1987-09-14

Mr. Bob Horner (Mississauga North) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-264, an Act to amend the Criminal Code (instruments and literature for illicit drug use).


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Robert Nesbitt Horner: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of the Bill is to prohibit commerce in drug paraphernalia which enhances and promotes the use of illicit drugs.
At the present time, although narcotics and certain drugs are outlawed, literature glamourizing their use and devices and kits facilitating it are freely available in so-called "head shops" throughout Canada.
The Bill proposes amendments to the Criminal Code such that the sale of these instruments and literature would be an offence. I hope it will receive the support of every Member of the House.


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

Hon. Doug Lewis (Minister of State and Minister of State (Treasury Board)):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under Motions to advise the House of a situation. The House will be aware that the constitutional committee considering the Meech Lake Accord, has been holding extensive hearings throughout the
summer, that it adjourned the hearing of witnesses to prepare its report, and that there have been some difficulties in the translation.
Because of the importance of the particular document-the committee report and the wording therein-we felt it was appropriate that the wording be as exact as possible. I have had discussions with the other House Leaders regarding the report and, in order to allow all of the members of the committee to satisfy themselves that the English and French versions are compatible, 1 think you will find agreement to the following motion, Mr. Speaker:
[DOT] (mo)
That the reporting date for the Special Joint Committee on the 1987
Constitutional Accord be extended to no later than Thursday, September 17,
1987.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the Hon. Minister of State (Mr. Lewis) have the unanimous consent of the House to move the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops-Shuswap):: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to present two petitions on this last day that there is an opportunity to do so regarding the refugee legislation before the House of Commons.
Petitioners from central Canada as well as from western Canada call upon Parliament to enact legislation that will embody the principles of fair and quick oral hearings for refugee claimants before a refugee board, independent of the Immigration Commission, providing universal access to such hearings for every claimant in Canada, and an adequate opportunity to arrive in Canada to make this claim.
Since Canada has established standards of refugee status determination, they believe that our existing procedures have broken down and are under unexpected strains. Recognizing that the standing committee of Parliament dealing with this issue has proposed a new procedure for refugee determination which is quicker and fairer than the one now in force, the


Order Paper Questions
petitioners are asking the Government to consider the recommendations of that special committee which has the support of groups such as the Canadian Bar Association, the Canadian Council of Churches and others.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, 1 ask that all the questions on the Order Paper be allowed to stand.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall all questions stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Hon. Ray Hnatyshyn (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada) moved: that Bill C-61, an Act to amend the Criminal Code, the Food and Drugs Act and the Narcotic Control Act be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.
He said: Mr. Speaker, just for a moment my heart almost stopped because I thought we were going to pass this enlightened legislation without any speeches on second reading. However, I am very pleased and honoured to introduce the debate on second reading of this important legislation.
As you know, Mr. Speaker, the people of Canada understand that our Government has committed itself to a comprehensive approach with respect to the problem of illicit drugs in Canada. One of the initiatives that we are taking in this whole area involves amendments to our Criminal Code to allow forfeiture and seizure of the realization of illicit proceeds of crime. While this Bill is not restricted in the area of drugs, it is a Bill which addresses crime motivated by the desire to accumulate wealth and generate profit from the commission of criminal activity. The Bill uses the term "enterprise crime" to describe this type of activity. What we are dealing with in this legislation are crimes of greed.
Increasingly we are seeing the effects of criminal organizations operating both from within and without this country that are totally dedicated to the commission of crime for profit. These organizations take advantage of modern communications, transportation and corporate structuring to frustrate the
reach of national legal systems to amass illicit and illegal wealth.

One of the reasons why this type of criminal activity is spreading is that the various administrations have been slow in adapting their legislation to changing circumstances. But now the western world acknowledges ever more readily that it is becoming imperative to adapt and revise national legislation and to negotiate international agreements to fill the gaps which now favour criminals.

On an international level, this legislation is in compliance with the draft United Nations Convention Against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychoactive Substances. Similar legislation has either been passed or has been presented to the legislatures of Britain, Australia and the United States. This uniquely Canadian proposal will strike a balanced middle ground in dealing with the reality of enterprise crime. Except for very limited situations, Canadian courts are powerless to strip an offender of the proceeds of criminal activity.
Lengthy terms of imprisonment and substantial fines may not be sufficient deterrents to criminals who believe that they may acquire and keep their ill-gotten gains. If, on the other hand, the offender knows that, in addition to the punishment he or she would normally receive for the crime, he or she is going to lose those proceeds and profits generated through such activity, he or she may think twice before deciding to become involved in such unlawful conduct.
Accordingly, the main feature of this legislation is to provide the courts with the power to confiscate from an offender those assets that are found to be derived from criminal activity. This would normally be done after an individual has been found guilty of a criminal offence and would be done at the sentencing stage of the proceeding.
All of the protections that have developed over the centuries such as trial by jury, presumption of innocence and the requirement that guilt be established beyond a reasonable doubt would continue to apply to the guilt determination stage of the proceeding. However, once the offender has been found guilty according to all of these time-honoured guarantees, he or she would be subject to a hearing to determine the question of the forfeiture of his or her criminally-derived assets. At that time, the prosecution would have to prove the criminal taint on a balance of probabilities. Normally, this taint would already have been proven beyond a reasonable doubt during the trial itself, as happens on a charge of possession of proceeds from a specified criminal activity.
There is an additional feature of the legislation that attempts to deal with the covert nature of enterprise crime. If at the forfeiture hearing it turns out that the proceeds of crime are from an offence other than the offence for which the


offender has been convicted, the court will still be empowered to forfeit. This is designed to deal with cases in which the offender is engaged in a wide range of illicit activities and seeks to protect his profits by claiming that they were derived from an illegal source other than that for which he has been convicted. It must be underlined that in this situation, proof beyond a reasonable doubt applies to the prosecution.
The forfeiture power of the courts will also exist in two limited situations when the forfeiture will not have to be preceded by a conviction but where a charge has been laid. When an offender has died or has fled from the jurisdiction of the court, it is obvious that the state has no control over either of these circumstances. Elowever, to be consistent with the principle that an offender should not be entitled to benefit from his or her own wrong, in those limited cases the illegal profits should be confiscated by the court without the finding of personal guilt. Again, I wish to emphasize that the onus of proof on the prosecution will be proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

A system of forfeiture of proceeds of crime cannot operate adequately if the court is unable to intervene to seize and freeze them before the trial. Accordingly the Bill empowers the court to authorize police to seize goods which can be the subject of a sworn affidavit, based on reasonable grounds, that they are indeed the proceeds of crime. This procedure is extant in the case of certain elements of proof pursuant to the Criminal Code, Section 443, and has been on the statute books for centuries.

To supplement this seizure power, the legislation has borrowed from the equitable jurisdiction of the civil courts to create a judicially authorized system of restraining orders. Such measures are available to claimants in the civil context and are sometimes referred to as the Mareva injunctions. These civil remedies create court-authorized restraints on the disposition of assets in order to make them available for the future trial of a civil action. They recognize the fact of life that unless courts authorize a restraint on disposition, assets which may be subject to forfeiture after a trial that will take place sometime in the future may be disposed of or hidden. The same comment can be made in a criminal context. The argument is even stronger in favour of restraint because of the wider public interest as opposed to the private interest of a civil litigant.
The criminal law has long recognized that in certain circumstances the public interest demands that action be taken prior to the completion of a trial proceedings. The most clear example of this is the pre-trial detention of the accused when it is shown that he or she may not show up for his or her trial if released, or that for other good and sufficient reasons it is not in the public interest to release the accused. The courts have
Proceeds of Crime
consistently upheld this power as a valid exercise of the criminal law and surely the protection of property can be put on no higher plane than that of the liberty of the individual.
Under the provisions of this Bill, the powers of pre-trial seizure and restraint will be scrutinized and authorized by only the most senior levels of judges. An application can only be made by the Attorney General or his or her representative and must be accompanied by a sworn affidavit. A very important element of the legislation is that the courts can require the Attorney General to give an undertaking relating to the payment of costs and damages in respect of the execution of an inappropriate seizure or restraining order. All of these measures guarantee that these powers will only be exercised in those cases where there is merit to the request.
At this time 1 would like to deal with those aspects of the legislation that establish a system of protection of the rights of innocent third parties who may be affected by the seizure, restraining or forfeiture orders.
First, before a seizure of restraining order is issued, the judge can require that third parties, owners, persons in possession and the accused be notified of the application to enable them to put their positions before the court and protect their interests.
Second, once such an order is issued, any person affected by it can apply for an immediate review subject to a minimal two-day notice to the Attorney General which can be waived by the Attorney General.
Third, at the forfeiture hearing itself, the court is obligated to consider notifying any person with an interest in the property who has not been given an opportunity to defend that interest.
Fourth, a third party is entitled to apply for relief from forfeiture within a 30-day period after an order is made. In effect, an execution of the order is automatically suspended under the legislation for that purpose.
Fifth, at the time the court is considering its residual power of disposal of property; that is, when there has been no forfeiture or restoration order in relation to the property, any third party that appears to have an interest in the property is entitled to be heard by the court prior to its disposing of the property.
Finally, there is a provision in the legislation for an automatic expiry of the order after six months unless the Attorney General satisfies the judge that the order should continue for the purposes of a forfeiture or other proceeding.
Of course, third parties as well as accused persons and the Attorney General are given full rights to appeal orders of forfeiture if they feel aggrieved by them.


Proceeds of Crime

Such are the general provisions of the legislative measures which, in my opinion, will be considered as strong but equitable means to come to grips with the ever more urgent problems of organized crime.
And now, Madam Speaker, I should like to review some of the particular aspects of these legislative measures which, I hope, much as the general provisions, will make of this initiative a mechanism to fight against individuals who benefit from criminal activities.

To prevent Canada from becoming a haven for the proceeds of crime, the legislation will forfeit assets on Canadian soil no matter where the criminal conduct has taken place. In order to assist the courts in tracing the assets of such criminal activities, the legislation creates an inference that entitles a court to find that an increase in the net worth of an individual is derived from criminal activity when such activity is established and there is no legitimate explanation for that increase.
[DOT] (M30)
Several new offences are created in this Bill. First, the offence of laundering the proceeds of crime is created to deal with increasingly sophisticated means of hiding the illegitimate sources of assets.
Second, there are new offences in the drug statutes analogous to Section 312 of the Criminal Code relating to the possession of property obtained by crime. There is a provision for obtaining, at the investigative stage of a designated drug offence, a court authorized order of disclosure of income tax information.
Finally, in order to encourage the investigation of enterprise crime, the legislation includes a provision creating a legal defence or shield against a complaint of breach of confidentiality for an individual, such as a banker or a credit union manager, who discloses suspicious transactions by a client who appears to be laundering his money in that institution.

I am aware that after the introduction of this Bill some people pointed out that it does not contain any specific requirement pertaining to the identification of cash transactions. Madam Speaker, I can tell you that, having examined American experience in that respect, I still am not convinced that their legislation on identification and tracking down of illegal funds has been effective enough to justify, for the time being, the enormous amount of work such a measure would impose on financial institutions and the expenditures which Canadian taxpayers would face if it were decided to set up a system to analyze this kind of information.
Instead of imposing constraints on the banking system by forcing it to produce reports, I thought it would be better to encourage representatives to co-operate by protecting them
against claims which criminal clients might file against them for helping to uncover money laundering activities.

There are questions of cost and very complex regulatory intrusion involved in compulsory reporting of financial transactions. In committee we will have the opportunity of examining this aspect more closely. I would simply say that, after examination, it occurs to me that we are not simply dealing with our banks. This legislation will impact upon credit unions and other financial institutions, lawyers, accountants, and financial advisers involved in individual transactions across the country. The reporting itself would involve us, certainly from initial investigation, in a very costly and complex system. We want to be very careful, before we move into this area, to make sure we can work on a voluntary basis with all those involved, and I have been assured that they are prepared to co-operate on a voluntary basis. If we find after some experience that the system is not as effective as it may be and there is a legitimate reason to involve ourselves in what I would call very substantial compulsory reporting requirements, then we can look at that.
Organized crime attempts to get around the existing rules and, if I may be permitted to dwell on this particular point, it seems to me that whatever the limit is with respect to compulsory reporting, the question is whether or not it is going to be an effective tool to assist us in what we all want to achieve, the seizure of illicit profits. I simply say to Hon. Members that we will have an opportunity of examining this question in committee.
I am inclined to hope that we will give this legislation quick and early passage because it is the culmination of considerable effort by both the federal and provincial Governments. There is a principle which I believe can be traced back to Roman law, which is: ex turpi causa non oritur actio. Roughly translated, that means an offender is not entitled to benefit from his or her wrongdoing. No phrase could be more applicable in the context of enterprise crime. This legislation, which is simply an application of that principle, will go a long way toward making this a reality in our country.


Hon. Bob Kaplan (York Centre):: Madam Speaker, we in Canada spent a long time, decades in fact, denying that organized crime existed in our country. Provincial attorneys-general would have a stock answer, when asked, which indicated organized crime did not exist. We were able to do this for many decades because in the country to the south, whose news is often read by Canadians more than their own, organized crime was such a visible, palpable phenomena, that whatever the level of that type of criminal activity in Canada it was so much less that it seemed one could say there was none. I think law enforcement suffered in that period, in particular, in relation to enterprise crime.
It is long overdue that we recognize that criminal organizations and organized crime, by which one simply means criminal activities or more than one incident carried on by the


same group and always, as the Minister indicated, with its principal purpose being financial gain, exists in our country. We would have been able to deal with it better had we addressed it sooner with the type of measures now proposed.
However, here we are bringing forward and offering to the police forces of this country what may be a powerful new instrument for dealing with a phenomena which, yes, exists in our country and which has existed for some time, and which the ordinary provisions of the Criminal Code allowed too often to go unprosecuted and unpunished.
The Minister will be aware, although 1 do not believe he mentioned it, that the legislation he introduced today was the mandate of the task force set up within the Government of Canada by me back in the early 1980s, and by my colleague, the Minister of Justice (Mr. Hnatyshyn). I regret very much that we were unable to complete our work and produce this very important legislation during the period we were in office. I say that only to indicate to the Minister how much we support the spirit of this legislation and how important we think it is that we proceed very carefully.
The Minister in his excellent remarks indicated all of the difficult, complicated considerations involved when you come to deal with an individual's property before that individual has been convicted of a crime.
[ Translation]
For instance, Madam Speaker, 1 recall that when the Constitution was patriated and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms proclaimed some people had advocated the acknowledgement of property rights. At the time our task force on this very important project expressed concerns because it feared that, if property rights were included in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, this might throw everything out of kilter and slow down progress in the fight against criminals.
Even at the time we were drafting the Charter we wanted to be certain that the weapon which was being shaped by this work would still be produced and still be useful. The Liberal Government concluded that legislation in form similar to that which is now before the House could have been brought forward even if the Charter had included the rights of property and the protection of those rights. That is going a long way.
Many Canadians ought to be interested in this legislation, not because they are criminals or will be the targets of any investigations but because we are going to give the police forces of our country tools which they have never had before. Before the conviction of an individual the police will be permitted to apprehend that individual's property. This is worth while and necessary legislation. It is even overdue.
Whatever the difficulties, I hope that we will be able to come up with a very strong way of dealing with the fact, which no reasonable or knowledgeable Canadian can deny, that
Proceeds of Crime
crime has produced some very rich people in our country. These rich people have long been in the process of converting the proceeds of crime into innocent businesses and ordinary assets such as homes and boats which have nothing to do with crime other than that they are entirely the proceeds of those crimes. If this legislation is effective it will ensure that no one profits from their illegal acts and that the law is capable of pursuing profits as they are laundered.

Laundering of crime proceeds has become a growing trend-and this activity can be seen ever more often in our country-so we urgently need a mechanism to do something about it.

In order to help Members understand the delicate nature of the intrusions into private property which will result from this legislation, I will recount, without identifying the actual cases, a couple of incidents in which the Government was involved over the past few years.
In one case we were informed by representatives of a friendly government that an official of that country had come to Canada and opened a number of bank accounts into which he had deposited corrupt money, proceeds of bribery. That government was preparing all the legal work to lay charges against the individual. They intended to come to Canada to launch legal proceedings to try to recover that money. They asked us to help them by asking the banks to freeze the accounts while this process was ongoing. They knew the individual was well advised and that if he became suspicious that his government was pursuing this money it would be quickly moved to another country.
I received that foreign delegation and talked to my colleagues in Cabinet and then to the banks. I got something of a lecture about how little power the federal Government had to interfere with the business of a bank in relation to one of its clients. We could not get even the information that the bank account existed. We had some information from the government which had been robbed, but did not have confirmation of that from the bank.
In one way and or other during the weeks before that money was shifted from our country to another country I came personally to the realization that some kind of tool is needed in our world, with the complications which exist and the opportunities which are available to rich criminals to get legal advice and move money from one form to another. Crime pays unless we are able to do exactly what this legislation proposes to do.
I do not expect banks to serve government. A bank is there to serve its customers. If we as a society want the banks to do something different from what the law tells them to do now, we have to change the laws. I mean no criticism of banks. However, I think the Minister will agree, and I know the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) would agree as well, that our banks are among the most customer-oriented of any banks


Proceeds of Crime
in the world. Even in the United States, where people think free enterprise and respect for the individual goes furthest, banks are obliged by law to turn over certain information about large deposits in cash and movements from one branch to another. Canadian banks have no corresponding reporting obligations.
We should not require this because the Americans require it. They do so because organized crime is a much more serious problem there. However, because it is a serious problem here the time has come for us to do this as well. Today at second reading we are taking the step of asking the banks not only to be responsible to their customers but to assume an element of social responsibility to reporting and disclosure requirements which they have not been expected to assume until now.
Life being what it is, there is no doubt that some innocent people will wrongly fall under the purview of this legislation. For that reason it will be very important for us to be sure that the legislation respects the individual as much as possible, that rights of privacy are compromised only to the minimum extent needed to make sure that the law is effective and that it can actually do its job.
1 also want to talk about the problems which can arise when a third party's interests are affected in the assets seized. Even rich criminals may have mortgages on their boats, cars or houses. When that property is seized we have to be certain that the rights of innocent people who have loaned money in the normal course of business are also taken into account and that they get some notice and opportunity to do something to protect their innocent involvement in the establishment of the asset being targeted.
That was one of the toughest problems our administration worked on. We had many meetings to discuss the ways in which to deal with the rights of innocent people involved in these property matters. It was not an easy problem and we were not able to provide a solution prior to the summer of 1984.
I am glad this legislation is before the House. I have been looking forward to it. I am pleased that no hard deadline is being put on it as is so typical of the Government in other matters. We will have all the time we need and will be able to call witnesses. I certainly hope banks and financial institutions will give this the attention it deserves. Some of their customers certainly will want to categorize this legislation as anti-private property and anti-individual privacy. We must be certain that in this place, where we have the power to invade those very important rights, we do it for good reason and only to the limited extent needed to give effect to this very important tool so necessary if we are to have effective law enforcement in the age of the rich established criminal.
I commend the legislation to the House. We will be very interested in seeing it come forward and I look forward to participating in the work of the committee to be established.


Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby):: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise to debate this important legislation that will ensure that Canada finally takes the long overdue step to recognize that those who profit from organized crime in many cases are able to use weak and inadequate legislation as a means of laundering the profits of that crime.
The Government has indicated that this particular Bill, Bill C-61, is part of its over-all package in an approach to the abuse of drugs in Canada. Certainly we in this Party welcome a sensitive and thoughtful approach to the abuse of drugs in Canada, but I must say that the Government has failed to recognize that the most serious drug abuse in Canada today relates to alcohol and prescription drugs, and that there must be adequate funding, particularly for treatment facilities, to deal with those who are abusing these drugs. That failure on the part of the Government is a serious shortcoming and makes its so-called drug strategy in many respects very seriously flawed.
1 would have hoped as well that in legislation to amend the Narcotic Control Act and the Food and Drugs Act, the Government would have recognized that this is indeed an appropriate time to amend those two important pieces of legislation to respond to the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in Oakes. That decision was one which struck down the provisions of both those Acts, conferring in effect a reverse onus on the accused. In my view, it was recognized quite properly that that heavy reverse onus was in conflict with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Surely when the Government brings forward legislation to amend these two Acts with respect to drugs, that is an appropriate time to respond to that concern and to repeal the reverse onus provisions of the drug legislation. 1 thought and hoped that the Government would recognize that, instead of simply ignoring the court decision and saying it is bound by it but will not bring in that legislative change before the House at this time, when it is most appropriate.
I also suggest that an important element of a comprehensive drug strategy in Canada must be recognition as well of the serious inadequacies of Canada's legislation with respect to marijuana. Surely we must recognize as a society the enormous toll that is taken by the current provisions of the Narcotic Control Act which impose harsh criminal sanctions and a criminal record on young people that can act as a very serious barrier to future employment as well as in a number of other respects.
Many people believe that an absolute discharge means there are no consequences for the young person involved. That is not the case. Many others believe that the police are not, in fact, busting young people for simple possession of small quantities of marijuana. That is not the case either.
I hope that we as a society recognize that, while we must do everything in our power to discourage the use of marijuana and other illicit drugs, particularly by our young people, we must put far more resources into education and prevention.


The present provisions of the Narcotic Control Act, which impose a heavy criminal sanction and criminal record for these offences, must be re-examined. I would have hoped that as part of a comprehensive drug strategy, the Government would have moved forward on this.
We do not need a lot of evidence. The chief drug policy researcher at the Addiction Research Foundation, Patricia Erikson, points out that at least 20,000 young people in Canada are still convicted of these offences of simple possession each year. She suggested that the harm in saddling them with a criminal record outweighs any deterrent benefits that may exist. As well, she points out that each year in Canada over 2,000 young people are subject to terms of imprisonment as a result of these Draconian laws.
Once again, I would have hoped that the Government, in its review of drug legislation in Canada, would have come to grips with this very serious problem. I regret the silence and inaction of the Government in this important area of law.
Turning to the provisions of Bill C-61 itself, there are essentially two major thrusts of the legislation. The first is to extend significant new search and restraint powers to the police in their attempt to deal with the profits of organized crime. Certainly there is no question that the existing law is inadequate and must be strengthened in order to permit us to deal with the profits of organized crime. We want to be very sure in doing that that the rights of innocent third parties are not unduly impaired. That is the second major area of the legislation.
The first area of concern with respect to the Bill is its effectiveness in dealing with the proceeds of crime and in achieving its stated objective. The second area of concern is the possible implication of this legislation for the rights of accused persons and, most important, of innocent third parties who may have inadvertently and entirely innocently come into the possession of the proceeds of organized crime. We want to make sure that this legislation balances those serious concerns.
There are a number of important questions that should be addressed in committee about the effectiveness of the legislation. Of course, we know that the seizure and restraint order provisions allow for pre-trial and even pre-charge sequestration of property. Even before an information has been laid the property can, in fact, be seized under the provisions of this legislation. Of particular importance in this regard are the restraint orders. For the first time, intangible property will not be beyond the reach of law enforcement officials, which is an important step forward and certainly something we support. The general powers of forfeiture are also an improvement and a significant step forward.
Finally, the new laundering offence attempts to get at a very significant problem in the present law. That is, the impunity with which those who are handling the proceeds of crime can simply carry on their business as usual.
Proceeds of Crime
However, questions remain to be answered about the effectiveness of the legislation. For instance, what is the standard of information which will be required for the issuance of a warrant or an order? The provisions of this legislation would allow for a warrant for wiretap. We have seen just recently some of the concerns which have been raised with respect to information that is provided on wiretap applications.
Given the potential for abuse in this area, and the fact that these applications are made on the basis of sworn affidavits, I think it is time that we in Canada look at the suggestion that has been made by a number of civil liberties groups and a number of those active before the Bar that there should be a respected independent third party present in the courtroom to ask the tough questions that should be asked with respect to the affidavits that are filed to obtain warrants for these intrusive powers, including wiretaps. As I say, we saw a recent example in CSIS of the very serious abuse of these powers. I believe we must consider the possibility that there should be a third party in a courtroom, representing the interests of the public, to make sure that these sweeping powers are not abused.
I wonder as well why it is that under the legislation the provisions with respect to the disclosure of tax information are limited to the investigation of offences in relation to drugs? What about some of the other enterprise crimes which are set out in the legislation, some of the fraud related enterprise crimes, for example? I would suggest the committee will want to look at this as one area. If we see the importance of disclosure in certain circumstance of tax information with respect to offences in relation to drugs, why not the other serious enterprise crimes which are included under the umbrella of this legislation?
Another area which we must surely examine in committee is the whole question of the reporting requirements for banks as a result of the provisions of the Bill. It is in this area that the Government, I believe, has been weakest in its response to the importance of dealing with the proceeds of organized crime. The Minister will know the history of this particular question of whether or not banks should be required to report substantial transactions.
Under the Bank Search Act in the United States there is such a requirement. In fact, it has proved to be very effective. The FBI has used the provisions of the Bank Search Act to help it spot money laundering schemes, and in fact, it has been instrumental in a number of major drug arrests in the United States.
Under the provisions of American legislation, records of payments which exceed $10,000 made to U.S. financial institutions from abroad, have to be retained. As well, records which indicate transfers of credit outside the country exceeding $10,000 must be kept for five years. Probably one of the most important provisions is that banks must report deposits,


Proceeds of Crime
withdrawals, currency exchanges or transfers involving amounts above $10,000 originating outside the United States to the Treasury Department. These provisions have proved to be very effective in the United States in dealing with the profits of organized crime.
As long ago as 1981, the former Government embarked upon a federal-provincial study to examine enterprise crime or organized crime. That study came up with its report to the Justice Department in 1983. The report stated in part:
-Without clear track and identify the movement of profits earned by sophisticated criminals, it will be hard for police and the courts to effectively use the-"freeze and seize" provisions.
Without clear powers to identify and track the proceeds of crime, it is difficult to connect the proceeds to a particular offence or to a particular criminal.
Given this obstacle, it follows that it would be equally difficult to apply provisions for freezing, seizure and forfeiture of criminal proceeds.
What the report is saying is that we can bring forward legislation empowering the freezing, seizure and tracing of these proceeds of organized crimes, but unless we have a mechanism in place to identify them in the first place, the legislation will be very seriously weakened.
The Deputy Solicitor General less than two years ago in a letter to the then Federal Inspector General of Banks said:
Canadian legislation that would permit the freezing, seizure, and forfeiture of the profits of enterprise crime would have little effect unless there were mechanisms in place whereby these profits could be traced. The profits are used to finance other illegal aetivities or are laundered through financial institutions in Canada and abroad, and infiltrate legitimate business.
One would have hoped the Government, if it was serious about its commitment to track the profits of organized crime, would have accepted the recommendation of this federal-provincial working group and brought forward provisions requiring Canadian banks to report these kinds of transactions. But the Government did not. The Conservative Government knuckled under to the banks and said, "We are not going to impose a reporting requirement on you as the United States has imposed a reporting requirement on its banking system". I remind you, Madam Speaker, that the United States does not exactly have a wild-eyed socialist as President. Yet even the United States, with its President and with its Attorney General Ed Messe-who is not exactly known as a great leftist or great state intervener-recognized that it was important, if the United States was going to be serious about the profits of organized crime, to take on the banks, to tell them they have to report these transactions.
What does the Conservative Government do? It caves into the Canadian banking system. Some cynics have suggested that it is perhaps because the links between the Conservative Party and the major banks are very close, that it receives substantial financial contributions from each of the banks. That is a rather cynical approach and I certainly would not want to suggest that.
Let us look at what the Government's spokespeople have said about the imposition of a requirement on the banks to
report. Ross Christensen, director general of police and law enforcement policy for the Department of the Solicitor General, said:
To impose that kind of reporting requirement on the banking community would be a major step. We are aware of that and we do not want any confrontation.
We in this Party believe that if we are going to be serious about attacking organized crime, we have to take seriously our responsibilities to identify its profits. That means dealing with the banks of this country and imposing the same reporting requirements on them as the Americans have imposed on American banks. The effect of not doing this is quite clear.
Indeed, some of this laundering of profits from organized crime may indeed be filtered through Canadian banks with their extensive network in Europe and the Caribbean as well. I hope that the Government will recognize that it made a mistake, that it should not have knuckled under to the Canadian banks, and that it will accept the amendment I intend to propose in committee, that is, to impose a reporting requirement on the banks.
It is interesting to see what the banks themselves have to say about this particular question. Richard Marshall, senior international counsel at the Bank of Nova Scotia, said about money laundering:
It can't be done without a bank . . . But usually not just any bank will do. Money launderers prefer banks that have an international network of branches, including some in tax havens, and computers to shuttle money around the world-
And guess which banking system in the entire world is most suited to do that? You guessed it, Madam Speaker, it is the Canadian banking system. Guess which Government is refusing to impose on that banking system the requirement to report these transactions? It is its friends in the Conservative Government. The Minister responsible for senior citizens shakes his head in disbelief. I can understand that because it is a shocking caving in to the banking system.
Richard Marshall, the senior international counsel at the Bank of Nova Scotia says:
We're efficient at what we do. As such, we're a good target of money launderers.
The senior international counsel at the Bank of Nova Scotia admits they are a prime target for money launderers. Yet what does this Government do? It does nothing to impose this basic requirement of reporting transactions. We are not talking about reporting nickel and dime transactions. We are talking about taking effective steps to ensure that those banks who do launder large amounts of money as a result of organized crime are required to report these transactions. If the banks are not required to report these transactions, then all of the sweeping powers in this legislation will in fact go for naught.
I want to deal for a moment in the final part of my remarks with some of the concerns which do arise with respect to the legislation and its implications for innocent third parties. The legislation does not just impact on persons who are accused of


crimes-in some cases those who have not even been charged yet-but it may touch on innocent third parties as well. The legislation which was introduced prior to this, in 1984, Bill C-19, required that the sweeping powers of search and seizure could only be exercised after a criminal information had been laid. However, this legislation merely requires a statement of "grounds to believe" that property may be forfeitable. In committee, we will have to ask ourselves whether that standard is in fact high enough or whether there should not be some enquiry at least as to the likelihood of criminal proceedings.
It is also important that, if innocent third parties are subject to seizure, the onus should not be placed on them to challenge it. There should be an early review of such seizures by the courts so that these people do not have to hire lawyers, go to court and complain that they are innocent third parties and that their businesses or their personal affairs are being jeopardized as a result of this seizure.
We all know that going to court can be an expensive proposition. We all know that hiring a lawyer and appearing before the court costs money. Why should an innocent third party be put in the position of having to spend the funds to defend oneself in a situation such as that? I suggest that there should be an early provision for a judicial review to ensure that this onus is not placed on those who in fact are innocent third parties.
We should also look at a provision with respect to renewal of the seizure and restraint orders. Under the Bill as it is worded they can be renewed over and over again for a six-month period. I suggest that the Attorney General should have to meet a more substantial burden of proof after the initial six-month period.
As well, concerns have been raised with respect to the scope of the legislation and, in particular, the extent to which Canada, unlike other jurisdictions which have enacted similar legislation-jurisdictions such as Australia, the United States and Britain-would include within the definition of "enterprise crime" the proceeds from the bawdy-house provisions of the Criminal Code. It is one thing to attack the profits of those who would exploit prostitutes, that is, the pimps. All of us in the House would not disagree that those who exploit individuals in that way should certainly be subject to the provisions of this legislation. However, this legislation goes beyond that. It would lump in with the pimp the prostitute as well. In effect, it would treat the proceeds and the property of the prostitute in exactly the same way as the proceeds and the property of the pimp who is exploiting the prostitute. I suggest that that is an undue extension of the criminal law.
What we are saying with these provisions-these harsh and, I suggest, unconstitutional provisions of earlier legislation adopted by the House to sweep the streets clear of prostitutes and, in effect, to deny any form of communication for the purposes of prostitution-is that we want the streets clear.
Proceeds of Crime
What the Government is saying is, "We will sweep you off the streets but now if you engage in an act of prostitution in your own home or anywhere else we will subject you to forfeiture of those proceeds as well". Subject to forfeiture, for example, is a car or anything else. I suggest that this is a serious and unwarranted extension of the powers under this legislation. I hope that the Government will reconsider that fact when this matter goes to committee.
The Government has said that it is cracking down on the proceeds of organized crime, that it is coming to grips with white-collar crime. That is a myth. We know that if the Government were serious about coming to grips with white-collar crime, we would be looking at legislation to deal with the proceeds of organized crime. But what about those in the corporate boardrooms who profit from other criminal activity or activity which we have not yet defined as criminal? I refer to those in the corporate boardrooms who are responsible for the pollution and the destruction of the environment, those who in their search for maximizing profits and greed are responsible for the production of substandard and hazardous products which threaten lives, safety or health. I refer to those who are responsible for working conditions which result in injury or death to workers. What about dealing with the proceeds of those particular offences? What about dealing with the profits from those crimes? I suggest that if the Government is serious about tackling white-collar crime and the proceeds of it, it is about time it recognized that these other offences should be dealt with in a tough manner as well.
In conclusion, we in this Party certainly support effective legislation that will deal with the proceeds of organized crime. We welcome the opportunity to give this legislation the careful scrutiny that it clearly warrants in committee. I am pleased that the Minister has indicated, as my colleague from York Centre stated, that he is not holding a gun to the head of the committee, that he will allow the committee to conduct its study with the kind of thoughtful deliberation that is necessary for such important legislation. Thus we in this Party look forward to raising a number of these issues in committee. We look forward to hearing from witnesses with respect to the provisions of the legislation, in particular the friends of the Conservative Government from the Canadian Bankers' Association. We look forward to questioning them. Hopefully, as a result of this type of careful scrutiny we will have a Bill which Members on all sides of the House can support.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The Hon. Member for Comox-Powell River (Mr. Skelly).


Mr. Skelly:: Madam Speaker, I would like to ask my colleague a couple of questions and lay out some terms on which I would have him comment on the Government's legislation. The first matter involves the seizure of assets used in the commission of crime-


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: I am sorry to interrupt the Hon. Member. I remind him that he can speak on debate but that there is no question and comment period


Proceeds of Crime
following the speech of Hon. Members. If the Hon. Member wishes to have the floor on debate, then I will certainly recognize him.


Raymond John Skelly: Madam Speaker, I think that legislation that moves in the direction of removing the assets and profit motivation from crime is positive. It is a move which we can support. Certainly, a number of shortcomings have been pointed out in areas we would like to see some improvements. But I think that those matters will come up in committee where they can be given serious consideration. I see the Minister responsible nodding in the affirmative in that respect.
I would like to ask the Government to reply to the general question about assets used in criminal offences. I cast my mind back to provincial legislation, and in particular to the game legislation of British Columbia. If one happens to be in a car with a firearm and does not have a hunting licence then one's vehicle can be seized, as well as anything within it. This is treated as an extremely serious matter. The Government has talked about its concern for the victims of crime and about restitution. However, in many instances equipment used to perpetrate an offence and the assets related to it are not seized. If in fact those were subject to seizure and the proceeds were made available as an element of restitution to victims then a positive move would be taken.
Having regard to a Bill such as this, we must consider not only the profit motivation in the commission of the crime, but seizure of the assets involved. We should consider an expansion of the penalty to the criminal with the possibility of providing restitution to the victim. This is something which should be carefully examined when the matter goes to committee.
There has been a massive campaign across the country with respect to drunk driving. Under the liquor legislation of British Columbia, if one is roaming around with a case of beer in the back of one's car, that car can be seized. However, at the same time we do not provide a provision in the Criminal Code which states that if one is convicted of drunk driving one loses one's car. Introducing such a provision would provide enormous incentives to people not to drive an automobile under the influence of alcohol. I think there would be an immediate and dramatic impact on such behaviour. When the committee studies this Bill it should look at expanding some of its provisions in this respect since it is a matter of serious concern.
I want to expand upon a concept at which the Government has looked by flagging a very serious issue. Just recently a murder took place in Port Hardy, British Columbia, an area which I represent. An individual had been offended in a local bar. He went down to the fishing vessel on which he worked as a deck-hand, obtained a firearm which was not secured, sawed 14 inches off the barrel, returned to the bar, and killed two people. Property was involved in this offence. We have strict provisions in the Criminal Code about the use of firearms, but
unfortunately there is no requirement locally by the RCMP for individuals to secure firearms properly. There is no responsibility on the part of individuals to do it. I presume down the road there can be civil action. Obviously, according to people who are involved, the owners of firearms must have guidelines which are enforceable by sanctions. There must be guidelines for the securing of firearms; locking them up and removing the ammunition and firing mechanism. If that individual in Port Hardy had not been aware that another person had a firearm which could be readily obtained, perhaps these dire circumstances would not have been brought about.
Let us look at several incidents in British Columbia where firearms have been obtained by children and have resulted in fatalities. Again it is a question of control of specific assets which should be the subject of criminal sanctions. There should be clear guidelines enforceable by law and there should be consequences, especially in terms of restitution for victims.
The whole question of white collar crime was raised by the Hon. Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson) who did an excellent job in his presentation. He mentioned the serious dilemma of adequate penalties in the case of white collar crime. Quite often millions of dollars are misused; for example, in a breach of trust they are stolen outright from individuals, and the most that happens to the perpetrator is a slap on the wrist. There are serious shortcomings in this area, which the Hon. Member eloquently set forth.
Another consideration is the size of investigatory, agencies and the environment which the Government has created in cutting the Public Service, restraining expansion of the Public Service, and restraining the Budget. It is my understanding that there has not been proper expansion of RCMP facilities in the investigation of white collar crime-commercial crime squad groups. Along with Bill C-61 and the crackdown which everyone in the House would like to see, there must be an increase in the resources given to the RCMP to enforce the law and do an effective job.
I should like to reiterate, on the issue of drunken driving, that if the House placed a requirement in the Criminal Code to seize the vehicle involved in an impaired driving situation, there would be a massive disincentive for people to drive while under the influence of alcohol. If a provision were included in the Criminal Code under which the owner of a firearm who failed to properly secure would be guilty of a criminal offence, there would not be the kinds of things we have seen occurring in British Columbia, such as the shooting in Port Hardy. The possibility or probability of that would be diminished. Also there would be a major disincentive for owners in relation to the availability of firearms in tragic situations involving the accidental shooting of children.
I know the committee will examine the Bill diligently. I hope it will look at the prospects of expanding it to cover the areas I have mentioned.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Madam Speaker, I should like to revert to an earlier discussion this morning respecting the motion for the reporting date of the constitutional committee.
There have been further discussions among House Leaders and the Parties with a view to determining a date which would give the committee adequate time to prepare accurate translations and to fixing a date so that the Parties that wish to comment on the report can fix their schedules.
Under the circumstances I think Your Honour would find agreement to the following motion being moved and put at this time:
That the Special Joint Committee on the 1987 Constitutional Accord shall
report on Monday, September 21, 1987, notwithstanding any previous order.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The House has heard the terms of the amendment. Is there unanimous consent to amend the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Hnatyshyn that Bill C-61, an Act to amend the Criminal Code, the Food and Drugs Act and the Narcotic Control Act, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.
Mr. Howard McCurdy (Windsor-Walkerviile):: Madam Speaker, we should re-emphasize that the legislation before us today constitutes a part of the national drug strategy announced by the Government quite some time ago. The first overture was a statement by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mul-roney) that Canada faced a drug epidemic.
Of course the statement which precipitated the national drug strategy was copied from a similar statement by the President of the United States, once again reflecting a peculiar habit of the Government sensing political advantage in something occurring on the other side of the border, particularly when times are bad, and borrowing from that jurisdiction
Proceeds of Crime
in order to enhance the political status of a Government severely in need of political status.
As it happened, the Standing Committee on National Health and Welfare had an opportunity over the last year to examine the issue. I think we must direct our attention to the picture or image conjured up by the Prime Minister at that time, that there was massive use of crack and that marijuana, heroin, and cocaine were the chief areas of abuse in this country.
It was indicated that somehow young people were out of control and that by taking vigorous action we could change a situation which was imaged, within the same context, as the situation in the United States, a situation which was further exaggerated by the projection of the image on television in Canada, as if what appears on television from the United States reflects the situation in Canada.
Within that context there was a great deal of quick and automatic support in the population for a government attack on a situation which, quite frankly, it was possible to suggest even at the beginning was not the same in Canada as it was in the United States.
The Standing Committee on National Health and Welfare held a number of hearings and listened to many witnesses across the country. No expert, no one working intimately with those involved in chemical abuse, could agree that Canada was presented with a drug crisis predicated upon the predominant use of cocaine, heroin, or marijuana. However, it was indicated that 95 per cent of the chemical abuse problem in Canada was attributable to alcohol. Secondly, there was not evidence of the stereotyped image of youth gone wild but, rather, that the ordinary housewife, the ordinary middle-class individual had been convinced by the medical community and the drug companies to seek, through the use of agents such as Valium and other tranquilizers, some relief from the pressures of modern day life.
In short, the two most abused classes of chemicals in Canada are alcohol and over the counter/prescription drugs, abused not by young people or teenagers, but by adults considered to be responsible citizens in the country and, indeed, perhaps in the House.
If one wants to look at where chemical abuse has caused disruption in families, look at alcohol. If one wants to find chemical abuse that has caused death and suffering, look at alcohol. If one wants to look at what has led to 20 per cent of the occupied beds in hospitals, look at alcohol. If one wants to find the source of terrible suffering among the Indian and native peoples, look at alcohol. If one wants to find the chief cause of death and injury due to accident and family abuse, look at alcohol. Perhaps there is not an epidemic but there is a long-standing endemic occurrence of chemical abuse, namely, alcohol.


Proceeds of Crime
The problems posed by alcohol are difficult and complex. It is an agent accepted by our society; it is a part of society. Recognizing the serious difficulties and evils with which it is associated, nevertheless, 95 per cent of the population can use alcoholic beverages with impunity and enjoyment without harm. Yet we have been told by the Government, by the Prime Minister, and in a variety of ways, that the serious problem is to be found in the streets and at the parties of our youth. But the key to the problem is to look at the behaviour of adults. ! think this needs emphasis, and it will be given emphasis in the committee's report.
To have made this argument and to have pointed out the facts is not to dismiss the problem of illicit drugs and the huge profits made through the suffering of those addicted to narcotics, which is a part of the international criminal profiteering in the world. There are elements of the national drug strategy that we support. Indeed, we can support the vast majority of those elements which constitute the national drug strategy.
Given that we have a government which believes that the use of illicit drugs is a national epidemic, we should put what it is planning to do within reasonable perspective. Two hundred and ten million additional dollars will be spent fighting drug trafficking in Canada. That sounds like an awful lot of money. One would have thought that what this indicates is an urgent response to an epidemic, created in the minds of the Conservative Government, until we recognize that that $210 million will be spent over five years, that $170 million per annum is being spent now, and the first component of the $210 million expenditure will be an additional expenditure of $20 million over the $170 million. Most would agree, I think that that is not a dramatic increase in the devotion of federal resources to combatting drug trafficking.
The committee intimated that if one looks at the reality and the way this money will be distributed over geography, jurisdictions and years, we hardly have a total commitment to a problem to which the Government has found it must respond. Certainly the legislation with which we are dealing today is another example of an inadequate response. It is, I guess, an example of speaking loudly and carrying a very small stick; yes, we will attack money laundering, yes, we will make people forfeit the proceeds of crime, yes, we will freeze what are suspected proceeds from crime.
Anyone who has examined the issue of money laundering from the proceeds of criminal activity will agree that something similar to the bank secrecy act, implemented in the United States, must also be implemented in Canada. It is to the credit of those members of the Standing Committee on National Health and Welfare from all sides of the House that they recognized that the necessity of a reporting system, as has been enacted in United States, is needed in Canada as well. Cash transactions over $10,000, along with all international transactions, should require reporting, recording and maintaining.
Given the tremendous support from those well informed on this issue, given the clear necessity for having a system of reporting financial transactions which would enable us to detect that the laundering of the proceeds of criminal activity is taking place, it is beyond me and beyond Members on this side of the House why the Government should stop short of doing what is evidently necessary to ensure the effective enforcement of anti-money laundering measures. There are those who have suggested collusion between the Government and the banks. I would disavow any such suggestion, because it is a suggestion of unnecessary interaction. The Government is so evidently in tune with the banking community that it knows what is wanted and what is not wanted, as surely as a mother knows the needs of her child and so responds, and would reject what is an inconvenience to the banks. I know the banks say that such a reporting system might be expensive.
If we can make nice, neat tax and accounting arrangements for the banks to handle their international Third World debt in a convenient way, surely it would be trivial by comparison to have the expenditure process that would enable Canada and this Government to attack the issue of money laundering and effectively gain what has been achieved in the United States, namely, a means of detecting criminal activity through the identification of money laundering through a proper reporting and recording system. It is not too much to ask, Madam Speaker.
I join with my colleague in expressing the hope, in contrast to the refugee Bill and the other things with which we have been dealing over the last few weeks, over which the Government has disregarded all positive contributions, that the Government will see that this is not a partisan issue, even for this partisan Government. I hope the Government will engage in a co-operative effort to create an effective attack on the laundering of profits from illicit activities, most particularly those profits gained by trafficking in drugs.


Raymond John Skelly: Madam Speaker, I wish my colleague who made an excellent presentation might pursue an element of extremely serious concern, that is, that the weight placed by the Government on drug abuse and drug trafficking is not necessarily a misapplication of resources, but that it is certainly a failure to recognize the most serious problem in Canada, that of alcohol abuse. Being very knowledgeable about the activities of the Health and Welfare Committee, I would ask the Hon. Member whether or not the Government is co-ordinating its activity. One hand seems to be moving in a direction without the other hand knowing what is going on.
One of the most serious problems in Canada is not teenage drug abuse, but teenage alcohol abuse, and it is not just a problem with teenagers but with children in elementary schools. Many parents have told us that there are all kinds of programs in Canada for the treatment of adults who abuse alcohol. For example, the Armed Forces has an excellent program of rehabilitation. Enlightened industrial leaders are


developing modern programs for adults, but there is nothing for children. The problem is growing by leaps and bounds.
There is one particular group in my own area, the North Island Alcohol and Drug Information Society, that has had to beg for funds. It is doing a magnificent job of informing young people of the problems, but it has had to beg employment development for funds and has been rejected occasionally. It has not been able to get anything out of the Department of Health.
I wonder if my colleague, the Hon. Member for Windsor- Walkerville (Mr. McCurdy) could tell us what the Committee on National Health and Welfare has recommended we do about the question of teenage alcoholism and the treatment of teenage alcohol abusers, a problem which is far more serious at this point than the problem of drug abuse. Does the Hon. Member have any personal opinions, given the experience he has had on that committee, about what we should be doing about funding volunteer groups and other community agencies that are trying to deal with this critical problem?


Howard Douglas McCurdy: Madam Speaker, I would be hesitant to give a complete preview of the recommendations of the Standing Committee on National Health and Welfare on the issue of chemical abuse. However, the committee does recognize the inadequacy of programs intended to provide young people in particular with the kind of education that would enable them to make lifestyle choices which would permit them to deal in moderation with a number of potentially abusable substances and, indeed, experiences faced by youth these days. As my colleague has said, my Party would support these recommendations. I must say that the recommendations of the committee will be found to be constructive and that all sides of the House will be able to support them. I hope the issue will be regarded in a non-partisan way, as I have said before.
One of the things we must recognize is that chemical abuse and the abuse of opportunities in life are parts of the fabric of behaviour. This behaviour does not require that we go to the schools and say, "Don't drink, don't drink and drive, don't use marijuana, don't use heroin or don't use cocaine". What we must do is recognize that excesses of all sorts are at least partially attributable to family experiences, peer pressures and the failure to recognize that there is a new responsibility in the school system to provide young people with the wherewithal to make proper judgments about choices. They must make judgments about which choices will be beneficial to them, and which will be dangerous.
Certainly it is also true that the committee has recognized that there is inadequate funding and inadequate co-ordination. As well, there is an inadequate definition of national priorities, priorities that would allow organizations, such as the one cited by my hon. colleague, to contribute significantly and positively to this very serious problem that plagues so much of our population. We are particularly concerned about youth, but adults as well face problems with respect to the treatment of drug abuse.
Proceeds of Crime
I can only tell the Hon. Member that he should wait for the committee's report. I think he will find that the issues he has raised have been identified and addressed and are the subject of positive recommendations.


Mr. Althouse:: Madam Speaker, I wonder if my hon. friend could tell the House if the committee spent any time analyzing the effect of television advertising on supplementing the perception young people already seem to get from their parents and from society that one cannot have a good time, a party or a gathering without alcohol. I notice that most of the public advertising on television at least leaves the very clear impression that friends cannot gather for a good time without the introduction of alcohol. Did the committee spend any time looking at that aspect of the problem or did it simply look in general at the societal acceptance or promotion of that particular drug in society?


Howard Douglas McCurdy: Madam Speaker, the answer to the substantive question is yes.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to be able to respond to Bill C-61, an Act to amend the Criminal Code, the Food and Drugs Act and the Narcotic Control Act.
This particular Bill received first reading in the House on May 29 of this year and the Government has indicated that this is part of its plan to combat drug abuse in Canada and to take whatever steps necessary to encourage more and more people, particularly young people, to move away from an interest in drugs. On balance, it is a step in that direction. For that reason, my hon. friend for Burnaby has indicated that the principle of this Bill is one we of course support.
However, there are certainly major shortcomings in the Bill. A number of speakers have already outlined in some detail the specific concerns they have about what is lacking in this legislation. Of course, that is the role of an effective and efficient Opposition. Its role is to agree in principle with a Bill while working hard to improve legislation.
I certainly have confidence that Hon. Members, whether of the New Democratic Party, of the Liberal Party or of the Conservative Party, will all be motivated by the need to improve this legislation and to make it the best legislation possible. I believe all parliamentarians can be unified by doing anything possible to enact legislation that will save the people of Canada from falling victim to drugs and drug abuse. That would certainly be an appropriate initiative.
I look forward to seeing real progress made on this Bill. At this stage, of course, we are simply dealing with the Bill in principle and, therefore, I think it is appropriate to discuss not only the principle of the Bill but also to use the opportunity to point out two or three of its major shortcomings. I plan to focus my comments on one area of particular interest to me.


Proceeds of Crime
I remember, and 1 am sure you will recall, that not many months ago we had brought to our attention, through some incredibly good investigative journalism, the problem of laundering of drug money. Drug traffickers are unscrupulous characters who take advantage of young people, by and large-but not just young people-and encourage them to use drugs, thereby reaping exorbitant profits. There was quite a furor in the House of Commons at that time about whether or not Canadian bank branches in the Bahamas were involved. The investigation pointed the finger at a number of Canadian banks, and I will not name them, who were operating in the Caribbean. You have to look long and hard to find any real economic activity in some of these banks, but of course a considerable amount of money was moving through them. It seemed that the word on the street was that people were walking into bank branches in the Caribbean with suitcases filled with $100 bills, depositing them, and through a number of intricate financial transaction they found their way into more legitimate investments.
The interesting thing is that there was never any real action taken on those allegations. Of course, the banks denied any involvement. Yet the evidence suggested there was something here that needed to be dealt with, and so the banks took the initiative and promised they would implement procedures requiring more scrutiny of deposits exceeding $10,000. That is fine. The banks may have their own internal systems to deal with this, but I think on balance we would agree that this is not an appropriate response.
That is particularly true, given some of the financial skullduggery, and some have referred to it as financial piracy, which has been going on at the senior level of some of our financial institutions, particularly in western Canada, where people were behaving in ways not expected of senior officials of our major financial institutions. In other words, the fact that a bank might have an internal procedure does not bring us much comfort in some areas.
This legislation takes steps to deal with money raised through drug trafficking because the present provisions of the Criminal Code are totally inadequate to deal with that problem, and convicted traffickers may emerge from prison free to enjoy the proceeds of their crime. That is what is really troubling people like our justice critic, the Hon. Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson). This is obviously wrong and it must be changed. It is for that reason that we support the principle of this Bill.
Bill C-61 will not require financial institutions to disclose information which could help police detect money laundered by international narcotics traffickers. In other words, it will not oblige our banks, here or elsewhere, or other financial institutions, to record and report to authorities all of their large cash and foreign currency transactions. If the Government is serious about taking steps to uncover the illicit trafficking of drugs, it should seek the assistance of our
financial institutions. After all, if a person makes $2 million or $3 million from a major drug transaction, that person is probably not going to put it in the mattress or carry it around in a pocket. He is going to deposit it some place, and some of those deposits are going to be made in Canadian financial institutions. All we are suggesting is that the legislation ought to require financial institutions to report on a regular basis, confidentially in some respects, on these transactions as they occur.
People ask if this is a reasonable expectation. Is this something we can reasonably expect banks to do? It takes place in the U.S. The U.S. has taken steps to work with its financial institutions to help uncover these types of transactions. Reading from the May 29 Globe and Mail article by Andrew McIntosh, he says:
Sources who did not wish to be identified toid the Globe this week that
strong opposition within the banking community figured largely in the
government's decision not to introduce reporting requirements in Canada.
That is a very serious allegation.
It might interest you to know that the U.S. Bank Secrecy Act requires banks to report to federal treasury officials most banking and currency transactions involving amounts that exceed $10,000 and to keep records of many banking transactions for at least five years. That will help facilitate the uncovering of drug trafficking activity.
There have been a number of occasions when that particular provision helped the Federal Bureau of Investigation crack several big drug trafficking rings in the U.S. The record there is well-known and the committee suggested that this be considered here in Canada. It has worked effectively in the U.S.
Obviously the lack of this provision in the legislation is a drafting oversight. While some pressure might have been brought to bear, given that this Bill will be sent to a legislative committee and receive proper scrutiny, I am certain the Government will see the benefit of including the appropriate clauses in this legislation to require banks and other financial institutions to report large cash and foreign currency transactions.
There are another four or five areas I would like to flag. I do not want to go into detail because I do not think this is the appropriate time. However, there are things which need to be brought to the Government's attention in order to improve the legislation.
Before doing that, I simply want to mention that the Bill will create several new offences which would generally prohibit the laundering of proceeds of enterprise crimes and illicit drug activities. In particular, the Bill would create the offence of laundering the proceeds of enterprise crimes to complement the existing offence of possession of proceeds of crime under Section 312 of the Criminal Code. The Bill would also create the new offences of possession of property obtained by trafficking in controlled or restricted drugs under the Food and Drugs Act and the laundering of proceeds of such trafficking.


I believe you are indicating I should wrap up my remarks. Perhaps I will have an opportunity to complete them later.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: It being one o'clock I do now leave the Chair until two o'clock.
At 1 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.


Mrs. Therese Killens (Saint-Michel-Ahuntsic):: Mr. Speaker, my intervention concerns homeless people. Unlike Britain and Australia, Canada has no legislation to define government responsibility with respect to the obligation to shelter the homeless. The United States are now considering the possibility of passing such legislation, despite the pronouncements of the Reagan administration. In Canada this obligation does not exist at either government level, federal or provincial. In the meantime the federal and provincial administrations are throwing the ball back and forth in their respective courts.
What matters is to secure a commitment to settle the problem of homeless people in the next few years, particularly before winter sets in. If nobody is held responsible the problem will not be solved and the solutions advocated will not be co-ordinated, very likely leading to yet another waste of public funds.
I therefore urge the Canadian Government to define government responsibility. Homeless people are already on the fringe of society. Does the Government want to integrate them? Where is the political will?



THE LATE LORNE GREENE

Right Hon. John N. Turner (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, perhaps the most famous Canadian in history died last Friday. I am sure all Members of this House would want to join me in paying tribute to Lome Greene. A generation of Americans and Canadians, indeed millions of people around the world, grew up believing that Lome Greene was Ben Cartwright, that somewhat stern but altogether wholesome father figure in the Bonanza series on American television.
That was undoubtedly his most famous role in which he was reputedly seen by 400 million people a week.
Lome Greene was more than that, however. He was the son of Russian immigrant parents and grew up here in Ottawa where his father was a shoemaker. He began his interest in theatre in the early 1930s when he attended Queen's University. After graduation and further study in New York he joined the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation as an actor but within three months was hired as the announcer on the national news.
During the war years I remember, as countless other millions of Canadians will, hearing Lome Greene tell us of the latest troop movements, the latest catastrophe, and the latest triumph, in that deep sombre voice which was his trademark. He was called "The Voice of Doom", and an entire country listened.
He was also devoted to talent. He started his own school for announcers in Toronto and was a respected classical actor both on Broadway and at Stratford. He starred in many television series and plays.
Although he lived in Hollywood he never forgot his Canadian roots. He was constantly seeking opportunities for young Canadian artists and actors. I personally know that during the 1984 Olympics Lome extended his good wishes, help, and active participation in Los Angeles to aid our athletes there.
Having known Lome personally I know that he enjoyed the respect and affection of all his colleagues and the admiration of followers and fans everywhere. Just as he never forgot Canada in all his years in the United States, I am sure Canadians will never forget him. On behalf of myself personally and millions of Canadians, I extend to his family our heartfelt condolences. We assure them that we will never forget Ben Cartwright, or Lome Greene.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



HOUSING


Mr. Alan Redway (York East):: Mr. Speaker, ironically, while hundreds of Metro Toronto residents were lining up for hours yesterday hoping for a chance to buy an expensive and yet-to-be-built house, I was attending the official opening of the Glenburn Co-operative Home in my riding which was established to provide affordable housing for low and moderate income families.
The six-storey 50-unit apartment building, long the subject of maintenance complaints from residents and neighbours alike, has now been completely renovated by the initiative of the former tenants who bought the building and turned it into a non-profit co-op with financial assistance from the federal Government through CMHC.


The Glenburn Co-op is an excellent example of how residents working together with government can provide desperately needed affordable housing. We need a lot more of the same.



APARTHEID


Howard Douglas McCurdy: Mr. Speaker, last night CBC provided a national broadcast forum for the Ambassador from South Africa. We heard the official voice of a land in which the voices of both the press and the oppressed are silenced. Thus we replay for this reincarnated Nazi regime the innocent collusion of the thirties that allowed the propagandists of Hitler to shield us from the Holocaust. What is happening here?
A people are oppressed and we raise the ogre of Marxism as if the political philosophy of the victims of any oppression is of relevance to the justice of their cause.
A people are jailed, tortured, mutilated and killed by a regime that denies them their very humanity, and we say that the use of violence by the oppressed should not be condoned while the West's inaction condones the violence of the oppressor.
A victimized people turns against collaborators and demonstrates that the denial of humanity will breed inhumanity, and again we condemn the victims, forgetting the fate of traitors at the hands of European mobs in 1945. What is happening here?
Are we being led to a lessening resolve in our support of democracy in southern Africa? Is our Government abandoning its promises? Is our Foreign Minister now, after returning from Africa, prepared to seek compromise with South Africa and those other Governments which profit from apartheid in order to preserve, in southern Africa and for the world, peace in our time"?



THE LATE LORNE GREENE

Mr. John Oostrom (Willowdale):: Mr. Speaker, like the Right Hon. Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Turner), I am sure that all Canadians and Members of the House will join me in extending our condolences to the family of Lome Greene, a great Canadian.
Mr. Greene was and will remain a superb role model for all Canadians who wish to achieve success on an international level. Mr. Greene became one of Hollywood's most prominent
Canadians, yet he was so proud of his Canadian roots that he retained his Canadian citizenship despite all the success the United States had brought him.
Last year Mr. Greene stated: "I feel close to Canada". He returned to Canada to film and produce a television series on CTV called Lome Greene's New Wilderness.
He has left us with a standard of love and loyalty for Canada of which we certainly can be proud. With his passing Canada has lost one of its greatest ambassadors-at-large.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



POLITICAL PARTIES


Mr. Brian Tobin (Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, last week the NDP endorsed the position that sometimes a resort to violence is absolutely essential in the struggle against apartheid. Over the weekend the NDP dumped the Member who put that position and at the same time restated this pro-violence position.
May I humbly suggest that they have it backwards. They ought to have dropped the pro-violence position and retained the critic, who at least raised this important question and brought the NDP out of the shadows.
Every Member of Parliament can empathize with the feelings of those who in frustration may be driven to consider the use of violence to obtain fundamental justice. However, as much as we may seek to understand the seeds of violence, we must never condone it.
All over the world there are those with causes who seek to legitimize the power of the gun, the use of violence in obtaining their ends.
Violence begets violence in South Africa, the Middle East, Central and South America, Asia, Europe, or indeed North America. We cannot pick and choose, whether it be the PLO, the IRA, the Contras, the ANC, the Basques separatists, or the FLQ. Our response in this Chamber must be a resounding no to violence.



THE ECONOMY


Mr. W. Paul McCrossan (York-Scarborough):: Mr. Speaker, it is now three years since the Progressive Conservative Government was elected. In those three years, Canada has had the strongest economic growth record among all industrialized countries.


The results are now in for the period ending June 30. In the 12 months ending June 30, Canada had the strongest economic growth. In the 24 months ending June 30, Canada had the strongest economic growth. In the 36 months ending June 30, the entire period of the Government, Canada had the strongest economic growth among industrialized countries.
Not only did we have the strongest economic growth, we have had the largest proportionate increase in employment among all industrialized countries for the last 12 months, the last 24 months, and the last 36 months.
Indeed, when we formed the Government I recall the Leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Broadbent) suggesting that the Government should take on an unemployment reduction target. The target he would be happy to set for himself would be a 1 per cent reduction in unemployment each year.
At the time we became the Government, the unemployment rate was 11.7 per cent. At the end of the first year, the average unemployment rate was 10.5 per cent. At the end of our third year, the average unemployment rate was 9.6 per cent. We have met that target set by the NDP Leader in terms of reduction of unemployment.

The Toronto Star today reported a very interesting poll. Canadians across the country were asked if they felt the country's economy was better off now than three years ago. In every region of the country except one; in Atlantic Canada, in Quebec, in the Prairies and British Columbia, an overwhelming number of Canadians recognized the job the Government was doing.
In Ontario the results indicated that only 44 per cent felt the Canadian economy was strong. I wonder whether the results do not indicate that the reporting of The Toronto Star itself is part of the reason Canadians do not understand the impressive growth we have had over this last three years.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Mr. Ernie Epp (Thunder Bay-Nipigon):: Mr. Speaker, a young Canadian of the Sikh faith has been charged with weapons smuggling in India. He is reported to have made a full confession after five days of rigorous interrogation by Indian anti-terrorist forces. This report appeared about the same time the Canadian Security Intelligence Service was admitting it had used false information to put a wiretap on the telephone of a Sikh Canadian in British Columbia.
There is clearly a powerful temptation to obtain the result wanted, whether it be a wiretap or a confession, by any means that will work when security forces are under pressure to do
their job effectively. Truth and justice can easily become casualties in the rush to show results.
I urge the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) to enquire carefully into the interrogation of Daljit Singh Sekhon and to ensure that proper procedures have been followed. The rights of all Canadians need the protection of the Canadian Government, especially when the hunt is on for terrorists.



THE ECONOMY


Mr. Bill Attewell (Don Valley East):: Mr. Speaker, final deficit figures are now available for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1987. It is encouraging that, due to the policy of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) of fiscal restraint, the deficit was S30.6 billion, or $400 million less than forecast.
When this Government took control three years ago in 1984, the 1984-85 deficit was $38.3 billion and climbing rapidly because of the out of control spending policies of the former Liberal Government. Its irresponsible, reckless spending habits launched this country into awesome increases in the national debt through year after year increases in annual deficits.
Regrettably, the total accumulated national debt is now $280 billion, or $11,000 for every man, woman and child in the country. Almost 35 cents of every tax dollar collected is now required to pay the interest on this monstrous debt. Canadians should never forget, nor forgive the former Liberal Government for the enormity and tragic cost of its fiscal mismanagement. Our children and grandchildren will be paying the price for decades to come.



WAR CRIMINALS


Mrs. Sheila Finestone (Mount Royal):: Mr. Speaker, in 1985 I originally proposed amendments to the Criminal Code to allow for the prosecution of war criminals, which found favour with the Deschenes Commission. I am pleased to compliment Canada's Minister of Justice (Mr. Hnatyshyn), and all Parties in this House, on the quick passage of the War Crimes Bill.
The passage of the Bill does not, however, bring the process to an end. The Government must now show it is committed to using the new powers contained in the Bill to prosecute war criminals in Canada. In a sense, the term "war criminal" is somewhat of a misnomer because we are not talking in the


Oral Question
main about the killing of combatants in the course of a war but about the murder of innocents and the persecution of a race.
Exceptional crimes justify exceptional pursuit within the framework of our legal system. The Minister of Justice, having expressed his resolve on this issue, has no time to lose in bringing war criminals to justice. There is a new urgency in the search for war criminals, not out of vengeance but for the sake of remembrance. Remembrance remains a powerful tool, a censure against extremism. The Deschenes Commission has kept alive the flame of the memory of the victims of the Holocaust. Let us be sure its light of justice is not left to flicker out.



NATIONAL ENERGY BOARD


Mr. Paul Gagnon (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, one of our major policies during the 1984 election campaign was reconciliation. We promised to end discriminatory practices such as the national energy policy. This Government ended the NEP. Crude oil can be sold at market prices. Unfair and unjust taxes were terminated.
This Government requested the National Energy Board to review the discriminatory restrictions on exporting natural gas. Last week's announcement by the NEB removing these restrictions is indeed welcome news in western Canada. It means greater exports, more jobs and more prosperity.
We have delivered on reconciliation.



HOUSING


Mr. Neil Young (Beaches):: Mr. Speaker, this week at the Ottawa Congress Centre the Canadian conference to observe the International Year of Shelter for the Homeless has brought together representatives of all levels of government, non-governmental organizations, and service agencies, to discuss solutions to the problems of homelessness in Canada and, indeed, around the world. I call upon the Minister responsible for Canada Mortgage and Housing, a major sponsor of this conference, to commit the Government to fund additional units for the hard-to-house in Canada as a substantial and meaningful contribution to the homeless in the country.
Also marking the International Year of Shelter for the Homeless, community-based groups from Ottawa, Montreal and other Canadian cities are assembling on Lebreton Flats to
remind the Government of Canada that the Flats once provided affordable housing, and that future redevelopment plans must include such housing.
I further call upon the Minister responsible for the National Capital Commission, which is the land-owner of Lebreton Flats, to commit the Government to providing land to cooperative and non-profit housing agencies to construct such housing as part of any redevelopment plan on the Flats.




Mr. Len Hopkins (Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke):: Mr. Speaker, in 1983, when the Liberals were in power, a contribution of $300,000 was made to the International Year of Shelter for the Homeless. Canada took its role seriously and was the first largest contributor among the ranks of developed countries.
However, by mid-1986, 80 per cent of the pledges had originated in developing nations where, as we know, shelter requirements are most intense. Today the Canadian commitment must go beyond this International Year of Shelter for the Homeless. We must act as a beacon among industrialized nations in the quest for a solution to the homeless problem abroad and, indeed, at home.
I call upon the Government to recommit Canada to the resolution of homelessness in the world, and to present the appropriate measures to solve the problem at home. The Government must show as strong commitment in 1987 as the Liberals did in 1983. Instead, the Conservative Government has increased taxes for Canadians by $22 billion since taking power just three years ago, and it has neglected the homeless.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD

[Stage Direction]
[ Translation]

John Napier Turner: and that it was his duty to revise it personally, why did the Minister not resign from this Government?


Hon. James Kelleher (Solicitor General of Canada):: Mr,
Speaker, as the right hon. gentleman well knows, the affidavit in support of the warrant was sworn in June of 1985. The incident did not come to light until August 26 of this year.
1 advise the right hon. gentleman that at that time the then Solicitor General followed the procedure that was in place. He went through all the steps. I have discussed this personally with the then Solicitor General who advised me that he read the affidavit in question, as is required by him, and went through it.
The foundation upon which the affidavit relied was matters of fact. He, like other people, and properly so, assumed that the facts were correct. They were subsequently proven not to be correct.


RESIGNATIONS FROM SECURITY SERVICE
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I would have thought that in a matter of this importance arising from the disaster which preceded it the exSolicitor General would have personally interrogated those who prepared the affidavit and signed it, and personally interrogated his senior people, in order to assure himself that the facts were substantiated.
My question as to whether that had been done was directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. Since there is no response on that issue, and since the Solicitor General himself replied, I want to ask him a question about the current state of his security service. Was the head of that service fired? Did he resign for wider reasons than have become public? Why was he immediately rehired as a special adviser to the Solicitor General? Why have three of the five deputy directors of the security service resigned in recent months? Why is the security service in effect under trusteeship after the appointment of Gordon Osbaldeston? Where is the ministerial accountability here? Why do public servants resign? Why doesn't the current Minister take his responsibility and resign as well?


James Francis Kelleher: Mr. Speaker, I can advise the Right Hon. Member again that indeed this Minister takes his responsibilities extremely seriously.
The inaccuracies in the affidavit first came to the attention of CSIS on August 26. I was notified on August 27. I immediately directed the then Director of CSIS, Mr. Finn, to conduct an internal investigation immediately. I immediately directed the Inspector General to conduct an investigation, and I immediately asked the Osbaldeston team to look specifically into this matter.
Oral Question
Swift and decisive action was taken. In addition to that, I have notified SIRC, I have notified the courts, and I have had interim measures put in place to tighten up the warrant process further and to implement other necessary measures. I do take my responsibilities seriously. That is evidence of it.


John Napier Turner: The evidence is that the Solicitor General is presiding over complete chaos in the Canadian Security Intelligence Service.


POSITION OF MINISTERS
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, may I turn again to the Deputy Prime Minister? The simple fact, Your Honour, is that the former Solicitor General signed an application for a warrant based upon a false affidavit.
This action has apparently compromised a trial for attempted murder. It may also have jeopardized the whole investigation into the Air India crash, which resulted in the loss of 329 lives, mostly Canadian.
In light of the incredible error on the matter of the affidavit, and in light of the apparent widespread disorganization, disarray, and dissatisfaction within the Canadian Security Intelligence Service itself, why is it-and I put this to the Deputy Prime Minister-that the two Ministers in question are still in the Government?


James Francis Kelleher: With the greatest respect, Mr. Speaker, the right hon. gentleman is making unwarranted suppositions. They bear no resemblance to the facts whatsoever.
The Government acted quickly and decisively to look at the problem, to send in investigative teams, and to take interim measures to see that the integrity of the service and the security of Canada are being upheld. That is what the Government is doing. We have acted, as usual, with great alacrity.


INVESTIGATION OF AIR INDIA CRASH
Mr. John Nunziata (York South-Weston):: Mr. Speaker, the Minister's Department is out of control, and he knows it. Because of the gross negligence of the Minister and his predecessor, those responsible for the most hideous, the most gruesome crime ever in Canadian history, may go unpunished.
My question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. Would he not agree that, because of the gross negligence of the present Solicitor General and his predecessor, those responsible for the serious Air India crash may go unpunished, because they approved of an affidavit which was an attempt to mislead the court deliberately?


James Francis Kelleher: Mr. Speaker, I am having some difficulty as to my gross negligence


Oral Question
when I was not the Solicitor General at the time the incident occurred.
Again, what the Hon. Member is doing is attempting in his usual fashion to confuse Parliament. He is trying to confuse an incident of the alleged shooting of an Indian cabinet Minister with the downing of the Air India plane. I do not think that is proper. The facts should not be confused in that manner, and the Member knows better.


ERRORS IN AFFIDAVIT LEADING TO WIRE-TAP APPLICATION
John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, the Minister knows that it is a serious criminal offence, first, to swear a false affidavit and, second, to attempt to deliberately mislead a court.


Mr. Clark (Yellowhead):: You are changing your ground.


John V. Nunziata: I have an affidavit sworn by Francis Elmer Saunders, Regional Director General of the Toronto Region of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service. He points out in this particular affidavit that in the previous application, in order to secure judicial authority to wire-tap a certain individual's telephone, there were at least six factual errors in the affidavit. Is the Solicitor General suggesting that the six errors were mere oversights or typographical errors? Would he not agree that it was a deliberate attempt to mislead the court?


James Francis Kelleher: Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate that the Hon. Member was not kind enough to tell the House that I supplied you with that affidavit in order to assist you, and without any request or prompting from you.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Napier Turner: Thanks for a public document.


Brian Vincent Tobin: He is supplying his own rope.


Mr. Speaker:: I do not want to take anything away, of course, from the information the Minister is giving. I would remind the Minister that in this Chamber we do not refer to other Hon. Members as "you" but as the "Hon. Member", and I think things will go better if we all remember that. The Hon. Minister.


James Francis Kelleher: Certainly I am prepared to correct that, Mr. Speaker.
I did indeed supply the affidavit to the Hon. Member without any request or prompting from him. In any event, the full facts upon being discovered by CSIS were immediately relayed to me as Solicitor General and I immediately instructed CSIS to advise the court. All those facts were brought forward by us to the court in a good and proper manner.


TRANSFER OF SECURITY AGENT
Hon. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the Minister something that is very pertinent to the question of ministerial responsibility. The Minister has said he has provided a document that was already available to the press. We all find that very encouraging.
I want to ask the Minister about his responsibility. Since CSIS apparently has simply transferred an agent who we now have learned not only provided false information to the courts but was the same person who failed to inform the RCMP of certain information that may have prevented the shooting in Canada of a visiting cabinet Minister from India a year ago, has the Minister pursued this matter? Does he think it is appropriate simply to transfer this person instead of firing him? Has he asked or talked to the agent directly and, if not, why not?


James Francis Kelleher: Mr. Speaker, 1 am not aware of the veracity of that particular allegation. I can certainly advise this House that following the shooting incident my predecessor ordered an investigation into it and a report was supplied. As the Hon. Member knows, this case is presently before the courts and, as such, is sub judice, and I am not in a position to discuss it further at this time.


REQUEST FOR PARLIAMENTARY REVIEW OF SERVICE
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, there is what can only be described as a scandalous situation in the agency. There has been, on public record revealed in the courts, deliberate lying by people working for CSIS. We are told that instead of being fired forthwith, the same people have simply been transferred elsewhere.


Charles Joseph Clark: Name names.


John Edward Broadbent: I say to the Secretary of State for External Affairs that the Director of the agency himself resigned before the weekend. He acknowledges how serious the situation is.
Given the fact that the legislation passed in 1984 provided for a parliamentary review of the operations of CSIS within five years, does the Minister not think that the time for that parliamentary review is now rather than in another two years in view of the kinds of disasters we have now had described to us?


James Francis Kelleher: Mr. Speaker, first I would like to clear up an allegation the Hon. Member persists in making which is that there was a deliberate action or some deliberate falsification of the facts to mislead the court. I am certainly not aware that there was anything deliberate nor is there any evidence to date from our investigations to substantiate that allegation. I think the Hon. Member should be aware of that.


Second, I would like to point out to the Hon. Member that I am well aware of the five-year review process and I will welcome that when the time comes. At this particular juncture the evidence indicates human error, faulty procedures or a lack of following procedures. It is not something which the Act itself corrects. It is something that must be corrected within CSIS and we have moved very decisively to do that. Three investigations are going on. We have advised the court and I have also advised the Security Intelligence Review Committee which, being set up as the parliamentary watchdog, I am sure will take care of this matter in an adequate way to the satisfaction of all parties.


REQUEST FOR IMMEDIATE REVIEW
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, because his Party was in opposition at the time this agency was being set up, the Minister knows that it was agreed by all Parties at the time that it was essential not simply to have the Government as the judge in its own case when it comes to the Security Service and that is why a parliamentary review was spelled out as being desirable and was supported by ail Parties. Given the seriousness of the problems that have been revealed to everyone and their implications for civil liberties in Canada, will the Minister now do the correct thing and agree to have a parliamentary review of CSIS operations forthwith?


James Francis Kelleher: Mr. Speaker, I trust the Hon. Member is not suggesting that SIRC is not independent. I trust he is not suggesting that the Inspector General is not independent. They were set up under the Act as independent watchdogs. They will be carrying out their investigations and I am quite prepared, when the investigations have been completed, if I am invited, and I am sure I will be, to appear before the Justice and Solicitor General Committee to discuss the matter with that committee.


RESIGNATION OF DIRECTOR
Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the same Minister. When one looks at the story of CSIS, one sees criticism in two annual reports of the Security Intelligence Review Committee, serious problems with senior personnel, resignations at the very top of CSIS in addition to that of Ted Finn, the filing of dozens of employee grievances complaining about employment, and finally the Osbaldeston team having been set up with a mandate that the Minister indicated just today has been made even wider. Is the Minister asking us to believe that Ted Finn's resignation was related only to the affidavit that was referred to in the Air India matter and in the Atwal matter?


James Francis Kelleher: Mr. Speaker, Mr. Finn, the former Director of CSIS, undertook a very difficult task for this Government three years ago. He faced the task of taking over a brand new agency that had to be up and running from day one for the security of Canada. He is a man of integrity and character. He has performed his job extremely well. As soon as he learned of this incident, there
Oral Question
was no cover-up or any hesitation on his part. He immediately advised me. He co-operated fully with the investigation. He submitted his resignation as he was the man responsible for the operation of CSIS, and his resignation was accepted.


REASON FOR RESIGNATION
Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, I must ask the Minister again, is he telling us that the only reason Ted Finn resigned and that the Solicitor General accepted his resignation was the serious problems with this affidavit?


James Francis Kelleher: Mr. Speaker, I can only repeat my first answer. Mr. Finn submitted his resignation and it was accepted.


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF UNITED KINGDOM SECRETARY OF STATE FOR DEFENCE
Mr. Speaker:: I wish to bring to the attention of Hon. Members the presence in the Gallery of the Right Hon. George Younger, Secretary of State for Defence, of the United Kingdom.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF AUSTRALIAN MINISTER FOR TRADE NEGOTIATIONS
Mr. Speaker:: I wish also to bring to Hon. Members' attention the presence in the Gallery of the Hon. Michael Duffy, Minister for Trade Negotiations for Australia.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: I think Hon. Members will forgive me for saying that, if I get a chance, I will explain to the Hon. Michael Duffy just why there was some levity when his name was given to the House.


CANADIAN SECURITY INTELLIGENCE SERVICE
Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, I might just say by way of preamble that I find it interesting to hear the author of the CSIS legislation asking questions that result clearly from abuses for which that legislation he authored was responsible.


Oral Question
My question is directed to the Solicitor General. It concerns the most recent annual report of the Security Intelligence Review Committee which states:
We are informed that the Solicitor General makes sure, in reviewing warrant applications, that everything being sworn to is an ascertainable fact, not merely a conclusion the investigator has drawn from the facts, and he sends some applications back for amendment before he lets them go to the Federal Court.. . We welcome his vigilance.
In view of the suggestion that the Solicitor General himself is personally responsible for the accuracy of affidavits sworn in request for warrants, and having fired the Director of CSIS, does he not accept his responsibility for this deceitful warrant? If so, why does he not do the honourable thing and resign as Solicitor General?


James Francis Kelleher: Mr. Speaker, as I have already pointed out to the House earlier and I will repeat again, the affidavit which supported this warrant was reviewed and sworn in June of 1985. Immediately upon it coming to this Solicitor General's attention, I initiated the actions of which I told the House. I think we and the Government have acted quickly, fairly and decisively in this matter.
I can assure the Hon. Member that it has been my practice since I became Solicitor General carefully to review and read each affidavit in support of an application for warrant that comes before me. It has always been my practice to discuss the warrant before signing it with the Director or the Acting Director in concert with other officers of CSIS.


PARLIAMENTARY REVIEW-MINISTER'S POSITION
Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, given the history of CSIS, it is a security agency which is clearly in a state of crisis and disarray. There have been problems with civilianization, with bilingualism, and with bungled investigations in the case of the Sikh situation. There have been fights with the RCMP, and targeting of individuals who should not have been targeted. There has been serious criticism by SIRC.
Why is the Minister afraid to allow Parliament to review comprehensively the actions of CSIS today? Why is he insisting we wait two more years for the review of an agency in disarray? In light of his refusal to allow Parliament to conduct this comprehensive review today, why on earth does he not resign? He is obviously not in control of the agency for which he is responsible.


James Francis Kelleher: With the greatest respect, Mr. Speaker, I do not share the opinion of the Hon. Member that CSIS is in a state of disarray. That is unfair to the Service. I think it is doing a commendable job, and that is contained in the latest SIRC report, parts of which he chose not to read.
The language issue is being dealt with decisively. An action plan is now ready and I hope to present it within the next few
weeks. The Osbaldeston committee is looking into the matters of counter-subversion and civilianization. I think the agency is alive and well. There are some minor problems and they are being dealt with.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
William Paul Joseph McCrossan: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Last week a Canadian Sikh from Mississauga, Daljit Singh, also known as Gurmukh Sekhon, was arrested in the Punjab and detained for gun smuggling. While I abhor the increasing violence in the Punjab, it is a fundamental precept of any justice system that an accused has the right to legal representation and that any individual is innocent until proven guilty.
Has the Minister confirmed that this Canadian citizen has been arrested in the Punjab and has the Canadian High Commissioner had consular access to the individual? If not, how much time has expired since we made our initial request?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I can confirm the arrest occurred. We have sought consular access. We made the first application orally four days ago on September 10. Since there has not yet been a response we made another written application today. I have instructed officials of my Department to call in the High Commissioner or the charge d'affaires for India because it is essential that the right of Canadian citizens to consular access be respected.


HOUSING
Marie Thérèse Rollande Killens: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister responsible for housing, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister.
Last August 28, in response to one of my questions concerning the homeless, the Minister of National Health and Welfare said he would bring my question to the attention of the Minister responsible for Housing.
Yesterday at the International Conference of the Homeless the Minister did not say anything particularly noteworthy, except that it is a question of having the political will to solve the problem of homeless people.


Oral Question
Can the Deputy Prime Minister tell us today what concrete evidence of this political will we can expect to see? What initiative, what policy, or what program does he have in mind, particularly now that winter will soon be with us?


Hon. Michel Cote (Minister of Supply and Services):: Mr. Speaker, this Government certainly did not wait for the International Year of the Homeless to launch a plan of action. In fact we did so back in 1985. Under the previous administration, only 40 per cent of new units were for the homeless, whereas we implemented a plan of action to give priority to homeless people.
Mr. Speaker, the result is that more than $1.5 billion will be earmarked for the homeless this year.


MEASURES GOVERNMENT INTENDS TO TAKE
Marie Thérèse Rollande Killens: Mr. Speaker, my second question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister.
The Australian and British Governments have enacted legislation to define their jurisdiction with respect to sheltering the homeless. The United States is about to pass similar laws.
We in Canada have not defined either federal or provincial jurisdiction concerning homeless people. If the Government considers this to be a serious issue, can the Deputy Prime Minister assure us today that he will do whatever is required to establish the responsibilities of each government level, especially since the Government has failed to take its responsibilities and dumped the whole problem in the lap of the provinces? And if the Government considers the matter important enough, is it prepared to legislate to guarantee this protection?


Michel Côté: Mr. Speaker, the premises of the question of my colleague are faulty. I am sure she knows full well that more than a hundred-odd delegates from every corner of the world will be debating the issue during the conference taking place this week. Canada has always been acknowledged as a world leader in this respect and we intend to take this opportunity to champion the cause of the homeless and pave the way for building more shelters and creating still more jobs. Again I might point out that more than 900,000 jobs have been created in Canada since the advent of the Conservative Government. We will maintain our pace in spite of the fact that certain non-elected elements of the Party opposite continue to thwart such initiatives as Bill C-22 which we are trying to get through.


LITERACY
Mr. John R. Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Employment and Immigration. A survey on illiteracy in Canada by Southam Inc. revealed these shocking and devastating results. Some 24 per cent of Canadians over 18 years of age are illiterate in English and French.
Earlier this year the Standing Committee on Labour, Employment and Immigration recommended in its report in response to the Forget Commission report that those illiterates who may be collecting unemployment insurance be allowed to take basic education at the same time. Is the Minister prepared to move his butt now and start to change the Unemployment Insurance Program so as to give hope to some of these people who are living a life of darkness?
[ Translation]


Hon. Benoit Bouchard (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to tell the Hon. Member two things.
First, I would have thought that, as NDP critic for Employment and Immigration, he would have known that we have now signed agreements with all the provinces under the Social Assistance Program, to ensure that unemployment insurance recipients are covered by the program. In co-operation with my colleague the Minister of National Health and Welfare and all Canadian provinces, we have multiplied the opportunities for these people to receive training under various programs to give them the means of improving their situation.
Second, the Secretary of State is now putting together, in co-operation with various interested parties, not only studies, but also mechanisms to deal with these problems.
instead of criticizing, I believe that his Party would do better to co-operate with us to deal with this problem, which is admittedly a national one.


COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, I find it absolutely incredible that the Minister is not even aware of his own legislation with respect to unemployment insurance benefits and basic education programs. We are not talking about people who are on welfare, we are talking about people who are illiterate and collecting unemployment insurance. These people are the last hired and the first fired. They are trapped in a cul-de-sac of no education and no opportunity to move themselves out.
Is the Minister prepared to respond specifically to that unanimous committee recommendation which would permit those who are collecting unemployment insurance benefits to


Oral Question
do so and take basic education programs if they so desire? A specific question, and no bullfeathers about it!


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, I replied to this question about the reform of unemployment-


An Hon. Member:: It was not an answer.


Benoît Bouchard: I replied to this question in May, and I have no intention of changing my answer in September.


CANADA-UNITED STATES NEGOTIATIONS-REQUEST THAT GOVERNMENT END TALKS
Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. The United States has repeatedly demanded that the auto pact, cultural industries and regional development programs, amongst others, be part of the free trade deal. The U.S. has consistently refused to enter into a binding trade dispute resolving mechanism with Canada.
When will the Government relieve Canadians of their anxiety and put the Government out of its self-inflicted misery by formally declaring an end to these failed free trade talks?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, the position of the Liberal Party grows more and more curious. We are three to four weeks from the conclusion of a trade negotiation which, if successful, can have a very positive impact upon the economic security and availability of jobs for Canadians. As we draw near the end of the negotiation they want us to quit. That is nuts.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, the Liberal Party grows rather embarrassed at the spectacle of the Minister swinging from the end of a rope at the tail end of these negotiations. We would rather see him out of his misery quickly.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


BINDING TRADE DISPUTE RESOLUTION MECHANISM
Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, can the Minister categorically tell the House and Canadians whether or not Canada will say "no" to any trade deal that does not include a binding trade dispute resolution mechanism? Last week the Secretary of State of the United States was telling us that no such provision can be included in a free trade agreement.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, we have made it clear on a number of occasions that in our judgment a binding mechanism to resolve disputes is essential to an acceptable trade negotiation. That has been the position for a long time. It has become such a popular position that it has now been adopted by the Premier of Ontario. 1 presume it will soon be picked up by members of the Liberal Party in opposition. That is our position, has been our position, and remains our position.


Mr. Marchi:: That's nuts.


HOUSING
Neil Young: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister responsible for housing I will direct my question to the Minister of Supply and Services. If the Minister has been paying any attention at all to the conferences going on across the way here about homelessness, not only in Canada but around the world, he will know that at a conservative estimate there are some 40,000 Canadians who are considered homeless. That does not include thousands who are living with parents or friends because they cannot find housing.
The one clear message emanating from this conference is that a large infusion of government money is needed to correct a serious problem. Is the Government prepared to commit the kind of money which any responsible Government would commit in the face of this particular crisis?


Michel Côté: Mr. Speaker, I have already replied to this question. I said that the Government would continue to deal with this issue, that we would be at the conference this week, that Canada is already recognized as a world leader in this area and that we shall continue to ensure all Canadians of our on-going concern and desire to take part. However, there is no immediate solution and it cannot come from the federal Government alone. There will have to be a consensus among all those involved.


LEBRETON FLATS, OTTAWA-CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING PROJECT
Neil Young: Mr. Speaker, I will address my supplementary question to the same Minister. Expressing a desire is all good and well but these people are looking for a real commitment. Will the Government commit itself to a very simple project at Lebreton Flats, which the Government owns? Will it commit, within the next week, if not immediately, to provide moneys to the developers of housing on Lebreton Flats to construct co-operative and affordable social housing there?


[ Translation]


Michel Côté: Mr. Speaker, I said earlier that 19,000 units would be built this year. Moreover, we have brought about economic conditions which promote lower interest rates and various other favourable conditions. We are therefore very much concerned about this issue.


PETRO-CANADA PRIVATIZATION INQUIRY
Bill Attewell: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister responsible for privatization and is about Petro-Canada. What is the status of the review of the privatization of this Crown corporation? Specifically, has she considered the idea I put forth in this House on September 2 that we essentially give it back to Canadians? That would not only help ensure self-sufficiency of oil and gas but would keep it in Canadian hands. The real bonus may be that it would get the Government out of the retail gasoline pump business.


Hon. Barbara McDougall (Minister of State (Privatization and Regulatory Affairs)):: Mr. Speaker, I will consider the Hon. Member's question as a representation. I have read his statement made pursuant to Standing Order 21 on September 2. It is advice which I am certainly prepared to take back to the Government.
As the House knows, we have not reached a decision on Petro-Canada. We are studying the issue very carefully. I have made no secret of the fact and have stated publicly that if we do sell this company I would prefer a broadly based public share issue. However, I am very prepared to treat the Hon. Member's suggestion with respect.


FILM INDUSTRY
Sheila Finestone: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. The private sector Canadian film and television industry is in trouble, not because it does not produce good, competitive, world-class films but because this young, labour-intensive industry has had the basic incentive pins knocked out from under it by the Government's ill-conceived tax reform proposals.
Instead of listening to the free trade talks and that siren song, why does the Minister not listen to the Canadian film and television industry? Will he change his tax reform
Oral Question
proposals to allow this industry to continue to grow and prosper, instead of opening the door to more American films and closing the door on Canadians?


Hon. Michael Wilson (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I am a little surprised at the way the Hon. Member has phrased the question suggesting that I am not listening. I have a letter here from Mr. Samuel C. Jephcott, the Executive Director of the Canadian Film & Television Associates, who is pleased about the consultation process-


Ms. Copps:: That's not a letter, it's a newspaper clipping.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Hon. Members are little reluctant to hear the truth.


Sheila Maureen Copps: It's a newspaper clipping.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Jephcott disagrees with Mr. Sid Adilman's comments that the federal Government is not-


John Napier Turner: Is that the former Conservative Minister in Toronto?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: I will take the Leader of the Opposition aside too. I will pass the letter over to the Hon. Member but the point of it is that we are listening to the industry. We are giving careful consideration to the comments that it has made. As the Hon. Member is very much aware, we have made some changes which will ease the transition to the new rules. As Mr. Jephcott has said, the reality is not that we are ignoring the plight of the industry.


MINISTER'S PLANS
Sheila Finestone: Mr. Speaker, the industry needs a more equitable playing field. I will address my supplementary question to the Minister of Communications.
If the Government is concerned about the cultural industries, why can it not stand up to the U.S. demands at the free trade table for restrictions on the broadcasting, publishing and film industries? Why has the Minister abandoned her promise to introduce legislation to stimulate the Canadian film distribution industry?


Hon. Flora MacDonald (Minister of Communications):: Mr. Speaker, I have to say that once again the Hon. Member is wrong. I have not abandoned any plans that I have in place. I want to reiterate that the Minister of Finance and I, in consultation with the film industry, have already made certain changes that they have requested. In addition, we are discussing other long-term proposals with them. We intend to keep in touch with the film industry on an ongoing basis because our goal is to ensure more and better Canadian films in movie houses all across the country.


Proceeds of Crime


IRRADIATION OF FOOD
Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. This is the first opportunity we have had to question him on the Government's response to the report of the Standing Committee on Consumer and Corporate Affairs which examined the question of food irradiation and the labelling of irradiated foods.
Given that the government response largely rejected all but a couple of recommendations concerning labelling, will the Minister explain what sort of rationale he used for rejecting the recommendations and, in effect, unilaterally making decisions for himself and his Department which run completely contrary to that four-month study?


Hon. Jake Epp (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, it was not a unilateral decision, and the Member knows that.
The report was brought forward by a committee that was chaired by the Member for Capilano. It was a very comprehensive report for which I thank the committee.
There were a number of issues on which there was agreement. I think that the evidence of the studies which have been used by the Department, as well as the number of years that irradiated technology had been studied and used in a very limited manner in some countries, clearly pointed to the decision that was taken.
I also said very clearly in the response that there would not be an extension of any irradiation on any foods subject to a case-by-case study, based again on the regulatory process.
The Hon. Member must keep in mind that I take the regulatory process very seriously and that scientific and health considerations are the overriding considerations. I believe those have been dealt with clearly. I was very straightforward in my response on that issue.


REVIEW OF PROCESSES-COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Mr. Speaker, will the Minister explain to the House what criteria he used in rejecting the committee's recommendation to strike a public committee to review these processes in favour of an indepartment committee that did not have to be responsible to anyone other than himself?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, I think the last comment that a committee of experts in the Government are not responsible to anyone but themselves or the Minister is a very poor evaluation of scientists and medical officers within my Department or other organizations within government.


Mr. Hovdebo:: What happened to Parliament?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Calm down and I will give you an answer. The Hon. Member should keep in mind that the Department of Health and Welfare and its officials have not compromised health and have been very keen about that.
I hear the Hon. Member for Prince Albert. He should keep in mind that he gets up in the House every day he can asking for more wheat sales. Yet part of the wheat sales in the international field possibly involves irradiated food. I wish he would be consistent one way or the other, and not try to speak out of both sides of his mouth.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Hnatyshyn that Bill C-61, an Act to amend the Criminal Code, the Food and Drugs Act and the Narcotic Control Act, be read the second time and referred to a Legislative Committee.
Mr. Speaker:: When the House rose at one o'clock, the Member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis) had the floor.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, in concluding my remarks on Bill C-61, I was pointing out a major flaw in the Bill that I believe all Parties will want to change. While there are many flaws in Bill C-61, the New Democratic Party supports its principle. It will allow the Government to take serious steps toward eliminating drug abuse and drug trafficking in our country.
Of course, under the present legislation, drug traffickers can easily invest and use the banking system to launder money. While they may serve some time in prison, they can come out to resume their business with substantial amounts of income that they have invested in various ways, not only in Canada but throughout the world.
The major flaw in this legislation is that it does not encompass the banking and financial communities. Serious allegations have been made in the press in the last number of months about money from illicit drug trafficking finding its way into various deposits in Canadian financial institutions. There is no definite proof of this since the books are closed. The RCMP and other law enforcement agencies do not have access to those bank accounts, unlike the United States where financial institutions are required to report their deposits over a certain amount on a regular basis. As a matter of fact, they must report a number of items. This allows the law enforcement authorities in the United States to identify where drug money is being laundered through financial institutions.


We assumed that appropriate legislation reflecting that situation would be introduced. However, such is not the case. Bill C-61 does not include Canadian financial institutions as part of the monitoring system. When this matter goes before the appropriate legislative committee, I urge my honourable colleagues to consider using the experience in the United States, where drug rings have been smashed as a result of the information provided by the reporting systems of the American financial institutions.
While this might require some new responsibilities for banking personnel, as well as some systems for that accounting, I am convinced that if such a request was made of the Canadian Bankers' Association and the organizations of other financial institutions, they would co-operate. It would be in the best interest of Canada, particularly in terms of Canada's young people, if we could put a stop or at least inhibit the running of illicit drugs that presently occurs in our schools, colleges, universities, as well as on the streets of Canada.
If this legislation can be amended in that area, it would certainly have the support of New Democrats on the committee. I am sure it would also have the support of other political parties because stopping the traffic in illicit drugs on the streets of Canada surely is not a partisan issue but something all parliamentarians would endorse.


Mr. Keeper:: Mr. Speaker, I have a question which I already asked the Government in regard to its drug reform program and legislative changes. Would it not be a good idea to take into consideration as part of drug abuse the glue sniffing that goes on in many communities across this country?
In Winnipeg, at the City Hall level, we had a by-law for a short time regulating the sale of products which could be abused by youngsters. They were put behind the counter and the age level at which they could be purchased was restricted. This by-law had a positive effect in Winnipeg by reducing the abuse of products on which children could get high by sniffing which, of course, has a detrimental effect on their health and mental capacity.
I wonder if my colleague would not agree that it is a little strange that the Government, which is attacking drug abuse, is not at the same time taking the opportunity to amend federal laws which could reduce the abuse of products that children use to get high, thereby destroying their health?
The by-law which existed in Winnipeg was ruled ultra vires by the court in that it fell within federal jurisdiction. Would this not be a good area for initiative by the federal Government at this time?


Nelson Andrew Riis: Madam Speaker, my friend, the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Keeper) makes a good suggestion, and it is not the first time he has made it. I recall that he suggested it on numerous occasions, both in public and private. He has put that question in committee and many times on the
Proceeds of Crime
floor of the House of Commons, trying to encourage the Government to take a variety of steps which would bring to an end that type of activity by young people, not only in Winnipeg but right across the country.
I can only imagine his level of frustration today when once again there is a missed opportunity. Here is an opportunity for the Government to take steps, to indicate in the introductory speeches by government Members how the Government plans to deal with this problem. But once again it has turned its back on something which is very serious. Perhaps we will have an opportunity during debate on this legislation, and more particularly during the work which will be done in the legislative committee, to raise the importance of taking fast action in this critical area.
I also think that when we deal with legislation such as Bill C-61, finding ways and means of legislating the reduction in the amount of illicit drugs sold, drug trafficking and the abuse of drugs, that we do not lose sight of the need to fight the reasons for drug abuse. I think all too often we get too caught up in the mechanics of legislation, in our role as legislators, trying to stem the tide, to fight the symptoms of a much deeper concern. We as responsible parliamentarians should ask the question, what is it that is driving our young people to sniff glue? What is it that drives our young people in high schools and, more unfortunately, in our elementary schools, to pursue drugs and get caught up in the dastardly web of drug abuse? What is it that exists in our society that causes people to require this particular outlet?


Neil Young: This Government.


Nelson Andrew Riis: My friend, the Hon. Member for Beaches (Mr. Young), perhaps not so humourously, says perhaps it is the Government's inaction on a whole number of fronts. You recall, Madam Speaker, the questions raised about illiteracy when the shocking facts recently came out in terms of the incredibly high level of illiteracy among Canadian adults. In some provinces it was in excess of 40 per cent of the adult population. We have tens of thousands, I must say even hundreds of thousands of Canadians in the workforce who are illiterate and, consequently, are the last hired and first fired. This is one of the fundamental problems which results in drug abuse. It provides an incentive for those who would exploit these people and, therefore, the illicit trafficking of drugs increases. That is what we are trying to deal with in this legislation. Of course, it is far down the list of consequences that result from a deeper concern in today's society.
I take with appreciation the suggestion made by the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North Centre. I suspect his wise counsel will be listened to by those who work on this Bill in the legislative committee.


Raymond John Skelly: Madam Speaker, I would also like to ask about the question raised this morning with respect to the Government spending $210 million on enforcement in the drug offence area and its failure to address the major problem of


Supreme Court Act
chemical addiction. I would like to ask the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis) for his comments on the failure of the Government to address the major problem of alcohol abuse.
I would like to outline a small area of which I know he is familiar, that is, the community of Bella Coola. An alcohol rehabiltation counsellor in that community is paid $12,000 a year, yet saves both the federal and provincial Governments hundreds of thousands of dollars a year by helping people with an alcohol problem. If it is a parent, the parent can go to work, and the family is assisted.
The Government saves thousands of dollars in health and social services. However, The federal Government will not pay those salaries for people to assist and treat alcoholics. In the community of Bella Coola one of the largest single causes of crime is abuse of alcohol. Everything else stems from it, from child abuse to murder, to assault, to impaired driving. Only $12,000 is the cost of an alcohol abuse counsellor. These alcohol abuse counsellors have a track record of saving hundreds of thousands of dollars.
I ask the opinion of the Hon. Member for Kamloops- Shuswap. Is the Government not being extremely short-sighted in dealing with the small end of the spectrum instead of contributing the resources of the people of Canada to the other problem areas? We are not begrudging the efforts made to curb the serious problem of drug abuse, drug trafficking and drug offences. However, we want money spent in the area of alcohol rehabilitation and treatment so we can realize the savings in human terms, in health terms and in financial terms for the people of Canada.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Madam Speaker, once again, I appreciate the most thoughtful interjection of the Hon. Member for Comox-Powell River (Mr. Skelly) on this very critical issue. It is an issue of profound interest to us all. I think too often when it comes to requests for funding of facilities to treat the victims of alcohol and drug abuse we do not have the money to spend-the treasury is bare. Spending in these areas, while it is certainly a concern, is not necessarily a high priority. I think the word "priority" itself betrays a particular attitude. I think we have to see money used to move people away from a dependency on chemicals. Money used to move people away from a reliance on alcohol and drugs is not money spent, but money invested. That money, when it saves a young man or woman, will result in vast savings because they will not spend their time in centres of care later on or cause other problems in terms of death on our highways and so on.
I think we have to see this as an investment in our future in terms of preventive action. It is an non-partisan issue. I will use as an example the non-partisan way in which this ought to be treated. There are communities around the country, as we stand here, taking the initiative to open up treatment centres for those people who are caught up in the web of chemical dependencies. I do not have to refer to any other place than the community of Logan Lake in western Canada. People such as
my colleague, the Hon. Member for Cariboo-Chilcotin (Mr. Greenaway), myself and others are working hard to obtain the necessary financial support to assist people in that part of western Canada so that they can be treated for their dependency on chemicals of one kind or other. I am hopeful that as this Bill moves on to the legislative committee stage, we will be taking off our partisan hats and working to obtain the necessary changes and, of course, in the long term, the necessary funding, to bring drug and alcohol abuse in Canada to an end.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The question is as follows. Mr. Hnatyshyn, seconded by Miss MacDonald (Kingston and The Islands), moves that Bill C-61, an Act to amend the Criminal Code, the Food and Drugs Act and the Narcotic Control Act, be now read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


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

Ramon John Hnatyshyn: that Bill C-53, an Act to amend the Supreme Court Act and to amend various other Acts in consequence thereof, be read a second time and referred to a legislative committee.
He said: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak briefly on this important legislation. Bill C-53 is a Bill to amend the Supreme Court Act and to amend various other Acts in consequence thereof. The aim of the Bill, while simple, is of considerable importance to the administration of justice in Canada. It is to alter the procedure for appeals to the Supreme Court of Canada so as to ensure that the court can continue deciding issues of fundamental national importance in an effective and timely manner.
The considerable increase in recent years in the number of cases heard by the court, particularly appeals based on the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, has underlined the fact that the court's time is a limited resource. A glance at a


Canadian newspaper on almost any given day will show the fundamental important questions that the court must decide. The amendments proposed in this Bill are necessary if the court is to continue dealing effectively with the growing number of cases referred to it. Without such amendments the court is increasingly likely to find itself unable to decide some of the important legal and constitutional issues of our time.
The Bill proposes six basic amendments. I would like to summarize them. First, the Bill provides that applications for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada in both civil and criminal matters may be determined on written submissions by the parties, if it is clear from such written submissions that an oral hearing is not warranted.
This amendment is designed to allow the court to make decisions on applications for leave to appeal without it being necessary to hold an oral hearing in cases where it is clear from the written submissions that the application should be granted or that it should be dismissed. At present, all applications for leave to appeal are heard by a three-member panel of the court. I should point out that 400 to 500 applications for leave are brought each year. The court grants leave to appeal in no more than 20 per cent to 30 per cent of these cases. Pursuant to the provisions of this Bill, if the court dispenses with even a small percentage of oral hearings, a substantial saving in time could be accomplished. The discretion will rest with the court to determine whether an oral hearing is warranted or not pursuant to the provisions of the Bill. Nothing in the Bill precludes the court from ordering an oral hearing where such is warranted.
Second, in order to allow the Supreme Court to handle its proceedings more effectively the Bill provides that the court may deliver a judgment either in open court or, as is the case with many courts across the land, by depositing a copy with the Registrar. This amendment will give the court the same discretion to deliver a judgment by depositing it with the Registrar, which is something that all provincial courts of appeal now do. I think it applies to all courts across the country.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: An Member opposite is shaking his head.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: The Member opposite has probably not appeared in every court of appeal across the land, either as a lawyer or as an accused. I will accept his acknowledgement that he does not know exactly the procedure in all cases.
The Supreme Court Act presently requires that judgments be delivered in open court and that the majority of the judges who presided at the hearing of the appeal be present for the delivery of that judgment. Obviously, this involves the time of members of the court, as well as the time and expense of counsel attending the court to receive the judgment. In all reason the court should have the discretion to determine whether the rendering of judgment in open court is necessary or appropriate.
Supreme Court Act
Third, the Bill will give to the Supreme Court the authority to assign counsel to act on behalf of an unrepresented accused. Under this amendment, the Attorney General involved will bear the cost where legal aid is not granted to the accused. Furthermore, the fees of counsel may be taxed by the Registrar of the court. This proposal extends to the Supreme Court of Canada an authority that has already been given to the provincial courts of appeal by Section 611 of the Criminal Code of Canada.
In recent years the number of inmates appearing before the Supreme Court to conduct their own appeals has been increasing. Real concerns have been raised about the ability of inmates to present legal arguments. Furthermore, in those cases where the unrepresented inmate does not appear, Crown counsel argues both for the appellant inmate and the respondent Crown. Bill C-53 responds to these concerns regarding fairness by providing legislative authority for the provision of counsel to ensure that important questions are fully and thoroughly argued.
Fourth, since all appeals to the court involve questions of law, and given the amendment to permit the assignment of counsel to unrepresented accused, the Bill provides that an appellant who is in custody and who is respresented by counsel will not be entitled as of right to be present at an appeal or any preliminary or incidental proceeding. However, provision is made for the rules of court to allow attendance by inmates and for the court or a judge thereof to grant leave for the inmate to attend. This change to the Act gives the Supreme Court of Canada the same discretion as is presently available to courts of appeal pursuant to Section 615(2) of the Criminal Code of Canada.
Fifth, the Bill proposes that certain appeals as of right provided for in the Criminal Code and other statutes be abolished. Under the proposal an appellant who can now appeal to the Supreme Court as of right would thus henceforth first have to obtain leave to appeal from the court. I have received certain representations making known to me concerns with this particular element of the Bill. After careful consideration I have decided that I will bring forward an amendment to preserve the present practice regarding appeals as of right. I will bring those forward at the time that this Bill is considered in committee.
Finally, in order to overcome the present problems with the time limits for bringing an appeal, the Bill proposes amendments to make the time limits for bringing an appeal and for filing an application for leave to appeal more reasonable and practical. The time limits for obtaining leave to appeal and bringing an appeal in a criminal matter are difficult to meet. For instance, under Section 618 of the Criminal Code an appellant is given 21 days to bring an application for leave to appeal and to obtain the leave of the court. Because of the difficulty in meeting this time period, applications for an extension of the time period are routinely brought and granted.


Supreme Court Act
In addition to this problem, the fact that different time periods are applicable to criminal and civil matters causes unnecessary difficulties and confusion. Bill C-53 standardizes the time periods applicable to both civil and criminal matters and places them within one statute, that is, the Supreme Court Act.
In conclusion, Bill C-53 is intended to ensure that our Supreme Court will retain its ability to deal effectively with questions of fundamental national importance while ensuring fairness.
1 should like to draw to the attention of all Hon. Members the fact that the Canadian Bar Association has called for reform. In 1985, the Canadian Bar Association, at its annual meeting in Halifax, approved a resolution which called for all applications for leave to appeal, criminal and civil, to be determined by the Supreme Court of Canada on written submissions unless an oral hearing was ordered. The Bar recognized the need to improve accessibility for questions of national importance.
I should like to refer to the Canadian Bar Association Committee's report under the chairmanship of Mr. Claude R. Thomson. In part page 55 reads:
Bill C-53, first reading, May 4, 1987, by clause 4, would authorize the Court to dispense with an oral hearing in those cases where "it is clear from the written material" that the criteria for leave are, or are not, satisfied. In all other cases, the present practice of an oral hearing would continue.
The Committee endorses the change proposed by Bill C-53. The Bill preserves the general principle that there ought to be an oral hearing for every application for which an oral hearing could be useful. But it dispenses with an oral hearing in those cases where the hearing would be a waste of the Court's time.
Not only will the Bill C-53 proposal save hearing time for the Court, it will spare the parties much of the cost of an application for leave-the Committee is satisfied that Bill C-53 is a desirable reform that ought to be proceeded with now.
I think lawyers and Hon. Members interested in the operation of our courts, particularly the Supreme Court of Canada, would agree that we should take steps as quickly as possible to allow the court to deal with and to spend the time on substantive issues, particularly with the impact of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms on the Supreme Court and the additional onus it places upon the court to give considered views in respect of very important issues.
I would say that this Bill is a first initiative on the part of the Government to help the court to husband its time and to allow it to direct its attention to important national legal issues facing it.
I will be glad to discuss in committee further details in respect of this matter. However, I simply wanted to say at this time that there has been much consideration of a wide range of issues respecting what we might do in terms of our court system in order to ensure that these matters are dealt with by the court on a proper and timely basis.
I am very much aware of my obligations as Minister of Justice-and they are obligations of those of us in the House- to consider what can be done to facilitate the court system, to ensure that things go through expeditiously at a minimum amount of cost, and to ensure that the people of Canada are well served by the highest court in the land.
We are well served by the Supreme Court of Canada. All Hon. Members would share the view that the men and women of that court have displayed great dedication, ability, and competence. They are a credit to us. It is a central institution of Canada. I know I reflect the views of all Hon. Members of the House when I pay tribute to the justices of the Supreme Court of Canada. They have a Canadian perspective. They have dealt with the laws of our lands in a very learned and Canadian way. I think these are high compliments to the court, and I think these views would be shared by all Members of the House.
I ask Hon. Members to support these amendments so that we can all share in working toward an improvement of the system to ensure that the Supreme Court of Canada in fact has the ability to serve the best interests of all Canadians.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Madam Speaker, over the years Parliament has done very little to improve the life of the Supreme Court of Canada. In fact, it has been the opposite. We have, with an ever increasing frequency, passed laws of increasing sophistication and complexity. We have amended our Constitution and have proposed to re-amend it. The burden faced by the Supreme Court of Canada, compared with the burden at any period in the past, can only be described in comparative terms as overwhelming.
Therefore, when a thoughtful and serious collection of improvements is put forward, as it is before the House now, to improve the efficiency of the court in some ways without purportedly taking anything away from its fairness, I think we must take it very seriously and do everything we can in this place to facilitate the work of the court.
When I talk about efficiency and fairness, I think account has to be had, as the Minister indicated, of the cost of the system of justice and ways in which that cost can be kept to a minimum and can be reduced. I think those principles have animated the amendments which are before us. While I want to express some reservations about them, I want to say also that it is a timely Bill. It is one that I suggest on behalf of the Official Opposition will be given expeditious treatment. We look forward to hearing from the Minister. In dealing with the recommendations of the Canadian Bar Association, we ought to be open to the Bar if it wants to appear before us. I have seen the Claude Thomson report. I think it is excellent and may in fact obviate even the necessity of having the Canadian Bar Association appear before us.
It must be said, however, that something is being lost from the point of view of the citizen in what we are doing today-


and if it is necessary that it be lost, it is nonetheless regrettable-that is, the ancient right, which few countries have been able to preserve but which we have preserved to this day, of getting a hearing on a request for leave to appeal. I know that some concern has been expressed across the country about this being lost. When we look at the amount of work involved in maintaining that ancient right, we must recognize that perhaps its time has come.
1 should like to see the statistics-I am sure the Minister will have them-and to see the evidence. I am looking forward to deciding whether we can hold up our heads and go back to our constituents to tell them that a great historic right has been taken away from them in the interest of ensuring that the court has the time to consider properly the cases which merit real consideration.
The Minister referred to his plan to introduce amendments of his own to the fifth amendment proposed in the Bill. 1 will not take time to talk about it; I am glad it is being done. It is a reasonable response, but of course I should like to see the amendments he is proposing.
Finally, I want to say a word about the provision with which I had some experience as Solicitor General when inmates had to be brought to the Supreme Court of Canada from wherever they were in the country in connection with even very peripheral aspects relating to their cases before the Supreme Court of Canada. Ordinary citizens in the same situation could ill afford to come to Ottawa to be present for matters which were truly peripheral by any definition of the word. Yet, because of the existing Act, we had the practice of bringing them to the nation's capital at great expense and, in some cases, at considerable danger to themselves or to others, when we were talking about very violent criminals whose appeals were the issues before the Supreme Court of Canada.
Taxpayers should welcome this particular amendment because it takes nothing substantial away from the offender. It puts him more or less in the same position as the ordinary citizen in deciding whether he can afford to follow his lawyer to the nation's capital to make the case on a relatively minor aspect of his cause before the Supreme Court of Canada.
We will not, in the Official Opposition, rubber-stamp the Bill. We recognize all of the pressures that make it desirable at this time for the Supreme Court of Canada to undertake this amount of streamlining, which I hope we will find at the end of our investigation takes nothing away from fairness toward the applicants who are seeking the attention of the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court of Canada is an ornament of Canadian society. One can see by the controversy around the Meech Lake proposals that affect the composition of the Supreme Court of Canada how precious that institution is to Canadians and how much they want it to work and work well.
I will not use this occasion to make comments about the impact of the Meech Lake Accord on the Supreme Court of
Supreme Court Act
Canada, but I think it was significant that so many Canadians responded emotionally and with a sense of patriotism to measures that might adversely affect the institution.
The Supreme Court has an ever more important role to play in adjudicating claims between the provincial level of government and the federal level. It also has this very important responsibility under the Charter of adjudicating the limits of government, where it is that a citizen can stand and not have his or her rights or privacy invaded any further by the state. I look forward to the consideration of this Bill in committee, and I hope we will be able to undertake it very soon.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Madam Speaker, at the outset of my remarks on Bill C-53 1 want to join in the remarks and the tributes made by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Hnatyshyn) and the Hon. Member for York Centre (Mr. Kaplan), the Justice spokesperson for his Party, to the Supreme Court of Canada.

There is no doubt that the men and women who sit on the Supreme Court of Canada serve with high distinction on the highest court in this country. We are very pleased that the Government has appointed two women to this most important tribunal. However, I hope that, in the very near future, at least half the members of this court will be women.

Traditionally, the Supreme Court of Canada has appointed on a non-partisan basis the most outstanding jurists from across Canada, obviously in conjuction with the provisions governing the Supreme Court of Canada. We in this Party, however, certainly join in acknowledging the outstanding contribution that has been made historically and is being made today by the Supreme Court of Canada. It is also important to note that the role of the Supreme Court of Canada today has been significantly enhanced as a result of the adoption in Canada of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It is now up to the Supreme Court of Canada ultimately to decide the full meaning of the provisions of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, to decide, for example, what are the limits on the rights and freedoms set out in the Charter which are demonstrably justifiable in a free and democratic society. 1 would like to be able to say as well that the Supreme Court of Canada on these questions of fundamental civil liberties and human rights is, in fact, the final voice. It is there in a position to defend the rights of minorities against the occasional tyranny of the majority. I very much regret, however, as does my Party that that is not the case.
As a result of the inclusion of the so-called override provision in the Charter of Rights, Section 33, the most basic, fundamental and precious human rights and freedoms in Canada can be wiped out at the stroke of a legislative pen. If a simple majority, and I emphasize a simple majority, of parliamentarians at the federal level or at the provincial level disagree with a decision of the highest court of the land, the


Supreme Court Act
Supreme Court of Canada can overturn that decision merely by a majority vote.
We in this Party believe profoundly that this provision of the Charter of Rights, Section 33, fundamentally undermines that commitment to equality, to justice and to civil liberties which is so essential. We strongly urge the Government as a top priority to take the necessary steps to meet with its provincial counterparts, in other words, for the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) to meet with the First Ministers and do whatever he can to improve Section 33 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The price that was paid for adoption is one that could potentially seriously threaten civil liberties.
We believe that the role of the Supreme Court is important not only in the area of criminal and civil appeals but in particular in putting flesh and substance on the Charter of Rights, explaining to Canadians clearly what is meant and being prepared, when necessary, to act as a check on Governments which override those fundamental provisions in the Charter of Rights. My colleague from York Centre, the Justice spokesperson for the Liberal Party, indicated that he believes the legislation with which we are now dealing is a thoughtful and serious piece of legislation, as he put it. Fie said, and he is absolutely right, that this is one of the first pieces of legislation to come before this House to deal in any substantive way with the Supreme Court for many years. I want to disagree very strongly with my colleague's from York Centre characterization of this legislation as thoughtful and serious. Rather, this legislation, were it to be adopted by this House, would instead constitute a fundamental erosion of some very precious and important rights of Canadian men and women. I will explain why I believe that to be the case, why I believe that this legislation is wrong in principle, and why we in the New Democratic Party are not prepared to support the legislation as it is presently worded.
We all understand the sense of frustration and at times of annoyance perhaps that the Supreme Court of Canada feels at a work-load that is clearly a very heavy work-load. Under the existing provisions of the Supreme Court Act individuals are entitled to an oral hearing on an application of leave to appeal. As well, the discretion of the court to decide for itself which cases it wishes to hear is to some extent fettered. Let me suggest that when one examines the history of these provisions and looks at why it is, with respect to certain appeals, that the appeal goes as a right, it would be a profound mistake, a tragic mistake and a move backwards for this Parliament to deny those appeals as a right.
There are certainly provisions in the legislation with which we have no quarrel. There are provisions that would allow the Supreme Court of Canada to deliver judgment by depositing a judgment with the Registrar. As those lawyers who practise before the court are well aware, at the present time there are certain judgment days, something like 12 or more each year. During those judgment days lawyers queue up, the court is jammed with people and the judgments are handed down one after the other.
The present provisions of the Supreme Court Act require that judgments be delivered in open court. There is a certain amount of drama and excitement that attends to the handing down of judgments in open court. In addition to this particular provision, a majority of the judges who preside at the hearing of an appeal must be present for the delivery of the judgment. Practically speaking, the entire Supreme Court is present for the handing down of judgments or, in any event, a substantial majority of Members. In the case of provincial courts of appeal, however, they are entitled to deliver judgments either in open court or by depositing them with the Registrar. The amendment to the Supreme Court Act which would give to the highest court in the land the same discretion to deliver judgment by deposit that the courts of appeal already enjoy is certainly one that we support and recognize will go some way towards saving the time of that very important court.
The next major clause of the Bill would provide that the court determine applications for leave to appeal on the written submissions of the parties unless it orders an oral hearing. It would allow the court to fix the time within which an oral hearing must be held and would provide for quorum for applications for leave to appeal.
Superficially, perhaps, this particular amendment is somewhat attractive. The case-load of the Supreme Court of Canada is a very heavy one. Indeed, it is growing each year. However, I suggest that this particular provision is one that we will want to examine very carefully in committee. We will want to hear evidence from witnesses before agreeing to this provision.
Yes, it is true that there may be applications for leave to appeal which, in the words of the clause, make it clear from the written material that the application does not come within the provisions of Section 41 and therefore does not warrant an oral hearing. There may similarly be other applications which, quite obviously, given the significance and importance of the issues raised in the appeal, do come within those provisions and thus should give rise almost as a right to an appeal.
We must ask ourselves what we are sacrificing in achieving these objectives of speed and of cutting down on the number of oral hearings on leave to appeal. I believe that the price we are paying is one which may very well be too high. I will certainly want to hear evidence on this question in the legislative committee.
Let us take a moment to examine some of the arguments, and quite compelling ones, that have been raised against this particular provision. There can be no substitute for the court itself hearing from counsel rather than pouring over page after page of written material. Frequently a point that can be made effectively in an oral hearing simply cannot be made as effectively in writing. The skills of advocacy are often brought to bear in a far more effective way at a direct, oral hearing


rather than at one in which judges simply review written material.
Yes, it is true that in some cases these hearings result in additional expense and some additional delay, but the reality as well is that the court has recently moved to a system of hearings by remote video. This has occurred in areas in British Columbia, and if it is not already happening in Newfoundland and the Maritime Provinces, I am sure it will be happening there in the near future as well. Those hearings have in fact proven to be very effective.
The Supreme Court has shown that it is able to adapt modern technology in a way that will assist it in providing hearings on leave to appeal and in cutting down the costs to litigants. However, I believe it is important that counsel should be in a position to present his or her argument cogently and clearly in an oral way at an oral hearing and not simply by means of written material.
There is another problem with this as well. There is a danger that judges will simply delegate the reading of motion papers on applications for leave to appeal to their clerks. There is no question whatsoever that this is already happening in the Supreme Court of the United States. I am not suggesting that clerks are not quite able to assist the judiciary in this important task, but the fact is that at the end of the day, it is the judges' job and responsibility. Surely a litigant who goes to the highest court of the land is entitled to know that his or her motion for leave was determined by the judge himself or herself and not by one of the judge's clerks.
I think we must also look ahead to the implications of this amendment on possible changes of a more fundamental nature to hearings before the Supreme Court of Canada. I am afraid that if we accept this clause, we will next hear arguments that appeals themselves should be limited. This in effect will turn appeals into paper wars. This has happened already in the Supreme Court of the United States where in even the most significant and important cases, oral argument is limited to 30 minutes for each side. In the United States, it is the consideration of written briefs by judges and clerks that plays the most important role in the final decision.
Obviously, given the population of the United States which is 10 times that of Canada and the fact that the American court is the same size as the Canadian court, perhaps it has been driven to that expedient. However, in our country, I suggest that this cannot be justified. I am concerned that were we to adopt the proposal which is presently before the House, it could lead to pressure for limitations on the actual appeal hearings as well.
Thomas Berger, a distinguished lawyer who also served on the Supreme Court of British Columbia for 11 years, I believe, has seen this question from both sides. As he has stated:
To reduce the whole matter to paper seems to me to downgrade the role of
advocacy; this is not in keeping with the traditions of our bar.
It is not simply that this contributes to the openness of the justice system at
the very highest level; my argument is that it enables the court better to
Supreme Court Act
understand the exact question that is before it. This contributes to better
decision making.
I believe that Thomas Berger is absolutely right. When this Bill does go to committee, it will be up to the Government to bring forward compelling arguments indicating why we should not accept the counsel of Thomas Berger, given his perspective as counsel and as a distinguished former member of the judiciary. It should allow those who are seeking leave to appeal at the highest court of the land the opportunity to be heard orally on that application.
What are the other major provisions of the legislation? There are a couple of other provisions with respect to time limits for bringing appeals and applications for leave to appeal before the Supreme Court of Canada. Once again, we certainly have no objection to this. This is a provision that is overdue and in effect would attempt to make more uniform the time periods for appeal, particularly in criminal and civil matters. This amendment responds to those problems, and we support it.
There are provisions as well with respect to the attendance by inmates before the Supreme Court of Canada. Given the other new provision which would allow for the authority to assign counsel explicitly to the Supreme Court of Canada, it may very well be that these are provisions which can be supported as well. We will certainly want to hear further evidence on that point.
At the present time, while the rules of the Supreme Court of Canada allow for the appointment of counsel to act on behalf of an accused appearing before the court, that is not explicitly set out in the Supreme Court of Canada Act. We agree that when appearing before the highest court of the land which deals with such important and serious questions as come before it, no one should be denied access to the court because of inability to afford counsel. Once again, we welcome the provision that explicitly allows the court to appoint counsel.
Those are the major provisions of the legislation, save and except one other clause which I suggest is profoundly wrong and which would deny Canadians who are seeking justice, fairness and equity from the highest court of the land an opportunity to be heard when they are fully entitled to that right to be so heard. I was surprised to hear the Justice spokesman for the Liberal Party describing this legislation as thoughtful and serious while not raising any concern whatsoever about a provision in this Bill which would profoundly and seriously change the existing rights of appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada. It is one thing to say Canadians will no longer have the automatic right to an oral hearing before the Supreme Court of Canada. We have serious questions about that, but they can be studied in committee. It is something else to examine with care some of the procedural changes which, in most cases, are long overdue to facilitate the work of the Supreme Court of Canada. However, that part of this Bill which would fundamentally change the right of Canadians to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada in certain circumstances, which I will set out, we in this Party totally reject. We


Supreme Court Act
say it is wrong in principle and fundamentally undermines this legislation. For that reason we cannot possibly support this Bill on second reading.
Clauses 11 through 13 would abolish the right to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada in two particular circumstances. First, when there has been a dissent before the Court of Appeal and, second, when a person has been acquitted of an indictable offence and the acquittal has been set aside by the Court of Appeal. These rights have been fought for by Canadians. Indeed, they have been at the corner-stone of the Canadian system of justice. My colleague from St. John's East, a very distinguished barrister in the Province of Newfoundland, will be commenting further with respect to these provisions.
The right of appeal in these circumstances has existed for a very important reason. We presume that provincial Court of Appeal judges are respected, knowledgeable and outstanding jurists. If one of those judges should disagree with his or her colleagues on an appeal, surely it is not good enough to say that the litigant should simply accept the fact that there is a difference of opinion and go no further. You can imagine the situation in which an individual is before the court seeking justice. He or she has persuaded a judge that there is a foundation to the appeal, only to be told that they can go no further or that they must seek the discretion of the Supreme Court of Canada before they can go any further.
There are many examples of the importance of this provision. One of the most recent is the appeal of Colin Thatcher, the former Saskatchewan politician now serving a life sentence for the first degree murder of his wife. When he appealed, four of the five judges on the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal dismissed it. One member of the court, however, was prepared to grant his appeal. It would have been profoundly wrong to say to him, or indeed any other litigant, that he has no right to seek the opinion of the highest court of the land when one of the judges at the appeal court level indicated dissent.
That brings me to another point. In many cases these appeals will go in circumstances in which an individual has been convicted of murder. Parliament has decreed that there is to be a 25-year minimum sentence before one can even be considered for parole. That was the price paid for the abolition of capital punishment in 1976. Many of us would argue that the price was very high, indeed, quite likely too high. That being said, surely an individual who faces the possibility of 25 years behind bars before even being eligible for parole, an individual who persuades an appellant court judge of the merits of that appeal, is entitled, before being locked up, to have it considered by the Supreme Court of Canada.
Similarly with respect to circumstances in which there has been an acquittal set aside by a provincial Court of Appeal. We all remember the profound injustice with respect to Dr. Henry Morgentaler. The amendment brought in by Ron
Basford, then Minister of Justice, at the strong urging of my predecessor as Justice critic, Stuart Leggatt, came too late for Henry Morgentaler. He quite unjustly served time in prison because, even though he had been acquitted by a jury of his peers, the Court of Appeal overturned the acquittal. That was a serious injustice and Parliament ruled that individuals would have the right to an automatic appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada in those circumstances. I suggest that in seeking to withdraw that right, the Government is taking a serious step backwards and diminishing the quality of justice in this country. We vigorously protest this provision in the Bill.
I was pleased to hear the undertaking of the Minister that he intends to support an amendment to delete those odious provisions. I made strong representations to the Minister on this point. I indicated that I intend to propose an amendment to delete this provision and I welcome his agreement to support my amendment and agree to the deletion of this very backward and regressive provision of the legislation.
In conclusion, while we in the NDP recognize that changes must be made, clearly we do not accept the Bill as worded. We must deal with the legislation before us, not with promises by the Minister for changes in committee. As it now stands, the Bill is so fundamentally flawed and would deny significant and important rights, that we in this Party will be voting against it on second reading.


Mr. Jack Harris (St. John's East):: Madam Speaker, I wish to follow the lead of other speakers in this debate in commending the Supreme Court of Canada for its great work and to acknowledge that it has the respect of all parts of the country for not only maintaining an appropriate balance between the laws of this country but for acting with great deliberation in making known and resolving major issues of not only constitutional but civil and criminal law. We all recognize the extent of their work-load and the fact that it has increased very dramatically in the last several years as a result of the introduction and passage of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. We see the need for and welcome certain measures which would make their work easier and take away some aspects of that work which appear to be unnecessary. I would like to look at all aspects of the Act to determine whether it will accomplish that without damaging the fundamental rights of Canadians.
There is, for example, a restriction on oral hearings or permission to restrict oral hearings on leave to appeal. My information is that oral hearings on leave to appeal applications take perhaps 12 days a year of court time. This may be a long period of time but it is not a great period of time. A similar amount of time is used in the delivery of judgments.
I believe, as do my colleague and many barristers across the country, that the oral hearing is a very important tool of the advocate, particularly in appeals before the Supreme Court of Canada. If the Supreme Court of Canada were predisposed,


based on written material presented to it, to grant leave to appeal, time could be saved by dispensing with the oral hearing. Such a measure would speed up proceedings and save the time of the judges of the Supreme Court which could more properly and fruitfully be spent dealing with the weighty matters before them.
Efowever, the provision of an oral hearing is of very great importance. As an advocate who has appeared before many courts, including the Supreme Court of Canada on a leave application, I attest to the value of an oral presentation. I myself have been convinced by oral presentations of advocates in cases where I was not persuaded by written material.
This Bill also contains the procedure for the assignment of counsel. This can be done under the existing rules, but we are told it is not done very often. We would look forward to it being done more often and the inclusion of it in the Act may result in some improvement. Elowever, it is really window dressing as the court already has the right to assign counsel when necessary.
There is also the provision for the delivery of judgments in written form by deposit in the registry instead of waiting for a judgment day, which sounds rather formidable. Some very important and weighty cases of great national significance may well benefit from the learned judges of the Supreme Court of Canada assembling together and making a verbal judgment.
However, in many cases the filing of a judgment, as is done in the provincial courts of appeal, would be perfectly adequate and may result in judgments being handed down more quickly. In fact, I know it would because quite often judgments are ready but cannot be delivered until the next judgment day. In matters of great national importance which affect the Constitution or more than just the litigants and establish very serious principles, the court may well prefer to read the judgments from the court itself.
There are a number of things in this Bill which, with a few amendments, could provide for the streamlining of court activity, save the court some time, and enable the work of the judges and the court to be conducted in a more fruitful way. We would support that sort of thing, but cannot support legislation which contains very serious regressive steps in terms of justice. The most significant are the removal of the automatic right of appeal in two cases, the first where there has been dissent in the provincial court of appeal, and the other where there has been acquittal by a jury.
The right of appeal, when there has been assent at the provincial court level, is, I believe, designed to provide uniformity in our laws across the country. A learned trial judge of the court of appeal of a province dissents from his colleagues when there is a serious divergence of opinion on a matter of great importance, a matter which may well be before the courts of other provinces in other ways.
Supreme Court Act
Two of three judges in a Newfoundland court may decide a particular question one way while two of three judges in the Province of Ontario may decide the question in another way. The purpose of having automatic appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada is to provide uniformity of laws across the country. We cannot have one criminal law for Newfoundland, another for Ontario and another for British Columbia. The law must be uniform across the country in terms of its interpretation and application. That fundamental change is thrown into this legislation under the guise of streamlining matters at the Supreme Court level.
The second exception which is more fundamental with regard to rights is with regard to acquittals by a jury when the provincial court of appeal has overthrown an acquittal and sent it back for a new trial. This is a matter of great fundamental importance which involves more than a change in procedure at the Supreme Court level. This is a matter of fundamental justice with regard to the approach to jury trials in this country.
We have adopted the centuries-old institution of the jury trial from the British legal tradition. In Britain if one is acquitted by a jury of one's peers chosen to hear the case, there is no appeal by the Crown allowed; In preserving the liberty of the subject and attempting to bring to justice someone who has committed a crime the state has only one opportunity to present the case properly.
In this country the Crown has the right of appeal from such an acquittal. A person acquitted by a jury of his peers is tried again if the Court of Appeal of a province decides that there has been a technical error in a case. My colleague, the Hon. Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson), has referred to the Morgentaler amendment as it has become known. Until that amendment, we had an even more fundamental problem in our country. The Court of Appeal could substitute a verdict of guilty after an individual had been acquitted by a jury of his peers. Thankfully, that amendment has removed that diminution of the great jury system.
The institution of the jury is one of the great preserves of the liberty of the subject. It has been said that the institution of the jury preserves the liberty of the subject sometimes in the face of the tyranny of the state. It is such a fundamental institution in our society that it would be a backward step from the progress that has been made to remove the automatic right of an individual to go to the Supreme Court of Canada to have an appeal heard when his acquittal by a jury has been repealed by a Court of Appeal as a result of a technicality.
It would be a backward step for us, after having passed an amendment which prevented the acquittal by a jury from being reversed by a Court of Appeal. That right of appeal to the Supreme Court upholds the institution of the jury at least to some extent. I and my Party would prefer to see the jury system be given the respect that it has been given in Britain so


Patens Extension (Aspartame) Act
that there would be no appeal at all. We support the institution of the jury in which its unanimous finding of acquittal is the end of the matter. At least, the current automatic right of appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada is some protection. Its removal is a fundamental change in our law and ought not to be part of any Bill that is purported to streamline the operations of court.
I understand that we have an undertaking from the Minister that there will be a response to amendments of this nature at committee level. I am pleased to hear that. Legislation with this fundamental flaw should not be before the House for second reading.
I am sympathetic to the importance of streamlining matters because the Supreme Court of Canada is overloaded with appeals. However, perhaps if the Government did not introduce some highly questionable Bills before the House, such as Bill C-84, there would not be so many appeals before the Supreme Court of Canada in an attempt to sort out the mistakes. In terms of procedure, I support the Government's measures to make it easier for the Supreme Court of Canada. However, I cannot and will not support in principle a Bill which has three fundamental flaws that affect the rights of Canadians under the guise of procedural changes.


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.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: All those in favour of the motion 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 yeas have it.
And more than five Members having risen:


Mr. Gauthier:: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. There have been consultations. I believe you will find unanimous consent to have the vote on this Bill at six o'clock together with the other votes on Bill C-84 and Bill C-2. The House could suspend the sitting until five o'clock, at which time we will deal with Private Members' Hour.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Madam Speaker, there have indeed been consultations and we agree to the proposal that has been made.


Mr. Gerin:: That is agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: There being unanimous consent, the vote will be held at six o'clock.


SITTING SUSPENDED.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Is there unanimous consent to suspend the sitting until five o'clock?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
At 4.27 p.m. the sitting of the House was suspended.


SITTING RESUMED
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed at 5 p.m.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Order, please. It being five o'clock, the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.


PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS-PUBLIC BILLS   PATENT EXTENSION (ASPARTAME) ACT MEASURE TO ENACT
[Stage Direction]
On the Order: June 18, 1987- Bill C-259, Patent Extension (Aspartame) Act.
Mr. Claude Lanthier (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Public Works):: Madam Speaker, as Bill C-259 has been returned to the House by the Senate with an amendment, with the unanimous consent of the House, I would like to move that the order for consideration of an amendment proposed by the Senate to Bill C-259, entitled an Act to amend the term of a patent relating to a certain food additive, commonly called Aspartame, Nutrasweet or Nutrasuc, be revoked and that the Bill be withdrawn, as the amendment proposed by the Senate is unworkable.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Is there unanimous consent for the Hon. Member to move this motion?


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Madam Speaker, without wanting to editorialize or to provide explanations, I understand that the Hon. Member wants to have this Bill withdrawn. Needless to add that he does not agree with the amendments, but as I understand it, the motion is as follows: That Bill C-259 be now withdrawn. I can give my consent to this motion, Madam Speaker.


Claude Lanthier: That is right, Madam Speaker.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, order revoked and Bill withdrawn.

Mr. Rob Nicholson (Niagara Falls) moved: that Bill S-5, an Act to amend and consolidate the laws prohibiting marriage between related persons, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.
He said: Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to be able to say a few words on this Bill, which, as you know, originated in the other place, as it is referred to in this Chamber. It concerns the laws with respect to the capacity to marry.
When the British North America Act was passed in 1867, Parliament was given exclusive jurisdiction to legislate with respect to marriage and divorce and, more specifically, with respect to the capacity to marry. The provinces are involved in this area as well inasmuch as they have exclusive jurisdiction with respect to the solemnization of marriage. It is Parliament's prerogative to legislate in this particular area and it is on that basis that this Bill is presently before Parliament.
I believe it would be prudent at this point for Members of the House to reflect on some of the historical background to the question of prohibited degrees of marriage. It is, I would guess, one of the oldest areas of law still in effect in this country. A look at the historical aspects is especially important because although there are certain legal questions and arguments to consider, consideration of social ideals and norms that have developed throughout our history is important.
Our laws with respect to prohibited degrees of marriage, and the state's involvement in this area, goes back to Biblical times. In fact there are references in the Old Testament, the Book of Leviticus, Chapter 18, indicating what person another person could or could not marry.
As well, from the earliest times of Christianity and the involvement of the Christian Church with marriage, along with the solemnization of marriage conducted by the church, several norms grew up which indicated which related or nonrelated person, a person related, as we say in the legal profession, by consanguinity or affinity, someone could or could not marry. As the years went on, the Christian Church at various stages in its history, expanded or contracted the list according to the times. For instance, at one point in canon law one was prohibited from marrying a person within the seventh degree. I have not quite figured that out. I think it would be one's third
Marriage Prohibited Degrees Act
or fourth cousin. The present law in Canada originates from about the time of the so-called Reformation. At that time in the event of the church's history, Henry VIII and his Ministers set out a number of specific prohibitions. I suppose he is one monarch who had plenty to do with the subject of marriage, so it is somewhat appropriate he lend his hand to the statutory provisions. In 1563, a table of prohibited degrees was implemented in England. The table listed all the possible relationships up to and including the third degree, arising out of either blood or marriage, that would be prohibited. This table eventually found its way into the Anglican Book of Common Prayer. Eventually, the table was utilized by the ecclesiastical courts of England in annulment actions. Finally, the Lord Lyndhurst Act of 1835 indicated, among other things: "All marriages which shall hereafter be celebrated between persons within the prohibited degrees of consanguinity or affinity shall be absolutely null and void to all intents and purposes whatsoever". Such became the law of England in 1835. It was this law that was adopted by the common law jurisdictions of Canada and was then subsequently assumed, as I indicated, by the federal Government in 1867.
I should say that the laws were not exactly the same between the colonies and the provinces within the common law jurisdiction, but fortunately, they were very close to each other and, fortunately, as well, a civil law jurisdiction in Canada, namely, the Province of Quebec, had adopted laws that were essentially the same as its common law counterparts.
With the jurisdiction having passed to the federal Government in 1867, Parliament at various times tried its hand at the subject of the capacity to marry. In 1882, Parliament enacted a statute that removed various prohibited grounds. This was a feat of legislation known as the Marriage Act, which has descended to the present time. However, there were certainly inadequacies in the law as it existed then and as it has continued to exist up to the present time. Some of these laws and prohibited grounds have touched people very deeply.
I know that several of my colleagues who will be making comments in this debate will be referring to some of the genuine hardships people have suffered as a result of this somewhat antiquated law. However, for those of us who concern ourselves with this law, it has become clear that there is a vagueness in the law as it exists in Canada and there are certain inadequacies which, hopefully, this Bill will meet.
As an example of problems with the current law, there are approximately 30 petitions now before the other place, petitions of individuals who have used their right to petition either a member of the Senate or a Member of the House of Commons asking for relief from some of the prohibited grounds. In my discussions with other Members of Parliament, the number of petitions has increased over the years. I think that is the reason we now have before us the present legislation. The Bill as proposed would remove the need for these petitions.


Marriage Prohibited Degrees Act
The Bill that is presently before us is just the latest attempt to consolidate and update the laws with respect to marriage. There have been several attempts made in the past to achieve this end, and many of us hope that it will not be necessary to make more attempts. There are many of us who hope that this will be perhaps the last kick at the can, so to speak.
The law before us contains a number of measures which I think are helpful. Clause 4 of the Bill states that unless a prohibition is outlined in the law, then all other unions between individuals are all right. The prohibitions that remain fall into two categories. Clause 2(2) states:
No person shall marry another person if they are related
(a)	lineally by consanguinity or adoption-
That is the first category. What that does is to place an absolute prohibition on what we refer to as lineal descendants, one's children, grandchildren or great-grandchildren. Obviously it prohibits marriage between one's parents and one's great-grandparents.
There is one other prohibited category. The Bill states:
No person shall marry another person if they are related-
(b)	as brother and sister by consanguinity, whether by the whole blood or by
the half-blood.
There is an absolute prohibition on marriage between siblings who are related by blood or by the half-blood. That only makes sense. These are prohibitions which we have traditionally frowned upon. Of course, there are genetic reasons as well why society frowns on marriages within those categories.
Hon. Members may have noticed that in the second prohibition there is not a reference to adopted siblings. I suggest that if there is a controversial part in the Bill, and I know that it has been referred to as a housekeeping Bill, it resides in that clause. There are a number of arguments on either side of this issue. One could argue that siblings by adoption have had no choice in their relationship, a parent has made the decision as to what the relationship between the two of them is and therefore there should not be a legal prohibition against their eventual marriage. The trend in provincial law, which has jurisdiction in the area of adoption, is to treat the adopted child as much as possible as a natural child. Most people would agree that that is something that we should pursue. In any case, the committee of the other House that looked at this clause came to the conclusion that at the present time there is not a prohibition against adopted siblings marrying each other.
This matter was studied. A couple appeared before a committee of the other place with a petition asking for permission to marry. Members of the committee looked into the law and concluded that adoption is only a 20th century concept. The law with which we are working was developed in the 19th century and in the centuries before when there was no concept of adoption. Therefore there was no need for this couple to petition the other place because the proposed
marriage was not prohibited. In any event, this is the one area that 1 would like to see looked at again.
Some have pointed to the fact that in Australia the question has been considered. The Australian Government chose to look at the adoptive relationship in exactly the same way as a consanguinity relationship for the purpose of determining capacity to marry. In Australia it was asked why these children should be treated any differently. I believe there is some merit to that argument.
The Bill contains no prohibitions other than the ones I have mentioned. I would suggest that no other prohibitions are necessary. They are not necessary from what we know of genetics. People have gone into the degrees of relationships and have concluded that there is no necessity to prohibit marriage in other categories.
I suggest that social attitudes have changed with respect to how we perceive relationships. As the law stands now, after a divorce one cannot marry one's divorced spouse's uncle or aunt. That is clearly not necessary. Social attitudes have changed in Canada. I think that the number of petitions that are presently before the other place is indicative of that.
We are dealing here with an area that was long within the purview of the churches, and certainly the churches continue to have their laws and rules within their own denominations as to whom they will allow to marry. I think that is all well and good and as it should be. At the same time, I think that we should not attempt to have our civil law conform to the rules of one or more religious denominations. I think most people will agree with that.
To conclude, I believe that the provisions in the Bill are positive. I believe that they are worthy of the attention of the House.


Mr. Keith Penner (Cochrane-Superior):: Madam Speaker, I have been motivated to enter this debate on Bill S-5 because of a serious problem that was presented to me by a constituent, a problem that I was incapable of solving because the law needs to be changed in order to solve it. It is her personal problem caused by the present Marriage Act which is prompting me now to speak in this debate and to urge all Hon. Members to consider seriously passing this Bill as quickly as possible.
The Hon. Member for Niagara Falls (Mr. Nicholson) has given an indication to the House that there may be a difficulty with one part of the Bill, the part dealing with adopted children. If that is the case, then I suggest that we deal with that one probable difficulty expeditiously and then bring the Bill back to the House as quickly as possible in order to pass it.
Before I outline the problem of my constituent, I want to commend the Hon. Member for Niagara Falls for being the sponsor of this legislation. He sponsors the Bill from the Senate as a Private Member's Bill. I believe that he is leading the way in helping a considerable number of people in the


country who are facing a problem because of the current Marriage Act. We all recognize that it is necessary and proper that the Marriage Act should prohibit those who are closely related by blood from marrying. That is not what we are talking about here at all. I want to ask the House what sense there is in refusing the right to marry to those who have become related through marriage and that marriage is then dissolved by divorce.
For example, as the Hon. Member for Niagara Falls indicated, the Marriage Act prohibits a woman from marrying her former husband's uncle. I would ask Hon. Members why. What sense is there in that?
Bill S-5 would clarify the law among other situations whereby a person whose marriage has been dissolved by divorce may marry the brother, the sister, the nephew, the niece, the uncle, or the aunt of the divorced spouse.
As has already been indicated, the only procedure available in the past to such couples who wished to be married was to petition Parliament for an exemption. This has been done successfully in the past in quite a number of cases, but the Senate no longer wishes to make such a remedy available. Of course, why should Parliament be burdened with such a cumbersome procedure? How much more logical it is to change the law to make it reasonable and sensible. I am advised, having looked at the time spent in the consideration of Bill S-5, that the Senate has given the Bill the closest possible scrutiny over a considerable period of time. Its purpose, I repeat, is to end confusion in the Marriage Act. It attempts to change the law. These attempts have been under way since 1983, a very long period of time to make what is a straightforward and reasonable change.
The Senate has polled religious groups, legal experts, geneticists, and others, and it has found no serious or major objections to the Bill.
I want to say again that after discussion with the Hon. Member for Niagara Falls and with the Hon. Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson), I recognize the problem already referred to in respect of the provision that a relationship by adoption is no prohibition to marriage, that is, marriage among siblings. I concur fully that we must examine that carefully, but I do not believe that we need to take years to do it. I think that we can do it in a matter of a few weeks at most.
In conclusion, I want to share with the House part of a letter which I received from a constituent so that the House will understand how our refusal to change antiquated laws can create great difficulties and burdens for our citizens. The letter is addressed to the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and reads in part:
Dear Sir:
When the House of Commons meets in September, and the Marriage Laws
of Canada are brought up for discussion, your knowledge of my situation
would be greatly appreciated.
Marriage Prohibited Degrees Act
I was married in 1980, and divorced in April of 1986.
I am now engaged to my-(ex-husband's uncle), and I was to be married on August 29th, 1987-
I personally picked up the marriage licence in June. Number 17 on the back of the licence states, "A man may not marry his nephew's wife".
Approximately one week after I picked up the marriage licence, I returned to the town office-and spoke with the Town Clerk-about the validity of number 17. At that time he was unaware of our situation and said he would contact-the Deputy Registrar General in Toronto-
I was told to return our marriage licence for a refund-and then 1 was to be commended on my honesty-
I was informed that the marriage law had been passed through the Senate three times, and all that was required, was a short discussion and a stamp of approval-
Our plans were void. The invitations and the hall had to be cancelled immediately. The marriage licence had to be returned by a friend as a refund of thirty-five dollars seemed to be trivial and embarrassing.
The only hope seemed to be having our banns read in the Church. Some of the laws in the Church are different from the laws of the government.
-(Our priest) told me that if this was the law of the land there was absolutely nothing that he could do.
When the new Constitution of Human Rights came into effect, our Minister, the Bishop, (and ourselves) assumed that an archaic law such as this would be obsolete-
Marriage takes priority in our lives before a family. I am 26, and my (husband-to-be) is 27, we feel that we should be able to make our own decision-.
When the tears stopped, the only alternative was to be married out of our country Canada.
With the help of my Minister and an American Minister, arrangements were made to be married in the U.S.A. Canada considers this to be legal. The laws in the U.S.A. do not pertain to our case-
The House of Commons meets in September. We have decided to explain our situation and hope that in September you will consider us when the House meets again.
It is not our choice to marry in the U.S.A., but if the law is not changed, you leave us no alternative.
We were informed that this law has been brought up for debate since 1983, and we do not want to wait for four more years in case it will never be changed. We were also informed that this law was probably dating back to the 14th Century.
-(We) are literally begging you to take time and change the law in September-
Please take into consideration our situation:. We are not blood related, 1 have been legally divorced for over a year, and my ex-husband has remarried.
The letter ends by indicating that they are looking forward to a favourable reply. It is on the basis of that problem that I rose to speak this afternoon. I hope the House will respond with care and with consideration to the serious problem facing some of our citizens.


Mr. Clement M. Cote (Lac-Saint-Jean):: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise in this debate concerning marriage prohibitions between persons who are too closely related either by consanguinity, affinity or adoption but would like to get married in spite of these prohibitions.
That is a matter that may concern a very small fraction of the population, however it is of very great concern for the people involved. It is easy to understand that marriage


Marriage Prohibited Degrees Act
prohibitions can have great implications in the life of these people on the psychological level.
Since this Bill touches on the perception that we have of the family life, it is vitally important, Madam Speaker, that this House review the matter very carefully.
We must ask ourselves whether our society must continue to be governed by a legislation that is considered by some to be archaic and outdated, given the changes that have happened in our modern Canadian society that is more and more cosmopolitan. For instance, why should a woman be forbidden to marry her uncle or, if she is divorced, her ex-husband's brother or uncle?
To this day couples who were prohibited from marrying each other, especially the first group referred to above, could have their marriage validated if they wished by having the Senate pass a special Bill or an act granting an exception to the general rule. However, in order to do so, these people had to go through a long and difficult process which was also very costly.
For these reasons, the Senate has deemed appropriate to pass Bill S-5, an act to amend and consolidate the laws prohibiting marriage between related persons.
Thus the marriage legislation has been streamlined and made more accessible while still maintaining a number of basic prohibitions.
The only prohibitions that have been kept regarding persons related by consanguinity concern parents, grandparents and children as well as grandchildren and brothers and sisters or half-brother and half-sister. On the other hand, an aunt will be able to marry her nephew and a niece will be able to marry her uncle.
There will no longer be any prohibition concerning persons related by affinity or marriage. The Act also provides that a person whose marriage has been dissolved by divorce can get remarried to the divorced spouse's brother or sister, nephew or niece, uncle or aunt.
In the case of adoption, Bill S-5 prohibits marriage between grandparents, parents, children and grandchildren. That prohibition however would not apply to brothers and sisters by adoption, who would be free to intermarry.
It will always be difficult to have unanimity on those matters, Madam Speaker. Some people would prefer the status quo for reasons of moral, social or religious rectitude. On the other hand, others feel that this area of our legislation should be taken out of the dust of former times and brought into line with this new era, in order to address various situations. Anyway, more often than not, couples will elect to live together in common law marriage if they cannot obtain dispensation from the Senate.
It must be realized, Madam Speaker, that the practice of prohibiting marriage between persons who are related to a certain degree either by consanguinity or adoption stems from
the ancient Judeic religious law, which was enshrined later in a number of statutes adopted under Henry VIII.
So is was that the Canadian provinces which entered Confederation in 1867 adopted that British Common Law tradition. Such is the situation now prevailing in nine provinces out of ten. As far as Quebec is concerned, marriage prohibitions are to be found in Sections 124 to 126 of the Code civil- but they are identical to those in other provinces and those that prevailed at Confederation.
Marriage and divorce are a federal matter under Section 91(26) of the Constitution Act, 1867. And to this day, the law has remained practically unchanged, since the federal Government has elected not to get involved in that area, excepting the Marriage Act, 1970, which only brought in minor amendments.
I will conclude, Madam Speaker, by urging Hon. Members to give particular attention to that matter, in view of its importance to those couples who are looking forward to a legal solution to their problems or who expect an answer that would allow them to clarify their situation.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, 1 will be very brief. Bill S-5 was brought before the House by the Hon. Member for Niagara Falls (Mr. Nicholson) and, in my view, is certainly worthy of passage. We in the New Democratic Party are prepared to support the legislation and to see it adopted this afternoon.
It has been subject to a very serious and comprehensive study by the Senate which, as long as it exists, occasionally does some positive, constructive committee work. This is an example of an area in which we are able to benefit from the work done by the Senate. The Senators have heard an extensive number of witnesses and consulted with all the provinces and the two territorial Governments, and we are now able in this Chamber to take advantage of that work.
Having done that, Madam Speaker, I suggest that the time to move forward on this legislation is now, not to delay further the adoption of the legislation.
While I recognize the concern raised by the Hon. Member from Niagara Falls who sponsored the Bill-and I want to pay tribute to him for bringing the Bill before the House-as well as the concern raised by the Hon. Member for Cochrane- Superior (Mr. Penner) with respect to adopted siblings, I do want to make it very clear that while we recognize those concerns, we are prepared to see the legislation adopted in all stages this afternoon.


François Gérin: Madam Speaker, with the consent of the House, I would like to propose a


motion which will not deprive me of my right to speak if it cannot receive unanimous consent.
I would like to move the following motion:
That the motion be amended by striking all words after the word "That"
and substituting the following therefor:
Bill S-5, an Act to amend and consolidate the laws prohibiting marriage between related persons, be not now read for the second time but that the order be discharged, the bill withdrawn and the subject-matter referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Solicitor General.
I seek the consent the House to have this motion adopted.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Does the Hon. Member have the unanimous consent of the House to present this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
The Acting speaker (Mrs. Champagne): Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Immigration Act, 1976




[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Thursday, September 10, consideration of the motion of Mr. Bouchard that Bill C-84, an Act to amend the Immigration Act, 1976 and the Criminal Code in consequence thereof, be read the third time and passed.
And the division bells having rung:
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The first division is on Motion No. 84. Mr. Bouchard, seconded by Mr. Lewis, moves:
That Bill C-84, an Act to amend the Immigration Act, 1976 and the Criminal Code in consequence thereof, be read the third time and passed.
The House divided on the motion which was agreed to on the following division:


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill withdrawn and subject-matter referred to Standing Committee on Justice and Solicitor General.
(.Division No. 240)
++YEAS
[Stage Direction]
Members

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: We shall now suspend the sitting until six o'clock.
At 5.37 p.m. the sitting of the House was suspended.


SITTING RESUMED
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed at 6 p.m.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Pursuant to Standing Order 13(5), the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred divisions on the motion for third reading of Bill C-84, an Act to amend the Immigration Act, 1976 and the Criminal Code in consequence thereof; and on the motion for third reading of Bill C-2, an Act to dissolve Canagrex and to amend certain Acts in consequence thereof; and on the motion for second reading and reference to a legislative committee of Bill C-53, an Act to amend the Supreme Court Act and to amend various other Acts in consequence thereof.
Call in the Members.
Andre
Attewell
Beatty
Belsher
Bernier
Blais
Blais-Grenier
Blenkarn
Bouchard
Bourgault
Browes
Charest
Chartrand
Clark
(Yellowhead)
Clark
(Brandon-Souris) Clifford Coates Collins Cooper Cossitt Cote
(Lac-Saint-Jean)
Cote
(Langelier)
Crofton
Crosby
(Halifax West) Dantzer Daubney Dick Dorin Duguay Ellis Epp
(Provencher)
Fennell
Ferland
Fraleigh
Fretz
Friesen
Gagnon
Gerin
Girard
Greenaway
Grise
Hamilton
Hardey
Hawkes
Hnatyshyn
Horner
Howie
James
Jardine
Jepson
Kelleher
Kempling
Ladouceur
Lesick
Lewis
Mailly
Mantha
Martin
Mazankowski
McCrossan
McCuish
Mclnnes
McKenzie
McKinnon
McKnight
Minaker
Moore
Nicholson
(Niagara Falls)
O'Neil Oostrom Pennock Ravis Redway Reid Reimer St. Germain Schellenberg (Nanaimo-Alberni) Scott
(Hamilton-Wentworth) Scowen Stevens Stewart Taylor Tremblay (Lotbiniere)
Tupper
Turner
(Ottawa-Carleton)
Van De Walle Warner Wenman Wilson
(Swift Current -Maple Creek)
Wilson
(Etobicoke
Centre)
Wise
Witer-92


Allmand Althouse Angus Blackburn (Brant)
Blaikie Boudria Caccia Cassidy Copps de Jong Dewar Epp
(Thunder Bay-
Nipigon)
Finestone Foster Fulton Gauthier Gray
(Windsor West)
Grondin


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champlain):: I declare the motion carried.
Bill read the third time and passed.


Mr. Jourdenais:: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The Hon. Member for La Prairie (Mr. Jourdenais) on a point of order.


Fernand Jourdenais: Madam Speaker, 1 simply want to point out to my colleagues in the House and to all Canadians-

-that I was present in the Chamber when the vote on Bill C-84 took place.

-and that I abstained from the vote for reasons which many people already know. There is no need to explain them.

Also, my conscience did not permit me to act otherwise.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


CANAGREX DISSOLUTION ACT
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Friday, September 11, consideration of the motion of Mr. Wise that Bill C-2, an Act to
dissolve Canagrex and to amend certain Acts in consequence thereof, be read the third time and passed.
Hon. Herb Gray (Windsor West):: Madam Speaker, 1 wonder if you would seek the sense of the House as to whether it would care to have the vote as recorded on the Bill we have just dealt with apply to this one on the understanding that each vote would be recorded separately.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Is the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis) seeking the floor?


Nelson Andrew Riis: No, Madam Speaker, I am not seeking the floor.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: 1 imagine that the House can well understand that the Chair did not know whether or not the Hon. Member was seeking the floor. He was neither sitting nor standing.


Charles Joseph Clark: That's their position.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Am I to understand that there is unanimous consent to apply the vote?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Fernand Jourdenais: Yes, Madam Speaker, if you use the same count as for Bill C-84, I can say that, had there been a separate vote, I would have voted with the Government.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Therefore the vote will be dealt with accordingly, adding the vote of the Hon. Member for Lapierre (Mr. Jourdenais).
The House divided on the motion (Mr. Wise) which was agreed to on the following division:
	(Division No. 241)
 YEAS Members	
Andre	Coates	EppAttewell	Collins	(ProvenchBeatty	Cooper	FennellBelsher	Cossitt	FerlandBernier	Cote	FraleighBlais	(Lac-Saint-Jean)	FretzBlais-Grenier	Cote	FriesenBlenkarn	(Langelier)	GagnonBouchard	Crofton	GerinBourgault	Crosby	GirardBrowes	(Halifax West)	GreenawayCharest	Dantzer	GriseChartrand	Daubney	HamiltonClark	Dick	Hardey(Yellowhead)	Dor in	HawkesClark	Duguay	Hnatyshyn(Brandon-Souris) Clifford	Ellis	Horner
Canagrex
++NAYS
Members
Guilbault
(Saint-Jacques)
Harris
Heap
Hopkins
Hovdebo
Isabelle
Jewett
Johnston
(Saint-Henri- Westmount) Keeper Killens Langdon MacLellan Marchi McCurdy McDonald (Broadview- Greenwood) McLaughlin Mitchell
Murphy
Nicholson
(Trinity)
Nunziata
Nystrom
Ouellet
Parry
Penner
Prud'homme
Riis
Robinson
Rodriguez
Rossi
Skelly
Tobin
Turner
(Vancouver Quadra) Waddell Young-52


Howie	Minaker	TremblayJames	Moore	(Lotbiniere)Jardine	Nicholson	TupperJepson	(Niagara Falls)	TurnerJourdenais	O'Neil	(Ottawa-Carleton)Kelleher	Oostrom	Van De WalleKempling	Pennock	WarnerLadouceur	Ravis	WenmanLesick	Redway	WilsonLewis	Reid	(Swift CurrentMailly	Reimer	-Maple Creek)Mantha	St. Germain	WilsonMartin	Schellenberg	(EtobicokeMazankowski	(Nanaimo-Alberni)	Centre)McCrossan	Scott	WiseMcCuish	(Hamilton-Wentworth)	Witer-93Mclnnes	Scowen	McKenzie	Stevens	McKinnon	Stewart	McKnight	Taylor
NAYS Members	Allmand	Guilbault	MurphyAlthouse	(Saint-Jacques)	NicholsonAngus	Harris	(Trinity)Blackburn	Heap	Nunziata(Brant)	Hopkins	NystromBlaikie	Hovdebo	OuelletBoudria	Isabelle	ParryCaccia	Jewett	PennerCassidy	Johnston	Prud'hommeCopps	(Saint-Henri-	Riisde Jong	Westmount)	RobinsonDewar	Keeper	RodriguezEpp	Killens	Rossi(Thunder Bay-	Langdon	SkellyNipigon)	MacLellan	TobinFinestone	Marchi	TurnerFoster	McCurdy	(Vancouver Quadra)Fulton	McDonald	WaddellGauthier	(Broadview-	Young-52Gray	Greenwood)	(Windsor West)	McLaughlin	Grondin	Mitchell


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: I declare the motion carried.
Bill read the third time and passed.

Supreme Court Act


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
The House divided on the motion of Mr. Hnatyshyn which was agreed to on the following division:
(Division No. 242)
++YEAS
Members
Andre
Attewell
Beatty
Belsher
Bernier
Blais
Blais-Grenier
Blenkarn
Bouchard
Boudria
Bourgault
Browes
Caccia
Charest
Chartrand
Clark
(Yellowhead)
Clark
(Brandon-Souris) Clifford Coates Collins Cooper Copps Cossitt Cote
(Lac-Saint-Jean)
Cote
(Langelier)
Crofton
Crosby
(Halifax West) Dantzer Daubney Dick Dorin Duguay Ellis Epp
(Provencher)
Fennell
Ferland
Finestone
Foster
Fraleigh
Fretz
Friesen
Gagnon
Gauthier
Gerin
Girard
Gray
(Windsor West) Greenaway Grise Grondin Guilbault
(Saint-Jacques)
Hamilton
Hardey
Hawkes
Hnatyshyn
Hopkins
Horner
Howie
Isabelle
James
Jardine
Jepson
Johnston
(Saint-Henri-
Westmount)
Jourdenais
Kelleher
Kempling
Killens
Ladouceur
Lesick
Lewis
MacLellan
Mailly
Mantha
Marchi
Martin
Mazankowski
McCrossan
McCuish
Mclnnes
McKenzie
McKinnon
McKnight
Minaker
Moore
Nicholson
(Trinity)
Nicholson (Niagara Falls)
Nunziata
O'Neil
Oostrom
Ouellet
Penner
Pennock
Prud'homme
Ravis
Redway
Reid
Reimer
Rossi
St. Germain Schellenberg
(Nanaimo-Alberni) Scott
(Hamilton-Wentworth) Scowen Stevens Stewart Taylor Tobin Tremblay (Lotbiniere)
Tupper
Turner
(Ottawa-Carleton) Turner
(Vancouver Quadra)
Van De Walle Warner Wenman Wilson
(Swift Current -Maple Creek)
Wilson
(Etobicoke
Centre)
Wise
Witer-116


SUPREME COURT ACT
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Hnatyshyn that Bill C-53, an Act to amend the Supreme Court Act and to amend various other acts in consequence thereof, be read a second time and referred to a legislative committee.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: 
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: I therefore declare the motion carried.
Bill read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: It being 6.35 p.m., this House stands adjourned until 11 a.m. tomorrow, pursuant to Standing Order 3(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 6.35 p.m.
[Stage Direction]

Tuesday, September 15, 1987
[Stage Direction]
Prayers