear. Certainly I will be voting for the amendment. We say this Bill is unacceptable. We would like the Government to bring in the kind of legislation I just referred to. First, it should deal specifically with the question of child pornography. That will get very quick and favourable treatment if it follows the recommendations of the Badgley Commission.
Second, we want legislation which will deal with the question of pornography and violence but not that which will confuse the boundary line between erotica and pornography. We do not want legislation that will not stand up to the scrutiny of the Canadian people. This legislation will not work. We are simply doing our duty by saying that it is not acceptable and that the Government should take it back to the drawing board.
We are not rejecting an attempt to deal with a very serious situation in society. I have outlined my position on that very clearly. We want the Government to deal with this situation in a way which will not trample on the rights of Canadians of free speech and artistic expression, in a way which will not create a law which will give added weight to the old saying of Mr. Bumble that "the law is a ass".


Cyril Keeper: Madam Speaker, I have a further question for my hon. colleague. A good part of his speech dealt with the shortcomings of this legislation, which is quite legitimate. I recognize that my colleague is saying that there is need for action in the area of pornography. I am convinced of that argument, particularly given the greater distribution of violent pornography as it affects women.
Would my colleague be prepared to elaborate on the impact of pornography, particularly the portrayal of violent sexual activity as it affects women? Would he elaborate on why there is a need now for effective legislation in this area?


Criminal Code


James Douglas Manly: Madam Speaker, as I mentioned earlier, the Fraser Commission pointed out that it is difficult to draw direct connecting links because a lot of the base research has not been done. However, there is a great deal of circumstantial evidence that violence toward women is promoted and encouraged by this kind of pornography.
Material which shows violence against women desensitizes people until they think that this kind of conduct is acceptable. It sets up a model of an acceptable way in which men will treat women. Even the so-called soft-core pornography portrays women as being "bimbos", to use the word of Jessica, as less than fully human. That in turn encourages some men to treat them as being less than human.


Cyril Keeper: Madam Speaker, 1 appreciate the opportunity to enter into debate on this legislation. I think we are at an historic turning point in the public debate on pornography. There is a reshaping of the debate on pornography to deal with the emergence of equality between the sexes, with the new demand that women be treated on an equal footing with men rather than as objects, the victims of society, and second-class citizens. The whole debate on pornography is rightly being reframed in order to achieve equality between the sexes.
I want to make it clear that I believe there is some need for legislation with regard to pornography. However, I believe there are a couple of extreme points of view on pornography which have entered this debate. There are two opposite points of view on how we should deal with the matter. The first point of view may be called an extreme civil libertarian point of view. It is that there should be no censorship whatsoever of any adult material including violent pornography. This position is taken by the Civil Liberties Association, a respectable organization, and by some feminists including June Callwood and Varda Burstyn.
On the other hand, there are those people who say that there should be censorship of all sexual material. The position that all material including sexual acts should be censored is taken by fundamentalist religious groups such as the Inter-Church Committee on Pornography, Canadians for Decency, the Canadian Coalition for Family Values, REAL Women, and right-wing members of the Conservative caucus. Those are the two opposite points of view with regard to pornography which, of course, cannot both be sustained. One must prevail over the other.
I do not share the point of view that all sexual material should be censored. I believe that there is a need for balance in our approach on pornography as well as a need for a modern perspective. I, my Party, and, I believe, the majority of Canadians, take the position that there is a need for censorship of violent or degrading sexual material, but not of erotica. There is a need for a distinction to be made between violent and degrading sexual material on the one hand and erotica on the other. Violent and degrading material should be censored.
This position is shared by the National Action Committee on the Status of Women, many women's groups across the country, and large numbers of the public. It is also the position of the federal New Democratic Party.
We need a balanced and modern perspective on pornography. The debate is no longer limited to freedom of expression on the one hand and the banning of all materials describing sexual activity on the other. The original debate on pornography was framed in that way, and those with the point of view of freedom of expression won the day.
Society has changed since then. Women have become equal partners in society. They are equal partners in the decisionmaking process of society and have raised their voices to indicate that they are not prepared to tolerate the violent and degrading depiction of sexual activities, which has become an $8 billion industry on this continent that sells violent activity under the label of sexual material. In fact, the essence of it is violent activities with a sexual aspect only as a backdrop to what is taking place.
This enormous industry lives off the profits from selling violent and degrading depictions of women in sexual activity. While this industry flourishes and defends itself under the rubric of freedom of speech and expression, it is being challenged by women who are demanding to be treated as equal members of society. These women are also challenging legislators and citizens to redefine the debate on the whole question of pornography. We must recognize that the depiction of sexual activity in a violent manner and the depiction of women as the willing victims of violence is unacceptable in our country.
As my colleague said, it may be too early to conclude whether these depictions of violent pornography have an impact on human behaviour and encourage men to engage in rape or other violent activity toward women. Obviously, there are studies that indicate that these images have such an impact, but there are other authorities who claim that these images do not have such an impact.
Personally, I want to see more evidence before I am persuaded that images of violent sexual activity do not have an impact on human behaviour. I have three children aged 10, 8 and 6. I have observed them as they watched violent images on television during a Saturday morning program of cartoons. In spite of my best parenting efforts, they of course act out those images in the stories they see on television. As a layman, I think that is prima facie evidence that theatrical or video portrayals have an effect on human behaviour. Unless there is some sound scientific studies that overwhelmingly lead to the conclusion that people can watch such images without having any impact on their behaviour, I have serious concerns about an $8 billion industry which continues to show violent sexual activity with women and portray women as victims.


I am prepared to take a new, balanced approach toward the question of censorship of pornography from a perspective which recognizes the freedom of expression on the one hand and the desire to eliminate the negative impact that results from the degrading and violent portrayal of women in sexual activity on the other. It is no longer acceptable to permit anything for the sake of freedom of expression. I believe that the majority of Canadians want to reconsider such a philosophy and take a balanced approach in which we preserve freedom of expression on the one hand while attempting to reduce and, hopefully, eliminate the violent and degrading portrayal of women in a sexual context.
We need legislation that will curtail the pornographic industry while preserving freedom of expression. It is not enough simply to take the approach of ridding the pornographic industry and its products regardless of freedom of expression. I do not believe that reflects the value of ordinary Canadians, and such an approach will simply result in the legislation being challenged in the courts and rendered ineffective. The disturbing aspect of the Government's legislation is that its definition of pornography is so sweeping that it invites a challenge in the courts under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
The Government may want to appear that it is taking decisive action on pornography, but unless such action is effective it will be a waste of time. Not only is this legislation a facade with regard to pornography, it is also dangerous with regard to freedom of expression. The lack of definition of pornography leaves such sweeping powers in the hands of the police and courts that much of the literature we want to continue to be available will be threatened. This legislation makes it entirely possible that classic literature and even sacred Scriptures could be threatened. Even the Bible could be brought into court according to this legislation. It is obvious that it does not contain a precise definition of pornography. It does not make a distinction between pornography and erotica.
If the Government is serious about dealing with the problem of pornography, it must begin by making some distinction that will allow for freedom of expression and effective action against pornography in this country.
I wish to point out some specific critiques of the legislation. I wish to make it quite clear that while I feel there is a need for effective legislation regarding pornography in this country, this legislation is not it. This legislation before us falls short and is too broad in its impact.
For example, this legislation places the onus for proving material is not pornographic on the back of the artist. We all know that, from a financial point of view, artists are struggling members of our community. An artist is lucky to make a few dollars and very fortunate to make a living in this country. If thrown on top of the necessity of producing art is not only the making of a living but also the financial burden of taking on
Criminal Code
court challenges with regard to the artistic material, then this is an unfair burden to place on the back of our artists. We all know how expensive a day in court can be, certainly a day in Supreme Court can be very expensive. Artists are struggling to survive and to be active members of our community. That is one of the negative aspects of this legislation that I wish to mention.
Another aspect is that the defence of artistic merit for educational, scientific, and medical purposes, does not apply to any depictions of sexual activity in the presence of or involving persons who appear to be under the age of 18 years. That means that fundamental aspects of teaching of human sexuality to young people in books such as Show Me, which has a graphic depiction of matters related to sexuality, could be outlawed under this legislation; or the police could step in and the courts could indicate that this type of material, such as that contained in the book Show Me, which is intended to educate children in the area of sexuality, would no longer be permissible. Obviously we want our children to receive good education with regard to sexuality. We want them to receive the facts and solid information. We do not want them to be learning about sexuality on the streets. We want them to learn at home and to be able to have solid information.
There are serious problems with this legislation. The fundamental and key problem with this legislation is its lack of a definition of pornography. The impact of this legislation is far too sweeping. It takes into its swath too much, and it will not only hit pornography but educational materials, scientific materials, and artistic materials.
We do need action in the area of pornography. We do need to be able to balance the concern about freedom of expression with the concern about taking effective action against the violent and degrading portrayal of sexual activities and of women, but this legislation is not it. It is far too sweeping in its lack of definition of pornography. It fails to make a distinction between pornography and erotica. We cannot support this legislation. That is why my colleague moved the amendment that:
this House declines to give second reading to Bill C-54 because it fails to clearly define pornography as material that condones violence, coercion, abuse and degradation in its depiction of human beings or portrays or promotes the sexual exploitation of children; and also, because it does not distinguish pornography from material of an artistic, literary, educational or scientific nature in a fashion acceptable to the Canadian public, including artists.
We call for effective legislation that will attack the pornographic industry, and will allow for freedom of expression. This legislation simply does not fill the Bill.


Michael Morris Cassidy: Madam Speaker, I wish to ask a question of my colleague, the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Keeper), who is, among other things, the Post Office critic for the New Democratic Party. I wish to ask him specifically what types of risks I or any other Canadian might be facing because of material which is perhaps passing through the post, or material which I may have in my home, as a consequence of the very broad definitions that are in Bill C-54.


Criminal Code
As I suggested the other day, as I understand it, for example, a copy of the Arabian Nights, which I have had in my book shelves for many years without apparent ill effect, would in fact be illegal to be possessed by me and in my house because of the fact that certain of the pictures might be deemed to be erotic pictures and involving persons apparently under the age of 18, and as a consequence no defence on the basis of artistic merit would be admissible.
In fact, the thought police from the Conservative Party could come into my study in my home and start picking through the books which I happen to have in my library, and in their view decide which books were pornographic. They could then take me into court and deny me any defence, simply because I bought a book 25 years ago. Having that book could render me liable to being put in jail, or to some other type of conviction.
If I were to be sent material in the post, or received material in the post, or ordered a book from a legitimate American or British bookseller in New York City or London without knowing exactly what was in the book, but ordered it because it was of interest to me, and the book was a work by a famous novelist and it was found addressed to me and having been chosen by me to come to me in the post, there again I could be jailed for having that material.
For example, if I happened to communicate with a bookseller of used books and asked for a copy of Vladimir Nabokov's novel Lolita, which, among other things, is a profound criticism of the nature of American life and society as it developed in the 1950s and 1960s, I believe that I am correct in stating that the possession of that book would be an offence for which I would be liable to penalties which are not much different from those meted out to someone who burgles, breaks into a shop, or in some other way commits a violent act such as an assault.
I wish to know from the Hon. Member if that is the case, and if he considers it is reasonable to put people in such jeopardy? Should we allow conservative thought police or people who are prurient in their interests and their views to the point of being ridiculous to be able to go into every public library across the country and to leaf through every book until they find the so-called "dirty" bits, and then, having found those, to salivate at the look of them, and then to rush off to the local police station in order to have the police come in to have book burnings, and those types of things because, in their view, those books happen not to fall within this permissible expression under Bill C-54? Are these the types of nightmares into which this country is liable to fall? Is almost any form of written expression liable to be put under those types of restrictions?
Are we going to see the situation where Canada will be the laughing stock of the western world in terms of what is permitted? Are we going to get into a situation, where under glasnost in the Soviet Union, books permitted in the Soviet
Union will be banned in Canada because of the conservative thought police? Is this what we are getting into?


Cyril Keeper: Madam Speaker, I want to refer my colleague to the legislation, which is Bill C-54, and thank him for raising the alarm, because I think that people should be concerned about this legislation.
Let me point out that Bill C-54 is an amendment to the Criminal Code so that anyone who contravenes the legislation will be subject to a criminal sanction. It is not civil legislation. It is not a slap on the wrist. It will be a criminal sanction. The broad sweep of the legislation has real implications for people, not only in terms of what is in their libraries, but also what is in their homes, as my hon. colleague pointed out. The legislation makes no distinction and fails to recognize the British notion of a man's home being his castle. However, I would like to refer to Clause 159.6 on page 6 of the Bill which deals with defences. For example, if someone goes into a person's home, finds the Bible and does not like the rape scenes in it, and therefore confiscates the book and charges the person with possession of pornographic material, the person will have to get a lawyer and seek to defend himself. One permissible defence is listed under subclause 159.6(a), which reads:
-the accused took all reasonable steps to ensure that there was no erotica in
the thing sold,-
It goes on and on. The person must be able to prove that there was nothing erotic in anything he possessed in his home.
The Bill does not adequately define what erotica means, but the caution I have heard is that we must make a distinction between what is pornographic, what is dirty and degrading, and what is a healthy portrayal of human sexuality, which would therefore fall under what I would consider to be erotica.
Under this piece of legislation, I say to my colleague, he would have to demonstrate to the police, sent to his home under authority given to them by a massive Conservative majority, that there was no erotica in whatever literature he had in his home, including the Holy Scripture.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Madam Speaker, I should like to make a short comment. We have now listened to close to eight hours of debate on this amendment, and I believe there has been an attempt to deceive Canadians about the import of voting for the amendment. It must be crystal clear to every Member of the Chamber that support for the amendment would kill this legislation for the term of this Parliament. It would create a situation where it would very easily take us into the 1990s before we could bring forward a piece of legislation to deal with what Hon. Members keep saying they want to deal with.
They keep trying to stand on two sides of a picket fence, and the lower they sink, the more uncomfortable it gets. They talk about book burning. They talk about Conservative "thought police".


Since 1984 the Government has brought parliamentary reform and freedom of speech to the Chamber and has put decision-making in the hands of parliamentarians in a way totally unlike that which occurred in my first five years in this place.
The House is being asked to complete second reading debate and to move a piece of legislation, designed to stop the exploitation and abuse of children and the exploitation and abuse of women, to committee where the most expert people in the land can be called as witnesses to the fine print.
Perhaps Hon. Members opposite have a point; perhaps they do not. Maybe the words are correct; maybe they are not. However, they try to stand with one foot on the side of democracy and the usefulness of people in making legislation, and with the other foot on the side of voting for an amendment which kills the legislation and makes it impossible to bring back the subject matter until we have had an election, the opportunity for a different government and all processes which go through Cabinet. Rather than light and truth, which can come through committee examination and the democratic process, the Opposition wants to kill the Bill and continue the situation where we would have an absolute minimum of three more years of exploitation of women and children.
The Government and Hon. Members on this side of the House say that it is time to take what has already been a long process to committee for examination, possible amendment, and report stage back in the House. Time after time they stand, but they do not deal with the reality of their amendment which would kill not only the legislation but at least three years. It is totally unacceptable. Does the Hon. Member admit that his Party is in favour of a continuation of the status quo for at least three more years, and that is why his critic brought forward the amendment?


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: A short, final comment from the Hon. Member.


Cyril Keeper: Thank you, Madam Speaker, for the opportunity to respond to that accusation. Clearly that kind of accusation cannot be left without a response.
I point out to the Hon. Member that the legislation came before the House previously under a different number. There was public outcry at that point, alerting the Government to the necessity to make a distinction between erotica and pornography and asking the Government to bring in a balanced piece of legislation. The Government retreated at that point and brought forward the legislation before us today without any substantial change in it.
How can he expect us to have any confidence that, when the legislation goes to committee, they will be open to substantive and real amendments to bring about the kind of legislation that is needed?


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The time for questions and comments has now expired.
Organized Crime
According to the rules, at this point the length of speeches will be 10 minutes.


Stanley J. Hovdebo: Madam Speaker, the Government has suggested on many occasions that we let Bill C-54 go to committee and that it can be fixed up there. That sounds like a fair and reasonable suggestion, but we have a considerable amount of experience with the Government and the way it keeps its promises. I could give a very reasoned example back in June when the Government tabled an immigration Bill which resulted in a considerable amount of reaction from the people. It promised that it would withdraw the Bill and come back with a better one. In August we were presented with the same Bill, or practically the same Bill, with no major changes. It was still as unacceptable as it had been in June.
We have had experience with the Government, therefore we are suggesting in the particular amendment before us that the Government should take a look at the Badgley report and at the Fraser report and bring in legislation that will deal with degrading pornography and violence. We would allow it to pass through the House very quickly, but we do not think the Government is ready to do it. Therefore, we are suggesting that it go back to the table, divide the Bill, if necessary, and bring in a Bill which takes cognizance of degrading pornography, child pornography, and violence, which I suppose are part of our civilization.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: It is with regret that 1 must interrupt the Hon. Member.
It being 5 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.


PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS-MOTIONS   ORGANIZED CRIME ESTABLISHMENT OF ROYAL COMMISSION
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Friday, October 23, consideration of the motion of Miss Nicholson:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should consider the advisability of appointing a Royal Commission to investigate organized crime in Canada and to include in its report observations and recommendations on:
1.	the extent to which organized crime is present and active in Canada, particularly in such activities as drug trafficking and loan-sharking;
2.	the extent to which organized crime is connected to the institutions of Canadian society;
3.	action taken by the governments of other countries to investigate and curtail organized crime activity;
4.	legislation to enable the government to identify and appropriate the proceeds of organized crime;
[Stage Direction]

Organized Crime
5.	effective and appropriate punishment in instances of organized crime murder conspiracy; and
6.	possible guidelines for enforcement agencies in dealing with witnesses against organized crime.
And the amendment of Mr. Kaplan:
That the motion be amended by adding at the end thereof the following:
"and that the Royal Commission report within six months of its appointment".
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: When the motion was last before the House, the Hon. Member for Huron- Bruce (Mr. Cardiff) had been given the floor. I will recognize other Members. On the amendment, the Hon. Member for Trinity (Miss Nicholson).


Miss Aideen Nicholson (Trinity):: Madam Speaker, I have already spoken on the main motion on March 12 when I introduced the motion. Today I would like to speak on the amendment of my colleague, the Hon. Member for York Centre (Mr. Kaplan). In the four days this motion was debated, March 12, May 14, August 13 and October 23, there have been some very thoughtful speeches from all sides of the House. There have also been some speeches read by government supporters, which presumably represent the government's position. Summarized this would be: One, there is no need for a royal commission because the law officers of the Crown and the police are already doing everything that needs to be done. Two, a royal commission would take too long to report. Three, a royal commission would be expensive.
On the question of a royal commission taking too long to report, my colleague from York Centre moved his very helpful amendment which would require the commission to report within six months of having been appointed. That would certainly shorten the period to the minimum and that would keep the costs down. The royal commission, which has just reported under Mr. Justice Parker, I believe cost $3 million, if we exclude the payment of legal fees for the person mainly involved, which added almost another million dollars. That ran for perhaps 18 months.
The third question, on the issue of a police investigation being adequate and that everything possible is being done, misses the point of Item No. 2 in my motion which reads:
That, in the opinion of this House, the Government should consider the advisability of appointing a Royal Commission to investigate organized crime in Canada and to include in its report observations and recommendations on:
2. The extent to which organized crime is connected to the institutions of Canadian society.
That, Madam Speaker, is not part of the mandate of our normal policing. I would like to read into the record an extract from James Dubro's Mob Rule in which he makes the most persuasive case for the establishment of a royal commission direct with a mandate to examine the extent to which organized crime is connected to the institutions of our society. I quote:
-a federal royal commission into organized crime would be one of the best ways to expose and effectively get at the business, the official and the political
connections of organized crime across the country, for all the nation to see and evaluate. Corruption of public officials and businessmen is one of the most pernicious areas of organized-crime activity, and the most difficult to uncover. Without corruption, organized crime could not thrive, and the efforts of the mob to corrupt police, judges, politicians, lawyers, and government officials are probably more deleterious to society than any other activity in which it engages. For the moment, the level of corruption in Canada lags some years behind that in the United States .. . , but this gap is closing. A commission could focus on this crucial area.
If our society is to effectively fight organized crime, the public must be fully informed, and the government and the police must have laws that give them the proper tools for the battle-without taking away the civil liberties of law-abiding Canadians. This can only be accomplished through a federal royal commission, which is the one thing that all major mobsters fear because of the inevitable public exposure and the concerted effort against them that would result. The time has come to put-organized crime in Canada on notice that their criminal activities are no longer to be tolerated and that they face very serious consequences if they continue, as they have for all of the twentieth century in Canada, with murder, extortion, drug trafficking, assaults, and other major organized crime activities.
The time has come to take a strong stand against the ongoing menace of organized crime. Mob rule should not be allowed to continue in Canada without a major counter-offensive.
I commend James Dubro's Mob Rule to ail Members of the House.
In the couple of minutes I have left to me, I appeal to the Government to reconsider its decision. I know the Government has made a decision to defeat this motion. I do not know how the Government can do it on the basis of cost and on the basis of time. The cost of the human misery in our cities is incredible, and the cost to the economy is incredible. We are paying the costs. Every time organized crime becomes involved in legitimate business, costs go up. We see all kinds of competitive counter activities. Inferior products are used. The consumer is paying every step of the way. Then there are the human costs. In my own riding I have seen nice, decent family neighbourhoods where people are harassed and frightened by drug abusers and drug sellers on the streets.
Members opposite have made the point about the improvement in upcoming legislation and about how efficient our police are. This is all very true. The royal commission would not take away any resources from our police. It would, on the contrary, by shining the white light of publicity, focus on the need for more resources, and an informed citizenry would be pleased to support increasing the powers of the police to cope with this serious threat to our society without, of course, infringing upon civil rights of law-abiding citizens.


Stanley J. Hovdebo: Madam Speaker, I take this opportunity to speak on the motion of the Hon. Member for Trinity (Miss Nicholson) and I congratulate her on her motion.
I have in my constituency a maximum security institution, a medium security institution and two correctional institutions for men and women. I often wonder how many of those inmates in those institutions are actually there because they have taken part in some kind of organized criminal events or action. The Right Hon. John G. Diefenbaker, my predecessor in Prince Albert, used to say that there is a larger percentage


of people of commitment in Prince Albert than in any other city in the country because we have this large preponderance of institutions which have grown up in the area.
Returning to the discussion on organized crime, my guess is that many of the people who are incarcerated in these institutions are there, not because of their involvement in organized crime, but because of their involvement in casual crime. However, after they have been incarcerated for a while, they are prime recruits for organized crime. Their second or third terms spent in these institutions are quite often a result of being part of the organization which has brought them into organized crime. The process of recruiting Canadians is a real concern of this motion. We need to find out more about organized crime. We need to know how it operates in Canada. We need to find out how recruitment is done and, as I have suggested, federal institutions are prime recruiting areas for organized crime. We need to know how organized crime launders its money and how many of the businesses which we support innocently are actually businesses which exist for the purposes of laundering money which had been received in the first place through crime.
Bill C-61 deals with the profits of crime, at least to some extent. However, it is like closing the barn door after the horse has been stolen. The only profits that can be easily traced by Bill C-61 are those which are the direct profits from the activities of organized crime.
The Hon. Member for Trinity has outlined some areas of concern. The members of my Party and I agree with her that there is a real need to take a good look at the basis of organized crime and how it operates and grows. We would even suggest that there is possibly a need to expand the inquiry further so that it may look at crimes which may not be so organized, like white-collar crime, corporate crime and crimes against the environment. These crimes should be part of an investigation.
We would support this motion recommending to the Government that it look into and find out a little more about organized crime. It is not as if this has not been done before and its effectiveness is not known. In the area surrounding New York, a considerable amount of time and effort has been spent over the last few years looking at organized crime in the United States. This has not had the result of wiping it out, but it has forced the people involved in organized crime to back off from certain industries which have laundered their money and from certain kinds of crime which are more easily traced.
I found very interesting an article on organized crime which appeared in The Toronto Star. The article provided a resume of the kind of things organized crime has got involved in. That makes me recognize that there is much more to it than appears on the surface. Therefore, the kind of investigation suggested by the Hon. Member for Trinity is appropriate and should be allowed to go ahead and be supported by the Government.
Organized Crime
The article suggests that tactical crimes such as assault, blackmail, bombing, bribery, coercion, extortion, monopoly, murder and weapons are common tools of the trade of organized crime. The article suggests that organized crime even operates businesses which are available to the public in general but are in themselves illegal. As an innocent from the West, I suppose I was very surprised to learn that one can find someone to burn down one's neighbour's house or one's own house, I suppose. This business exists.
I suppose the illegal business that we most often associate with organized crime is the drug trade. However, things like insurance fraud, the pornography which we have been discussing in the House, prostitution, smuggling and income tax violations are other areas in which organized crime takes an active role. These things have almost become part of the structure of our society.
The other areas in which organized crime is involved listed in this article include bankruptcy, alcohol, bookmaking, cards and dice, loan sharking and counterfeiting of bonds and jewellery. However, the most interesting third of the article deals with certain legitimate businesses which, because of their structure, provide prime methods of laundering money. We know something about this structure, but we do not know how it operates well enough to take action against it. Consequently, sectors like construction, entertainment and insurance are involved.
The insurance business seems like a very legitimate business upon which we all depend. We do not realize, however, that it is also the kind of business that allows organized crime to show profits which, if investigated thoroughly, would be shown to be laundered profits. Hotels, auto sales, video games and vending machines are all methods by which the people involved in organized crime can hide money and then have it appear as the profits of legitimate business.
I recommend that we support this motion and that the Government go ahead with the kind of investigation suggested.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Madam Speaker, I would like to make a few comments because later this day we will reach a decision on this proposal.
First I would like to deal with the amendment. I have a great deal of respect for the Hon. Member for Trinity (Miss Nicholson) for bringing this motion forward and for much of the good work she does in the House. She mentioned the recently completed commission report which took 18 months to examine a limited range of the affairs of a single individual. It is not abnormal for royal commissions to have time frames of at least 18 months. The royal commission on the economy took three years and cost considerably more than $3 million.
First, I would urge Hon. Members to defeat the amendment which says first the commission should report in six months. We are dealing with an international phenomenon. Organized


Organized Crime
crime transcends not just provincial boundaries but national boundaries. Much of it originates in other countries. I just do not think there would be any point in approving an amendment that would restrict the commission to reporting in six months. There may be a time frame which is too long, but six months is far too short. It just does not make sense.
The main motion puts individual Members on the horns of a dilemma. Probably no one in this Chamber would fail to agree that we want to do something about organized crime, its reduction and elimination. If we have a common goal, then we have to identify the most effective and efficient means of achieving that goal.
Much of this debate has centred on the belief that increased publicity would be helpful. Indeed, the findings would be helpful, but much of the debate has centred on publicity. What we are really saying is that we are to make a priority expenditure decision to appoint a royal commission which would be, if not the most effective way, certainly a very effective way of helping to get to the root causes of the problem and find some solutions. I am not sure that that is as defensible as it might sound at first blush.
We talk about costs in dollar terms. Although I think taxpayers would like to be spared the burden of dollar costs wherever possible, the more significant reality is that we have been through a very lengthy period of what charitably could be called benign neglect of the criminal law, not to mention other laws. For the last three years this Parliament has been perhaps the most productive in our history in the sense of changing laws. The reason for that is simply that so many things were neglected for so long. With support from all corners of the House, not on every occasion but on many, we have been changing the criminal law in substantial ways. We have dealt with legislation to confiscate the proceeds of crime. We passed changes to the Immigration Act, currently in the other place, which provide a better sense of security for Canadians because of its deterrence and detention provisions. Today we spent hours debating Bill C-54, dealing with problems of abuse of women and children. In other words, what we found in September, 1984, was a shared concern for the reduction of crime.
Yet we have been discovering in bits and pieces, from committee to committee, subject matter to subject matter, that we do not have the statutory provisions or tools in place which will allow our enforcement agencies to investigate and go to court, obtain convictions, and have sentences handed down.
We have involved people in the criminal justice system as witnesses before committees, as people who helped draft the legislation in the first instance, for a great many hours in the last three and a half years. We needed their help on occasion after occasion after occasion. To deflect them to a very high profile exercise which would eat up their time is the real cost. I suggest we have been on probably the most sensible course up to this point and we should continue it for the life of this
Parliament, which may be as short as six months or as long as a year and a half.
We should complete the work we have started, and then I suggest we might want those changes in place for a year or two before we could get maximum benefit out of a commission or some other form of inquiry. Statutes have to be put in place, you have to have experience with them and see if indeed they are helping with the problem or not before you move too quickly to change them. I am afraid that if we were to appoint a commission today it would be dealing with history rather than the emerging reality of the new tools and new methods which the House is voting for.
I would like to make one other comment. There seems to be an acceptance in the debate of the notion that a commission of inquiry would benefit society the most from being public. I have sat here and tried to visualize if people from foreign Governments involved in the fight against crime would come before a television camera in a public inquiry and share their experience with the commissioner. Would those inside the world of crime behave in like fashion? Would they feel comfortable, or would they be worried about their own lives or the lives of their families? I suggest they would not feel comfortable.
We are dealing with a very dangerous area for the people who wish to help us. Much of the help they would be willing to provide would be better provided in secret. Therefore, as an individual, I urge the House to be very careful about suggesting that the best way for Canada to reduce organized crime would be through the method of a very high profile public commission with television cameras and so on. There are better ways, perhaps less costly and more effective, and therefore it is my intention to vote against the motion.


Mr. Russell MacLellan (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Madam Speaker, it is with a great deal of pleasure that I take this opportunity to speak on the motion of the Hon. Member for Trinity (Miss Nicholson), whom I respect very highly. She has done an awful lot of good work in this House. She is a thinking and conscientious Member who does not bring motions like this frivolously. This is a very important motion. As the Hon. Member for Lethbridge-Foothills (Mr. Thacker) said on March 12, we knew she was an expert in financial matters but now we realize the insight she brings to criminal matters and the concerns of the country in this regard.
It would be wrong for the Government to deal with this motion lightly. We have an opportunity here to correct an awful lot of ills. We have just received the report of the Stevens inquiry at a cost of approximately $3 million. It was an important inquiry.
There is another inquiry going on in my constituency, the Marshall inquiry, looking into the reasons that Donald Marshall spent 11 years in prison for a crime he did not commit. These are important matters which need to be


brought before the public. These are two incidents in which the Government believed that the public had the right to know how crime is dealt with and whether the proper penalties are assessed to people accused of crimes.
What better reason for a royal commission on crime than to inform the public of what is going on? Is the Government saying that what the public does not know will not hurt them? Organized crime costs the country billions of dollars in lost revenues and in other ways every year. For example, we do not know how money is being laundered through financial institutions, yet we know that it must be done for organized crime to succeed.
As the Member for Trinity says, it is not only a question of crime but a question of how our business and political institutions are involved in this social cancer. How are clients of financial institutions dealt with with regard to computer crime? I never hear of any cases of computer crime in financial institutions being brought before the courts. Is it happening? Is it not happening? If it is happening, is it being passed along to consumers as an additional cost?
These questions must be answered. The public has a right to know. Surely the Government did not mean for organized crime to be a means of foreign investment in the country. If the Government is honestly concerned about this problem, as are Canadians, it will appoint a royal commission on this very important issue.
As the Member for Trinity has stated, there are certain objections. One is that it would cost too much. I believe that the Government would recover more than tenfold what such an inquiry would cost through revenues it would be able to collect.
I agree with the Parliamentary Secretary to the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Hawkes) that the amendment moved by the Hon. Member for York Centre (Mr. Kaplan) may not be in the best interests of such an undertaking. Six months is a very short period of time. We need a detailed study. We do not want to embark on something which will not provide the answers we need. We, on this side, can be constructive if the Government is prepared to appoint this royal commission.
I believe that we must pursue this. We cannot allow this to go unanswered. What about the victims? We think about the crime and about financial institutions. Let us also think about the victims of teenage prostitution, which is being quarterbacked largely by organized crime. Let us think about the young people who become involved in drugs. What does it do to them? We see a successful case now and then of a young person who has been rehabilitated. However, everyone in the House knows that for each one who is rehabilitated there are many who are not fully rehabilitated. They may be able to hold jobs in society, but there are scars from their experiences. Many will never be able to take their rightful place in society.
If we believe that one of our principal roles is to give each person in this country the best opportunity to live lives that are as full and rich as possible, are we not turning our back on that
Organized Crime
commitment if we turn our back on the problems of drugs and prostitution as they affect our young people?
I hope that the Government will not deal with this in a frivolous way. We can say that the police are doing all they can. No one is blaming the police. The day of the underworld figure in a long trench coat carrying a violin case is gone. These criminals are using sophisticated means. It is a business for them. They are becoming increasingly more difficult to catch. We must pinpoint the problems the police are having.
One of the main concerns of the police is that the public does not realize the problems that exist. How can the public realize the extent of a problem if we do not make them aware of it? We cannot always give the public good news. Sometimes we have to point out the problems which exist.
There must be the political will to deal with this very serious problem which permeates our whole society. This is no time for trite excuses for why this royal commission cannot be put in place. The public deserves to have this question investigated. The public deserves answers. Our young people deserve answers. We are constantly putting this problem off but it is getting more serious all the time.
I ask the Government to form a royal commission as requested by the Member for Trinity. This is an important resolution which will become more important for the country as time passes. If we let it go, the problem may become almost impossible to deal with. If we do not do this, we will send a message to organized crime that the Government is turning away and will give them a free rein. We cannot leave this to the police alone. They need our help. The country deserves to be informed. 1 ask the Government to approve the establishment of royal commission.


Cyril Keeper: Madam Speaker, I would like to speak in support of the motion before the House which is in part as follows:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should consider the
advisability of appointing a Royal Commission to investigate organized crime
in Canada-
This motion deserves the support of all sides of this House. We can debate whether the commission needs longer than six months to carry out its investigation, but the usefulness of having a royal commission to investigate organized crime in Canada is something which we should all support. I and, I believe, most Canadians are mere innocents with regard to organized crime. The movie released a few years ago, The Godfather, was a portrayal of organized crime in a rather flattering way. That was an American film set in an American context.
I think most Canadians consider organized crime to be something that happens south of the border in the big American cities. We have no appreciation of it being among us. I think that if you asked people in Winnipeg, from where I come, whether there was organized crime in their city, most of them would be unaware of it or have no knowledge of it. I


Organized Crime
believe most Canadians are not aware of what is happening in this whole area. I think that is a dangerous situation which calls for attention.
Let me refer to an article in the Toronto Star issue of March 3, 1984. It dealt with organized crime in this country and made three points that I believe are good arguments for the establishment of a royal commission in order to become more knowledgeable about organized crime and how to deal with it.
First, the article states that profits from organized crime in Canada are estimated to be $10 billion. Most of it is earned from drug smuggling, gambling and prostitution. Surely a statement such as that in a major daily newspaper calls for investigation. We require more than newspaper reports to evaluate what needs to be done.
Second, the article states that anyone in Metropolitan Toronto having clothes dry-cleaned, who is shopping on Bloor Street or buying a pizza could be contributing to the underworld coffers. Customers may not realize it, but some of the businesses they patronize have mob connections.
If this article is accurate, as interviews with police who investigate these matters would indicate, ordinary Canadians who buy goods and services may be supporting organized crime. Surely there should be a formal investigation because I am sure every Canadian does not want to be used by organized crime to make its profits.
Finally, the article states: "The number of killings, robberies and scams linked to organized crime in the last decade is staggering".
Not only must we recognize that organized crime is a large industry in this country which is corrupting our society, and that we can unknowingly be used by this industry for its profits, it involves murder not only of those connected to organized crime but also of innocent victims. This article documents some of those innocent victims as well.
It is time for us to remove our rose-coloured glasses and take seriously some of the press reports that indicate the size of the criminal sector in Canada.
I am sure that every Canadian would support the objective of investigating organized crime in order to do away with it or at least control it. The Government should not only act on what is on the front page of The Globe and Mail each day or respond to what is dealt with by The Journal each night, it should respond to other serious problems that arise and need investigation and attention.
The motion of the Hon. Member for Trinity (Miss Nicholson) states that the Government should consider the advisability of appointing a royal commission to investigate organized crime in Canada. I think it is time that we had a thorough investigation of organized crime. I am confident every
Canadian would want us to do everything within our powers in order to reduce and eliminate organized crime in this country.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Is the House ready for the question?


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The question is on the amendment standing in the name of the Hon. Member for York Centre (Mr. Kaplan). Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: All those in favour of the amendment please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: All those opposed please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Call in the Members.
And the division bells having rung:


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. In keeping with our practice this session when dealing with recorded divisions in relation to Private Members' Business, and after having discussed this matter with my colleagues in the other Parties, I think you will find that there is unanimous consent to proceed with the taking of the vote by rows.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Is the House in agreement with the division being taken by rows?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Order. At this point I should like to remind Hon. Members that the voting will begin with those Members in favour of the motion in the rows to my right, and I ask them to rise row by row. Those Members in the rows to my left will then rise. Later, I will ask those Members who are opposed to the motion in the rows to my right to rise. Finally, those Members who are opposed to the motion will rise in the rows to my left.
The House divided on the amendment (Mr. Kaplan), which was negatived on the following division:


Organized Crime


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Is that agreed?
(Division No. 293)
++YEAS
Members
Berger	Isabelle	ParryBlackburn	Jewett	Robichaud(Brant)	Kaplan	RodriguezBoudria	Keeper	RossiCassidy	Killens	SkellyCopps	MacLellan	WaddellDewar	Manly	Young-27Fulton	McDonald	Garneau	(Broadview-	Gauthier	Greenwood)	Hopkins	Nicholson	Hovdebo	(Trinity)	
++NAYS


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: It is so ordered.
The next question is on the main motion standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Trinity (Miss Nicholson).
The House divided on the motion (Miss Nicholson), which was negatived on the following division:
(Division No. 294)
++YEAS
Members
Members
Graham
Gray
(Bonaventure-iles-dela-Madeleine)
Greenaway
Hamelin
Hamilton
Hardey
Hawkes
Hees
Hnatyshyn
Holtmann
Jardine
Johnson
(Bonavista-Trinity-
Conception)
Kindy
Ladouceur
Lanthier
La Salle
Leblanc
MacKay
Mailly
Malone
Mantha
Marin
Mazankowski
McCain
McCurdy
McKenzie
Andre
Belsher
Bernier
Bertrand
Blackburn
(Jonquiere)
Blouin
Bouchard
Bourgault
Brisco
Cadieux
Chart rand
Clark
(Brandon-Souris) Clinch Collins Comeau Corbett Cote
(Lac-Saint-Jean)
Crofton
Crouse
Daubney
Desjardins
Duguay
Ferland
Fontaine
Friesen
Gass
Gottselig


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: I declare the amendment lost.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I think you would find a disposition among all Members to apply the results of that vote just taken to the vote on the main motion, and that the vote be recorded as taken.


Howard Douglas McCurdy: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I want my vote recorded in the affirmative on the main motion.


Pat Carney: Madam Speaker, I would like to vote in the negative on the motion.
McKinnon
Merrithew
Minaker
Nickerson
Nowlan
Oberle
Pietz
Plourde
Porter
Price
Reid
Ricard
St. Germain
Schellenberg
(Nanaimo-Alberni) Schellenberger (Wetaskiwin)
Scowen
Tardif
(Charlesbourg) Taylor Tupper Van De Walle Vezina Wilson
(Swift Current -Maple Creek)-75
Berger
Blackburn
(Brant)
Boudria
Cassidy
Copps
Dewar
Fulton
Garneau
Gauthier
Hopkins
Hovdebo
Isabelle Jewett Kaplan Keeper Killens MacLellan Manly McCurdy McDonald (Broadview- Greenwood)
++NAYS
Nicholson (Trinity) Parry Robichaud Rodriguez Rossi Skelly Waddell Young-28
Andre	Gottselig	McKinnonBelsher	Graham	MerrithewBernier	Gray	MinakerBertrand	(Bonaventure-fles-de-	NickersonBlackburn	la-Madeleine)	Nowlan(Jonquiere)	Greenaway	OberleBlouin	Hamelin	PietzBouchard	Hamilton	PlourdeBourgault	Hardey	PorterBrisco	Hawkes	PriceCadieux	Hees	ReidCarney	Hnatyshyn	RicardChartrand	Holtmann	St. GermainClark	Jardine	Schellenberg(Brandon-Souris)	Johnson	(Nanaimo-AlbernClinch	(Bonavista-T rinity-	SchellenbergerCollins	Conception)	(Wetaskiwin)Comeau	Kindy	ScowenCorbett	Ladouceur	TardifCote	Lanthier	(Charlesbourg)(Lac-Saint-Jean)	La Salle	TaylorCrofton	Leblanc	TupperCrouse	MacKay	Van De WalleDaubney	Mailly	VezinaDesjardins	Malone	WilsonDuguay	Mantha	(Swift CurrentFerland	Marin	-Maple Creek)-'Fontaine	Mazankowski	Friesen	McCain	Gass	McKenzie


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: I declare	
motion lost.
Customs Tariff




[Stage Direction]
The Elouse resumed from Friday, December 4, consideration of Bill C-87, an Act respecting the imposition of duties of customs and other charges, to give effect to the International Convention on the Harmonized Commodity Description and Coding System, to provide relief against the imposition of certain duties of customs or other charges, to provide for other related matters and to amend or repeal certain Acts in consequence thereof, as reported (without amendments) from a legislative committee.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Pursuant to Standing Order 13(5), the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred division at the report stage of Bill C-87, an Act respecting the imposition of duties of customs and other charges, to give effect to the International Convention on the Harmonized Commodity Description and Coding System, to provide relief against the imposition of certain duties of customs or other charges, to provide for other related matters and to amend or repeal certain Acts in consequence thereof.
Shall I dispense with the ringing of the bells?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I presume the predisposition is to use the normal course of voting on government legislation which would be different from that which we have just used for Private Members' Hour. I think there is also a predisposition to dispense with each of the amended motions.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Madam Speaker, I do not agree with that at all. We would like to vote on the amendments and, if the House so decides, we may apply the results of the vote taken in a few minutes to the others, but before we do so, we would like to proceed with the vote on the first amendment as deferred.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The first vote will be on Motion No. 1.


Michael Morris Cassidy: Motion No. 1.
That Bill C-87, be amended in Clause 15 by adding, immediately after line 26 at page 4, the following:
"(3) Notwithstanding any regulation made under subsection (2), goods wholly or partly produced in Mexico shall not be deemed to originate in the United States."
(Division No. 295)
++YEAS
Members
Berger
Blackburn
(Brant)
Boudria
Cassidy
Dewar
Fulton
Garneau
Gauthier
Hopkins
Hovdebo
Isabelle
Andre
Belsher
Bernier
Bertrand
Blackburn
(Jonquiere)
Blouin
Bouchard
Bourgault
Brisco
Cadieux
Carney
Chartrand
Clark
(Brandon-Souris) Clinch Collins Comeau Corbett Cote
(Lac-Saint-Jean)
Crofton
Crouse
Daubney
Desjardins
Duguay
Ferland
Fontaine
Friesen
Gass
Gottselig
Jewett Kaplan Keeper Killens MacLellan Manly McCurdy McDonald (Broadview- Greenwood) Nicholson (Trinity)
++NAYS
Members
Graham
Gray
(Bonaventure-lles-dela-Madeleine)
Greenaway
Hamelin
Hamilton
Hardey
Hawkes
Hees
Hnatyshyn
Holtmann
Jardine
Johnson
(Bonavista-T rinity-
Conception)
Kindy
Ladouceur
Lanthier
La Salle
Leblanc
MacKay
Mailly
Malone
Mantha
Marin
Mazankowski
McCain
McKenzie
McKinnon
Merrithew
Parry
Robichaud
Rodriguez
Rossi
Skelly
Waddell
Young-27
Minaker
Nickerson
Nowlan
Oberle
Pietz
Plourde
Porter
Price
Reid
Ricard
St. Germain
St-Julien
Schellenberg
(Nanaimo-Alberni) Schellenberger (Wetaskiwin)
Scowen
Tardif
(Charlesbourg)
Taylor
Tupper
Turner
(Ottawa-Carleton) Van De Walle Vezina Wilson
(Swift Current - Maple Creek)-77


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: I declare the motion lost.


Michael Morris Cassidy: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I think you will find there is unanimous consent to apply the results of the vote just taken to the remaining amendments, and reverse the results for the motion to concur in the Bill at report stage.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Madam Speaker, I agree with what the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Cassidy) says, except that the Official Opposition would like to concur with the Government in the Bill.
The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on the following division:


Michael Morris Cassidy: Motion No. 2.


That Bill C-87, be amended in Clause 19 by striking out lines 43 and 44 at page 5 and substituting the following therefor:
"other Act of Parliament.
(3) The rates of customs duty set out in Schedule I and section 46 and the customs duties imposed by this Act are further subject to such increases, reductions, removals or other exceptions as may be specified in any regulation or order made under this or any other Act of Parliament, provided that no such regulation or order shall have effect for more than sixty days unless it is adopted by resolution of both Houses of Parliament."
The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on the following division:
Customs Tariff
The above division also applies to Motions Nos. 3, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10 and 11.


Michael Morris Cassidy: Motion No. 4
That Bill C-87, be amended in Clause 32 by striking out lines 13 to 16 at page 10 and substituting the following therefor:
"to sections 23, 27 or 28, the order shall cease to have any force or effect with respect to any period following the sixtieth day after the".
The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on the following division:
(Division No. 296)	(Division No. 297)
YEAS	YEAS
Members	Members
Berger	Jewett	Parry	Berger	Jewett	ParryBlackburn	Kaplan	Robichaud	Blackburn	Kaplan	Robichaud(Brant)	Keeper	Rodriguez	(Brant)	Keeper	RodriguezBoudria	Killens	Rossi	Boudria	Killens	RossiCassidy	MacLellan	Skelly	Cassidy	MacLellan	SkellyDewar	Manly	Waddell	Dewar	Manly	WaddellFulton	McCurdy	Young-27	Fulton	McCurdy	Young-27Garneau	McDonald	Garneau	McDonald	Gauthier	(Broadview-	Gauthier	(Broadview-	Hopkins	Greenwood)	Hopkins	Greenwood)	Hovdebo	Nicholson	Hovdebo	Nicholson	Isabelle	(Trinity)	Isabelle	(Trinity)	NAYS	NAYS	Members	Members	Andre	Graham	Minaker	Andre	Graham	MinakerBelsher	Gray	Nickerson	Belsher	Gray	NickersonBernier	(Bonaventure-Iles-de-	Nowlan	Bernier	(Bonaventure-Iles-de-	NowlanBertrand	la-Madeleine)	Oberle	Bertrand	la-Madeleine)	OberleBlackburn	Greenaway	Pietz	Blackburn	Greenaway	Pietz(Jonquiere)	Hamelin	Plourde	(Jonquiere)	Hamelin	PlourdeBlouin	Hamilton	Porter	Blouin	Hamilton	PorterBouchard	Hardey	Price	Bouchard	Hardey	PriceBourgault	Hawkes	Reid	Bourgault	Hawkes	ReidBrisco	Hces	Ricard	Brisco	Hees	RicardCadieux	Hnatyshyn	St. Germain	Cadieux	Hnatyshyn	St. GermainCarney	Holtmann	St-Julien	Carney	Holtmann	St-JulienChartrand	Jardine	Schellenberg	Chartrand	Jardine	SchellenbergClark	Johnson	(Nanaimo-Alberni)	Clark	Johnson	(Nanaimo-Alberni)(Brandon-Souris)	(Bonavista-Trinity-	Schellenbcrger	(Brandon-Souris)	(Bonavista-T rinity-	SchellenbcrgerClinch	Conception)	(Wetaskiwin)	Clinch	Conception)	(Wetaskiwin)Collins	Kindy	Scowen	Collins	Kindy	ScowenComeau	Ladouceur	Tardif	Comeau	Ladouceur	TardifCorbett	Lanthier	(Charlesbourg)	Corbett	Lanthier	(Charlesbourg)Cote	La Salle	Taylor	Cote	La Salle	Taylor(Lac-Saint-Jean)	Leblanc	Tupper	(Lac-Saint-Jean)	Leblanc	TupperCrofton	MacKay	Turner	Crofton	MacKay	TurnerCrouse	Mailly	(Ottawa-Carleton)	Crouse	Mailly	(Ottawa-Carleton)Daubney	Malone	Van De Walle	Daubney	Malone	Van Dc WalleDesjardins	Mantha	Vezina	Desjardins	Mantha	VezinaDuguay	Marin	Wilson	Duguay	Marin	WilsonFerland	Mazankowski	(Swift Current	Ferland	Mazankowski	(Swift CurrentFontaine	McCain	-Maple Creek)-77	Fontaine	McCain	-Maple Creek)-77Fricsen	McKenzie	Friesen	McKenzie	Gass	McKinnon	Gass	McKinnon	Gottselig	Merrithew	Gottselig	Merrithew


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: 1 declare the The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne): I declare the motion lost.	motion lost.


Customs Tariff
The above division applies to Motion No. 12.


Michael Morris Cassidy: Motion No. 8
That Bill C-87, be amended in Clause 59 by adding, immediately after line 4 at page 19, the following:
"(7) The powers conferred by this section may not be abrogated by any treaty between the Government of Canada and the government of another country except by an Act of Parliament."
The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on the following division:
The above division also applies to Motions Nos. 11 A, 12A and 13 A.


Michael Morris Cassidy: Motion No. 13
That Bill C-87, be amended in Clause 62
(a)	by striking out line 19 at page 22 and substituting the following therefor:
"goods imported from any country other than the United States of America by way";
(b)	by striking out line 26 at page 22 and substituting the following therefor:
"other than the United States of America as may be required by Canada's interna-".
(Division No. 298)
++YEAS
The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on the following division:
Members
(Division No. 299)
Berger	Jewett	ParryBlackburn	Kaplan	Robichaud(Brant)	Keeper	RodriguezBoudria	Killens	RossiCassidy	MacLellan	SkellyDewar	Manly	WaddellFulton	McCurdy	Young-27Garneau	McDonald	Gauthier	(Broadview-	Hopkins	Greenwood)	Hovdebo	Nicholson	Isabelle	(Trinity)
NAYS Members	Andre	Graham	MinakerBelsher	Gray	NickersonBernier	(Bonaventure-iles-de-	NowlanBertrand	la-Madcleine)	OberleBlackburn	Greenaway	Pietz(Jonquiere)	Hamelin	PlourdeBlouin	Hamilton	PorterBouchard	Hardey	PriceBourgault	Hawkes	ReidBrisco	Hees	RicardCadieux	Hnatyshyn	St. GermainCarney	Holtmann	St-JulienChartrand	Jardine	SchellenbergClark	Johnson	(Nanaimo-Alberni)(Brandon-Souris)	(Bonavista-T rinity-	SchellenbergerClinch	Conception)	(Wetaskiwin)Collins	Kindy	ScowenComeau	Ladouccur	TardifCorbett	Lanthier	(Charlesbourg)Cote	La Salle	Taylor(Lac-Saint-Jean)	Leblanc	TupperCrofton	MacKay	TurnerCrouse	Mailly	(Ottawa-Carleton)Daubney	Malone	Van De WalleDesjardins	Mantha	VezinaDuguay	Marin	WilsonFerland	Mazankowski	(Swift CurrentFontaine	McCain	-Maple Creek)-77Friesen	McKenzie	Gass	McKinnon	Gottselig	Merrithew


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: I declare the motion lost.
Berger	YEAS Members Jewett	ParryBlackburn	Kaplan	Robichaud(Brant)	Keeper	RodriguezBoudria	Killens	RossiCassidy	MacLellan	SkellyDewar	Manly	WaddellFulton	McCurdy	Young-27Garneau	McDonald	Gauthier	(Broadview-	Hopkins	Greenwood)	Hovdebo	Nicholson	Isabelle	(Trinity)	Andre	NAYS Members Graham	MinakerBelsher	Gray	NickersonBernier	(Bonaventure-Iles-de-	NowlanBertrand	la-Madeleine)	OberleBlackburn	Greenaway	Pietz(Jonquiere)	Hamelin	PlourdeBlouin	Hamilton	PorterBouchard	Hardey	PriceBourgault	Hawkes	ReidBrisco	Hees	RicardCadieux	Hnatyshyn	St. GermainCarney	Holtmann	St-JulienChartrand	Jardine	SchellenbergClark	Johnson	(Nanaimo-Alberni)(Brandon-Souris)	(Bonavista-T rinity-	SchellenbergerClinch	Conception)	(Wetaskiwin)Collins	Kindy	ScowenComeau	Ladouceur	TardifCorbett	Lanthier	(Charlesbourg)Cote	La Salle	Taylor(Lac-Saint-Jean)	Leblanc	TupperCrofton	MacKay	TurnerCrouse	Mailly	(Ottawa-Carleton)Daubney	Malone	Van De WalleDesjardins	Mantha	VezinaDuguay	Marin	WilsonFerland	Mazankowski	(Swift CurrentFontaine	McCain	-Maple Creek)-77Friesen	McKenzie	Gass	McKinnon	Gottselig	Merrithew


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: I declare the motion lost.
Customs Tariff


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: I declare the motion lost.


Michael Morris Cassidy: Motion No. 15


Michael Morris Cassidy: Motion No. 16
That Bill C-87, be amended in Clause 139 by adding, immediately after line 6 at page 54, the following:
"(3) Where a tariff in Schedule I is charged as a consequence of an order or regulation made under this section, no additional amount of tariff shall be levied on any good which is imported between the date of coming into force of this act and the date of the order or regulation made under this section."
The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on the following division:
That Bill C-87, be amended by deleting Clause 141.
The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on the following division:
(Division No. 301)
++YEAS
Members
(Division No. 300)
++YEAS
Members
Berger
Blackburn
(Brant)
Boudria
Cassidy
Dewar
Fulton
Garneau
Gauthier
Hopkins
Hovdebo
Isabelle
Andre
Belsher
Bernier
Bertrand
Blackburn
(Jonquiere)
Blouin
Bouchard
Bourgault
Brisco
Cadieux
Carney
Chartrand
Clark
(Brandon-Souris) Clinch Collins Comeau Corbett Cote
(Lac-Saint-Jean)
Crofton
Crouse
Daubney
Desjardins
Duguay
Ferland
Fontaine
Friesen
Gass
Gottselig
Jewett Kaplan Keeper Killens MacLellan Manly McCurdy McDonald (Broadview- Greenwood) Nicholson (Trinity)
++NAYS
Members
Graham
Gray
(Bonaventure-Iles-dela-Madeleine)
Greenaway
Hamelin
Hamilton
Hardey
Hawkes
Hees
Hnatyshyn
Holtmann
Jardine
Johnson
(Bonavista-T r inity-
Conception)
Kindy
Ladouceur
Lanthier
La Salle
Leblanc
MacKay
Mailly
Malone
Mantha
Marin
Mazankowski
McCain
McKenzie
McKinnon
Merrithew
Parry
Robichaud
Rodriguez
Rossi
Skelly
Waddell
Young-27
Minaker Nickerson Nowlan Oberle Pietz Plourde Porter Price Reid Ricard St. Germain St-Julien Schellenberg (Nanaimo-Alberni) Schellenberger (Wetaskiwin)
Scowen
Tardif
(Charlesbourg)
Taylor
Tupper
Turner
(Ottawa-Carleton) Van De Walle Vezina Wilson
(Swift Current -Maple Creek)-77
Berger	Jewett	ParryBlackburn	Kaplan	Robichaud(Brant)	Keeper	RodriguezBoudria	Killens	RossiCassidy	MacLellan	SkellyDewar	Manly	WaddellFulton	McCurdy	Young-27Garneau	McDonald	Gauthier	(Broadview-	Hopkins	Greenwood)	Hovdebo	Nicholson	Isabelle	(Trinity)
NAYS Members	Andre	Graham	MinakerBelsher	Gray	NickersonBernier	(Bonaventure-i les-de-	NowlanBertrand	la-Madeleine)	OberleBlackburn	Greenaway	Pietz(Jonquiere)	Hamelin	PlourdeBlouin	Hamilton	PorterBouchard	Hardey	PriceBourgault	Hawkes	ReidBrisco	Hees	RicardCadieux	Hnatyshyn	St. GermainCarney	Holtmann	St-JulienChartrand	Jardine	SchellenbergClark	Johnson	(Nanaimo-Alberni)(Brandon-Souris)	(Bonavista-T rinity-	SchellenbergerClinch	Conception)	(Wetaskiwin)Collins	Kindy	ScowenComeau	Ladouceur	TardifCorbett	Lanthier	(Charlesbourg)Cote	La Salle	Taylor(Lac-Saint-Jean)	Leblanc	TupperCrofton	MacKay	TurnerCrouse	Mailly	(Ottawa-Carleton)Daubney	Malone	Van De WalleDesjardins	Mantha	VezinaDuguay	Marin	WilsonFerland	Mazankowski	(Swift CurrentFontaine	McCain	-Maple Creek)-77Friesen	McKenzie	Gass	McKinnon	Gottselig	Merrithew


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: I declare the motion lost.
The next question is on the motion for concurrence.
Hon. Don Mazankowski (for the Minister of State for Finance) moves that the Bill be concurred in.


Customs Tariff
The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:
(Division No. 302)
++YEAS
Members
Andre
Belsher
Berger
Bernier
Bertrand
Blackburn
(Jonquiere)
Blouin
Bouchard
Boudria
Bourgault
Brisco
Cadieux
Carney
Chartrand
Clark
(Brandon -Souris) Clinch Collins Comeau Corbett Cote
(Lac-Saint-Jean)
Crofton
Crouse
Daubney
Desjardins
Duguay
Ferland
Fontaine
Friesen
Garneau
Gass
Gauthier
Gottselig
Graham
Gray
(Bonavcnture-Iles-dela-Madcleine)
Greenaway
Hamelin
Hamilton
Hardey
Hawkes
Hees
Hnatyshyn
Holtmann
Hopkins
Isabelle
Jardine
Johnson
(Bonavista -T rinity-
Conception)
Kaplan
Killens
Kindy
Ladouceur
Lanthier
La Salle
Leblanc
MacKay
MacLellan
Mailly
Malone
Mantha
Marin
Mazankowski
McCain
McKenzie
McKinnon
Merrithcw	Reid	TardifMinaker	Ricard	(Charlesbourg)Nicholson	Robichaud	Taylor(Trinity)	Rossi	TupperNickerson	St. Germain	TurnerNowlan	St-Julien	(Ottawa-Carleton)Oberle	Schellenberg	Van De WallePietz	(Nanaimo-Alberni)	VezinaPlourde	Schellenbergcr	WilsonPorter	(Wetaskiwin)	(Swift CurrentPrice	Scowen	-Maple Creek)-89NAYS	Members	Blackburn	Keeper	Rodriguez(Brant)	Manly	SkellyCassidy	McCurdy	WaddellDewar	McDonald	Young-15Fulton	(Broadview-	Hovdebo	Greenwood)	Jewett	Parry


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: I declare the motion carried.

It being 6.38 p.m., this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 3(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 6.38 p.m.
[Stage Direction]

Tuesday, December 8, 1987
[Stage Direction]
Prayers