1987-11-30

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. Jim Hawkes (Parliamentary Secretary to Deputy Prime Minister and President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, Question No. 210 will be answered today.


Mr. Caccia: Has the government taken action in response to the options set out in the "Environmental Quality Strategic Review: a follow-up report of the Task Force on Program Review", published on February 21, 1986 and, if so, for each option, what action has been taken?


Hon. Tom McMillan (Minister of the Environment):: Yes. The "Environmental Quality Strategic Review: a follow-up report of the Task Force on Program Review", was one of a number of task force reports that made recommendations on the programs of the Department of the Environment. No specific point by point response to the options set out in the "Environmental Quality Strategic Review" document is being planned but as a result of all the reports, the government has adopted an Environmental Quality Strategy which involves a number of initiatives. These include the new Canadian Environmental Protection Act; improvements in the management of federal efforts in the environmental sciences; the establishment of a federal "state of the environment" reporting system; and the further integration of environmental and economic decision making.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Thursday, November 26, consideration of the motion of Mr. Hnatyshyn that Bill C-54, an Act to amend the Criminal Code and other Acts in consequence thereof, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby):: Mr. Speaker, in the time remaining to me I want to bring to the attention of the House the extent of opposition to this legislation by a broad range of groups across Canada. During my opening remarks last Thursday, I indicated that certainly we in the NDP are prepared to accept legislation, indeed have called upon the Government for it, that would recognize the concern of Canadians particularly with respect to violence, degradation and child pornography. However, this legislation goes far beyond that in its attempt to control the depiction of imagery which involves neither violence, degradation nor child pornography. The Minister of Justice (Mr. Hnatyshyn) in his remarks last Thursday said:
All Hon. Members realize that the time has come to amend the Criminal
Code to deal with child pornography and with material which is sexually
violent, exploitative, and degrading.
This Bill does not deal just with that material. It deals with a broad range of other material as well. I pointed out that images of two adults engaged in consensual love-making would henceforth be illegal under the new regime in this legislation.
Who are some of the groups which have expressed concern about this Bill and what is the nature of their concern? The groups include ACTRA, the AIDS Committee of Toronto, the Canada Council, the Canadian Committee against Customs Censorship, the Canadian Conference of the Arts, the Book and Periodical Development Council, the Canadian Librarians' Association, Coalition for the Right to View, Media People for Social Responsibility, the National Action Committee on the Status of Women, the International Rights Organization PEN, and the Writers' Union of Canada, and indeed, a wide range of other organizations.
[DOT] (mo)
The Attorneys General of Canada have indicated their concern that the Bill is too sweeping. They are worried, as was suggested by the then Attorney General of Manitoba, Roland

November 30, 1987
Criminal Code
Penner, that "to include the portrayal of normal, healthy sexual activity along with sexual violence and kiddie porn seems to indicate a misplaced sense of values". He said:
Every provincial minister who spoke advised the federal minister of justice
that they thought he has problems with that bill and he ought to take a closer
look.
The Attorneys General of Canada are asking the Minister of Justice to take another look at this important piece of legislation.
We have as well the position of the Canadian Library Association in addition to that of the British Columbia Teacher-Librarians' Association. The Canadian Library Association, a national non-profit organization representing some 4,500 librarians, indicates that it is deeply concerned about the provisions of Bill C-54. It states that Bill C-54 would require a radical reorganization of library services and operations.
It give some examples. It suggests that library collections would have to be separated into materials for clients over the age of 18 and under the age of 18, that substantial changes to material selection policy and screening processes would need to be undertaken to ensure that libraries are not criminally liable, and that library staff under the age of 18 could no longer be employed in an "adult library". Those are the general concerns of the Canadian Library Association.
I have also received, as has the Minister of Justice, a more detailed letter from the British Columbia Teacher-Librarians' Association. They say that a great deal of the teenage and young adult fiction and a great deal of our educational material would become suspect under this new Bill. They go on to indicate that many teenage and young adult novels deal in very real ways with the problems facing young people today, whether it is coming to terms with their own sexuality, dealing with sexual abuse, living in an alcoholic family, or attempting to establish a positive self image. They have information on venereal diseases such as AIDS, and on dealing with sexual abuse, rape, incest, and violence. They suggest that much of this material in their school libraries could become open to question under the Bill and that teacher-librarians could face criminal charges under the provisions of this legislation.
The onus under this Bill with regard to artists is on the artist to prove to the courts what is referred to as "artistic merit". It has been pointed out by a number of artists that it is a very dangerous proposal to put the burden on an artist to prove in some way that his or her art work has merit. Instead, surely the test should be the same as that for educational, scientific, and other works, and that is the purpose of the work rather than the extent of the merit of it. Judges are not in a position to evaluate the merit of artistic imagery. I suggest that the courts should be looking at the purpose of that work.
The implications of a test of merit are very different. If a judge does not find the artistry to be of top quality, although the work clearly had no purpose of a pornographic nature, he
could find those who distribute that art criminally liable under the provisions of this legislation.
The Bill before us already appears to be having some effect in school districts in British Columbia where groups such as Citizens for Human Dignity, are coming into schools, acquiring materials which they perceive to be pornographic, and threatening teacher-librarians and school boards with charges and lawsuits. Is this what we will be facing in the future under the provisions of this legislation? Will we see the kinds of attacks on literature that were made on the works of Margaret Laurence in a rural school board in Ontario? That is the kind of mentality which seems to be encouraged by this legislation. It is a very dangerous and Draconian approach to legislation.
The Canada Council, through its chairperson Maureen Forrester, has indicated that it has concerns about this legislation, particularly because of the possible implications under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The council points out that putting the onus on an artist to prove the merit of his or her work is very likely in breach of the provisions of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Miss Forrester indicates that she knows how worried artists and arts groups are about the implications of this Bill for their work. She says that the Canada Council shares their concerns.
The Planned Parenthood Federation of Canada has pointed out that this legislation appears to confuse healthy sexuality and disordered sexuality. They say that the legislation is fundamentally anti-sexual. It purports to include a definition of erotica which is nothing more and nothing less than nudity in a sexual context. However, the minute that there is any form of sexual contact it suddenly becomes pornographic and thus illegal. The Planned Parenthood Federation of Canada states that the proposed legislation will have a chilling effect on sexuality and reproductive education and research in Canada. That group has an excellent record in the area of sex education and promotion of more effective and better sex education and research.
Concerns about the scope of this legislation have been raised by a number of groups working with people with AIDS across Canada. The AIDS Committee of Toronto, for example, has stated:
We believe that Bill C-54, if passed in its present form, will have a devastating effect on the ability of our organization and of other AIDS and sex education organizations in Canada to provide the information which is vitally needed in the fight against this disease.
They are saying that if this Bill is passed it could have a very serious impact on preventive steps in the area of AIDS. They note as well that the great bulk of pornography as defined in this legislation depicts legal sexual activities, and that many of these materials are an important element of the preventive safe sex approach which is taken by groups such as the AIDS Committee of Toronto.
The AIDS Committee of Toronto is active in advocating safer sexual alternatives. The depiction of many of the alternatives which are advocated could be illegal under the
November 30, 1987

provisions of this legislation. As the AIDS Committee of Toronto points out, it should be evident from its submissions that any realistic attempt to reduce the spread of AIDS must include frank discussion of sexuality. Under the provisions of this legislation those kinds of discussions could be illegal and subject to prosecution.
Why should those who are working on the front lines against this terrible disease have to take the time, energy, and resources to prove that they have an educational or scientific defence for their work? That is the implication of this legislation.


Mr. Blenkarn:: Nonsense.


Svend Johannes Robinson: There are Conservative Members opposite who say that that is not the case. They will have an opportunity to stand and defend this legislation. However, the reality is that that is exactly what the implication of this legislation could be. We have heard it said in the past that legislation of this nature will not be abused. We are told that we should trust that the Crown will not be abusing it. However, it was not that long ago that the Supreme Court of Canada only narrowly ruled that the great work, Lady Chatterley's Lover, was not obscene.
As well, the AIDS Committee of Toronto and other individuals and groups making submissions have pointed out the particularly harsh impact of legislation of this nature on the gay and lesbian community in Canada. We have seen the extent to which Canada Customs has been prepared to single out periodicals directed to the gay and lesbian community and many of the bookstores which service that community. L'Androgyne bookstore in Montreal, the Glad Day bookstore in Toronto, and Little Sisters in Vancouver all have had to fight debilitating and expensive court battles merely to obtain the right to distribute materials which in no way fall into the category of abusive, violent or degrading materials. Under this legislation, it is quite likely that similar materials would come under attack as well.
One of the concerns that has been raised by the periodical marketers of Canada is that this legislation will still leave unclear exactly what is and what is not subject to criminal sanction. They point out that there are many areas of the legislation that are confusing and unclear, leaving responsible marketers in the position of being unable to determine whether action would be brought against them for handling certain material.
The bottom line on this legislation is that it falls far short of what we as New Democrats have called for, which is strong and effective legislation to deal with violence, with degradation and with exploitation, and to deal with the sexual exploitation of children. That is not the scope of this Bill.
The scope of this Bill indeed would go well beyond that, as has been pointed out by Pierre Berton and many others who
Criminal Code
have had an opportunity to examine the legislation. Indeed, the Toronto Public Library Board, the largest library system in Canada, has indicated that it is so outraged over the provisions of the Bill that it plans to shut all of its libraries in protest for one afternoon early next month. As the chief librarian states: "It is a move to try to publicize our concern about this very bad law, but it is also to give us a chance to have a public meeting to explain the implications to both staff and the public".
Considering the failure of this Bill to respond in a serious way to the concerns of the country, to respond to the kinds of recommendations that were made by the Fraser Commission and to make the fundamental distinction between erotica and pornography, I move:
That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word 'that' and substituting the following therefor:
"This House declines to give second reading to Bill C-54 because it fails to clearly define pornography as material that condones violence, coercion, abuse and degradation in its depiction of human beings or portrays or promotes the sexual exploitation of children; and also, because it does not distinguish pornography from material of an artistic, literary, educational or scientific nature in a fashion acceptable to the Canadian public, including artists".
I have consulted with the Chair as to the procedural acceptability of the amendment. I understand that it is indeed within the scope that is allowed in the area of reasoned amendments.
In conclusion, I want to repeat what I said last Thursday, that if this legislation is adopted it will make Canada the most culturally repressive nation of all of the western democracies. It is an attempt to pander to the extreme right wing of the Conservative caucus. It is legislation which fundamentally violates the provisions of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in Canada in terms of freedom of expression. It fails to make the distinction between imagery which portrays sexuality and imagery which portrays violence, degradation and sexual exploitation of children.
It is a fundamental step backward for Canadian society and I hope the House will adopt the amendment which I proposed and tell the Government to go back to the drawing board and bring before the House legislation which reflects the true concerns of Canadians and does not reflect the very narrow concerns of the moral majority element in Canadian society.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The debate is now on the amendment.
[ Translation]


Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: A point of order, Madam Speaker. I have a copy of the amendment moved by the Hon. Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson), and the first thing I want to do is commend him for distributing his amendment in both official languages. I would suggest this gesture is fully appreciated by Hon. Members, unlike what often happens with the Government which is wont to introduce its amendments in only one language, as we all know. What I wanted to say on this point of order, Madam Speaker, is that I

November 30, 1987
Criminal Code
think the Chair has accepted the motion and we are now debating the amendment, not Bill C-54.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: That is precisely what I just said. The motion was considered and deemed to be in order. Debate is now on the amendment.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would like to correct the record. I am sure the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier) did not want to accuse the Government of providing this House with amendments in one language as a matter of common occurrence. I think it has occurred once or twice, due to the exigency of the particular situation, but certainly it is the common practice of the Government to submit proposed amendments in both official languages. Either the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier was misspeaking or maybe he intended to mislead the House, I am not sure. However, it is common practice for this and every Parliament to propose amendments in both official languages.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The Chair does not feel that the Hon. Member was trying to imply that the Government normally does not present amendments in both official languages. I took his intervention to be congratulations to one of his colleagues, noting the fact that the amendment was presented in both official languages. Debate is now on the amendment.


Mr. Grise:: Questions and comments?


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: There are no questions or comments following a 40-minute speech. We are now on the amendment.


Richard Grisé: Madam Speaker, of course we will be giving very serious consideration to the amendment to Bill C-54, because indeed we must now debate the NDP amendment motion which reads as follows:
That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word "that" and substituting the following therefor: "This House declines to give second reading to Bill C-54 because it fails to clearly define pornography as material that condones violence, coersion, abuse and degradation in its depiction of human beings or portrays or promotes the sexual exploitation of children; and also, because it does not distinguish pornography from material of an artistic, literary, educational or scientific nature in a fashion acceptable to the Canadian public, including artists".
Madam Speaker, when the Hon. Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson) introduced his motion he may have forgotten that there has been a parliamentary reform since the Conservative Government was sworn to office in 1984, and I would suggest his motion is completely out of order. As I see it, the first thing to do is to accept the Bill as drafted and refer it to a legislative committee, as was the intent of the parliamentary reform and as was the wish of the three political Parties when it was
decided to change parliamentary procedure so that as many Members as possible would be able to express their views and be party to the decision-making process. Madam Speaker, I suspect the purpose of parliamenraty reform was not to promote filibustering even before a bill has gone through second reading, even before the Opposition Parties have had an opportunity to debate it.
Madam Speaker, I am pleased to take part in the debate on Bill C-54 designed to amend the Criminal Code with respect to pornography. I believe that all individuals interested in Bill C-54 ought to take time to study Criminal Code section 159 concerning obscenity. Although many private citizens and groups have criticized Bill C-54, they do not seem to understand the present law in Canada. Many correspondents have qualified our existing obscenity laws as vague and lacking in guidance. A publication is deemed to be obscene if its dominant characteristic is the undue exploitation of sex. It also mentions sex connected with violence and cruelty, among other things.
What is undue exploitation? The courts have tried to define this expression on the basis of community standards. Obviously, our penal code should be as clear and specific as possible so that citizens will know what acts are criminal and what the penalty is for this behaviour. Bill C-54 proposes a specific definition of child pornography, degrading pornography and pornography involving criminal acts or violence.
Madam Speaker, Bill C-54 must reflect the concern of all Canadians for putting an end to the alarming escalation of the availability of violent, degrading and increasingly explicit pornographic material, as well as material depicting child pornography. Hon. Members are aware that at the present time, our Criminal Code prohibits the production, publication, and distribution, and the possession for those purposes of any obscene material, written or otherwise. A publication is deemed to be obscene if its dominant characteristic is the undue exploitation of sex or of sex and any one or more of the following subjects, namely crime, horror, cruelty and violence. The Canadian courts have adopted a test reflecting "common moral standards", to determine what should be considered undue exploitation, based on what the Canadian public as a whole is prepared to tolerate.
Judgments handed down by Canadian courts have shown that the present provisions of the Criminal Code dealing with obscenity are difficult to apply. The result is a lot of confusion and concern among the public, retail merchants and distributors, and also among the police, Crown attorneys, counsel for the defence and judges. The present uncertainty about the law and how it is to be interpreted has helped to modify the character of pornography today and expand its market. In recent years we have seen a disturbing increase in the availability of pornographic material. In addition, the format in which such material is available has also become increasingly varied: video recordings, films and satellite telecasts have been added to the traditional media such as books and magazines.
November 30, 1987

All this material is now available in an increasing number of stores and boutiques.
The public has expressed its concern about the use of children in pornographic material and about the availability of this kind of material to young people.
We are all aware of the excellent work done by the Special Committee on Pornography and Prostitution, chaired by Mr. Paul Fraser. In its report tabled in the Flouse of Commons in April 1985, the Special Committee recommended a complete review of the Criminal Code's provisions on obscenity.
This Government has held extensive consultations across the country with groups of experts, and the public has made it very clear it expects the Government to adopt appropriate legislation to deal with the problem of pornography.
Madam Speaker, in my view, the aim of Bill C-54 is to provide a solution to this problem. The Bill provides a clear and precise definition of pornography and erotica, something no previous legislation has done. The new definitions will make it easier for the courts and the public to determine what kind of sexual material may not be produced or distributed.
The Bill creates a new offence, that of dealing in pornographic material, with penalties depending on the nature of the material. In addition to visual matter depicting child pornography, violent sexual behaviour and sexually degrading acts, the definition of pornographic material includes everything that encourages or advocates such activities.
However, Bill C-54 also tries to strike a balance, since it is not solely concerned with creating new offences. In fact, it provides for new defences by excepting pornographic and erotic material used for educational, scientific and medical purposes or having artistic merit. I may point out to those who are so hysterical in their criticism of this Bill that these defences are an improvement, since they are not explicitly provided in the present legislation.
Madam Speaker, I would now like to comment on what was said by the Hon. Members for Outremont (Mrs. Pepin) and Burnaby (Mr. Robinson). It was suggested that the Bill would not only allow the Government to interfere with what goes on in the bedrooms of the nation, as the Hon. Member for Outremont remarked, but also with this country's museums and art galleries.
In my opinion, these remarks were entirely ill-disposed. First of all, Madam Speaker, the Bill does not deal in any way with the sexual behaviour of people or what Canadians do in the privacy of their bedrooms. Even a most superficial interpretation of this Bill would lead us to this conclusion. As far as museums and art galleries are concerned, it is true that the Bill makes it an offense to display erotica in a way that is visible to a member of the public in a public place, unless the public must, in order to see such erotica, pass a prominent warning notice advising of the nature of the display. However, when there is such a prominent warning notice, there is no offense.
Criminal Code
It should be emphasized that this Bill provides for a defense based on the fact that the erotica has artistic merit or an educational, scientific or medical purpose. If the accused, therefore, can establish that erotica has artistic merit or an educational, scientific or medical purpose, the Court will have to find him non guilty.
It has been suggested that the literature on AIDS and other sexually transmissible diseases is so explicit that it could be forbidden. This again is a remark which ignores the defences provided for in this Bill and which are based on its scientific or medical purpose.
Some have also criticize the Bill because of its very wide scope, including visual representations of sexually explicits scenes between consenting adults. I must be clear on this point. The Government had no intention of amending the Criminal Code concerning the explicit representations of sexual relations.
This type of representations is already considered as obscene under Section 159 of the Criminal Code. The Minister of Justice (Mr. Hnatyshyn) has referred to the R.C. Video World Limited case, where the Supreme Court of Canada confirmed a ruling by the Appeal Court of Manitoba to the effect that the depiction of vaginal, anal or oral sexual acts, as well as masturbation were obscene. In my opinion, Bill C-54 does not amend the gist of that ruling.
Some have felt that the Bill is much too tough on those renting pornographic material involving children, suggesting that they should be liable to lighter penalties then the producer of such material. In my opinion, we should not yield to this type of reasoning. Child pornography is certainly what we find most awful and most repulsive. The producer, the distributor and the renter of this type of material are guilty of a most criminal act and none of them should be punished less severely than the others.
Madam Speaker, the purpose of this Bill is to make the fight against pornography more efficient and to give the necessary precision to the law.
Madam Speaker, I come back to the motion of the Hon. Member for Burnaby asking that Bill C-54 not be read for the second time. In his own statement and in that of the Hon. Member for Outremont (Mrs. Pepin), we find that it is extremely important and even essential to do everything possible to eliminate child pornography and to remove violence from erotic or sexual material.
Now, once more, Madam Speaker, we are faced with what, since parliamentary reform, could nearly be an unparliamentary amendment, as we are discussing a Bill and we have mechanisms such as the Legislative Committees to propose amendments-


Jean-Robert Gauthier: You are questioning the Chair!

November 30, 1987
Criminal Code


Richard Grisé: No, no! Madam Speaker, you have heard the comments of the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier).


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier on a point of order.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: The Hon. Member has just made a value judgment on the amendment by saying that it is unparliamentary. Those are the words that he used.
I would ask him to withdraw these words because the Chair has accepted this amendment. The amendment is quite in order and in no way unparliamentary. I ask that he withdraw his comment.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The Hon. Parliamentary secretary said that, in his opinion, the amendment might be nearly unparliamentary. I think that he can express in this way the fact that he does not quite agree with the decision of the Chair to accept this amendment, but he did not question it. There is no point of order.
The Hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Deputy Prime Minister and President of the Privy Council.


Richard Grisé: Madam Speaker, I in no way questioned the ruling of the Chair. A while ago, Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier rose on a point of order to say that the Hon. Member for Burnaby had tabled certain papers in both official languages and he blamed the Government for not doing the same thing regularly. For the information of the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier), Madam Speaker, I should like to emphasize that his comment was not referring to an amendment when a Minister had tabled a document, but simply a matter of information and a document to be laid on the Table.
Madam Speaker, I should like to deal once more with the highlights of this Bill on pornography which guarantees the freedom of expression as provided for in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, while defining a limited category of materials which will be forbidden because of their pornographic nature.
The Bill reinforces and clarifies current legislation on obscenity through new provisions on pornographic material and erotica. It clearly defines the forbidden pornographic material. First of all, any visual matter that shows children or young people involved in sexual activity, extreme violence in a sexual context, sexually violent conduct, degrading acts in a sexual context, bestiality, incest or necrophilia, as well as explicit sexual behaviours.
Also, any matter or commercial communication that incites, promotes, encourages or advocates any conduct which I have just mentioned. These definitions of forbidden material take into account the current legislations dealing with obscene material which reflect our social standards.
The Bill proposes a new offense, in the case of a person who deals in pornography and who is involved in making, importing, selling or renting pornographic material. Such a person is liable to various penalties depending on the nature of the pornographic material. Every person who possesses pornographic material involving children is guilty of an offense punishable on summary conviction.
The Bill provides for special defences based on the artistic merit of the material or its educational, scientific or medical purpose. The accused will not be able to use these special defenses in the case of the most baneful pornographic material involving children or violent acts in a sexual context.
Whenever the defender successfully uses the artistic merit of a document as a defense, the Court will declare that such document is not pornographic. Erotica include explicit depiction in a sexual context or for the purpose of sexual stimulation of the viewer, of certain parts of the human body. Erotic material can be displayed behind a barrier showing warning about the nature of the material, or it can be covered by an opaque wrapper, and it must not be sold or rented to young people. Performances with children or youths and involving sexual acts or any pornographic representations are prohibited. Under the provisions on hate propaganda, the groups which can be distinguished by sex will now be protected against hate pornography, which will be an offence under the customs tariffs, as will be the importing into Canada of pornographic material.
Madam Speaker, the Government consulted several groups when preparing Bill C-54. I asked myself serious questions earlier when I heard the Hon. Member for Burnaby say that librarian groups, for instance, object to this Bill because they will have to reorganize certain documents, books and publications in certain areas of their library. What should be the most important in our society today? Not to change anything, or to impose certain standards and restrictions to our librarians to protect our young people and teenagers when they go to the library, and we know that an increasing number of young people go to the libraries, which is certainly a good thing! Is it not normal to want to keep such material away from our young people and to require that there be a special section in libraries for erotica which will not be acessible to young Canadians? I believe that this is much more important.
Then, there is the issue of access to certain types of publications and films for young people under 18 in the stores. For instance, there are many video stores where young people can take out movies themselves with their video club member cards. It is now quite easy for young people to rent cassettes depicting bestiality, violence and sexual acts between youngsters. It is important to remove access to such products from our youths.
Madam Speaker, it has also been suggested that Bill C-54 will prevent our medical researchers from developing products against AIDS and other sexually transmitted diseases. Making that kind of comments is totally absurd, as if medical progress
November 30, 1987

would be at a standstill if pornography could not be used as a tool. That is what the Opposition Parties have been saying. Plow can anyone imagine that in 1987, if medical science were deprived of pornography, no progress will be made to fight against sexually transmitted diseases!
Madam Speaker, nor do I think-


An Hon. Member:: That is not what was said.


Richard Grisé: Read the blues and find out what my colleague opposite, the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier), said a few minutes ago, and you will realize that I am not changing the gist of the comments made by the Hon. Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson).
I am about to conclude, Madam Speaker. With respect to sexual education, today we have a training or educational system which enables our children-


Mrs. Pepin:: In Quebec, nowhere else.


Richard Grisé: But it is not by allowing ready access to pornography that we will improve the sexual education of our children. It is obvious that with the proposed amendment, and this will be my last comment of course, we are against the proposed amendment. I would urge Hon. Members to adopt Bill C-54 as quickly as possible and refer it to a legislative committee so as to give better protection to the Canadian population with respect to sexuality, child pornography and pornographic violence.


Lucie Pépin: Madam Speaker, I would like to make some comments and conclude with a question. I think my Conservative colleague is to some extent misrepresenting the purpose of a Bill that is supposed to deal with pornography. The words pornography and sexual conduct are now mentioned in the same sentence, so it is very easy to say that people are in favour of violence and pornography, while completely neglecting to mention that, since sexual conduct is mentioned in the same sentence, all kinds of sexual conduct and erotica are prohibited.
The Hon. Member said earlier that Opposition Members were hysterical in their criticism of the Fraser Report. I think he knows perfectly well this Bill does not in any way reflect the Fraser Report's recommendations. I invite him to read the Fraser Report and the speech I made in the House last Thursday, in which I referred specifically to the Fraser Report.
Women's groups that are campaigning against pornography and violence have condemned this Bill, their comment being that it was all black and white. And regarding what my Conservative colleague said about doctors and that it was ridiculous to expect works of art or colour slides that were not pornographic to be confiscated, I gave him an example of an incident that occurred in Calgary, in October 1987, when three RCMP officers confiscated forty-two slides belonging to a women's coalition group that was giving presentations to demonstrate what violence was, the dangers of pornography
Criminal Code
and the difference between pornography and erotica. The RCMP officers confiscated the lot and said: You are doing a pornographic presentation.
So we protest. And since the police will be defining what is art, what is medical and what is pornography, then this Bill will have to be rewritten because the way it is worded now, you are making no distinctions at all.
In concluding, I would like to ask the Hon. Member a question. As it stands now, the Bill criminalizes sex. Read your definition of pornography and tell me why you want to include something that is not criminal. Today, a sexual act is not criminal, and you want to make it a crime in this Bill. Explain the difference between pornography and sex and why you want to criminalize a sexual act?


Richard Grisé: Madam Speaker, first I should like to point out to the Hon. Member for Outremont (Mrs. Pepin) that women's groups are not opposed to the Bill itself, they are against certain definitions. They want explanations and more information, but they are not directly against the Bill. So there is a slight difference between the comments of the Hon. Member for Outremont and what the various women's groups are saying about the Bill.
Madam Speaker, I should also like to refer to this Bill in light of the existing legislation about which the Hon. Member for York Centre, I believe, said:
"Taken with our proposal on sexual violence and degradation, we think this provision of the present Criminal Code is worth preserving".

When we read the text of the Hon. Member for Outremont (Mrs. Pepin) who is saying that the existing legislation should be repealed altogether ... In the Bill we are saying that that part of the Bill will be kept, as a result of the Supreme Court ruling concerning the Manitoba court. The Hon. Member for Outremont is saying that anything in Bill C-54 which relates to what is already in the existing legislation should be deleted.
So with respect to pornography and sexuality I think that Bill C-54 specifies quite clearly what we are deleting, what we are trying to prevent in pornography, and we are not by any means undermining the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms as far as sexuality is concerned.


Mrs. Bourgault:: Madam Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to commend the Hon. Member for his contribution and for recalling certain facts dealt with in this legislation with respect to the definition of pornography.
Madam Speaker, I have as a woman, for years, of course, in private and public life, been fighting with other people and making representations to all levels of government in the hope that one of them might stand up and do something to stop the

November 30, 1987
Criminal Code
degradation of women and children. And, finally, Madam Speaker, I can now proudly claim 1 am part of a government that has the political courage to push matters one step further.
I would like to suggest to the Hon. Member that, as we must remember, as far back as 1978 the previous Government has attempted ... It is easy for the Hon. Member for Outremont to speak from the other side of the House, because when they were on this side, Madam Speaker, as the situation was getting worse, as public patience was running out-because there was so much degrading material, it had come to the point where children were actually murdered for the sake of having films getting more pornographic, and closer to real life. It is easy to suggest from the Opposition benches that the legislation does not address the issue.
Madam Speaker, when the Leaders took their stand during the 1984 elections, they clearly stated they were going to do something. We came up with Bill C-54 and we of course deal with the definition.
Madam Speaker, I for one know when something is erotic and when it is pornographic. And it is my view that the justices of the Supreme Court, the judges of the lower courts, know when something is erotic and when it is pornographic. It is written down in the Bill. My view is they are playing party politics, which is really out of place here. For partisan reasons, they come up with fiddlesticks in order to suggest that the Bill is bad, that we should throw it away! Come now, that is absolutely ridiculous!
I would like to suggest to the Hon. Member for Chambly that women in my view agree with this Bill. They had one reservation as to the definition, but I think that if they read Bill C-54 carefully, they will realize it is clear and precise as to what is erotica and what is pornography.


Richard Grisé: Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague the Hon. Member for Argenteuil-Papineau and Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mrs. Bourgault) for these very relevant clarifications. Indeed we must stop playing partisan politics with such an important measure concerning child pornography. As Members of the House holding a mandate from the population, how can we tell the Government: Your Bill is no good, scrap it and go back to square one! How can we do that? Madam Speaker, for too long already we have been letting people condone violence through the youth pornography trade.
Madam Speaker, again I repeat, it is unbelievable that a motion be introduced to reject the Bill. They are giving short shrift to this measure, supposedly because their Party has no use for it. It does not matter whether Canadians want it or not. Opposition Members on the other side have decided there is no rush, not to worry, we can afford to put off dealing with child pornography and pornographic violence for six months, a year or even longer. And we as Government are supposed to accept that!
I conclude, Madam Speaker. As my colleague the Hon. Member for Argenteuil-Papineau pointed out, what women's groups want-and I think they are directly involved in this issue, when we talk about pornography, a legislative measure on pornography-they have shown quite clearly that they do have reservations about some of the definitions, but at no time did they ever object to the principle of the Bill.


Ms. Lynn McDonald (Broadview-Greenwood):: Madam Speaker, as a Member of Parliament and as a very active feminist, I am very concerned that we get good pornography legislation; so I am supporting an amendment which I think will take us somewhere in that direction.
We want tough legislation, but it must be carefully drafted. It must distinguish very clearly between what we want to ban- that is, violent, degrading, coercive pornography and child pornography-and what may be objectionable to some people but on which there is not a great deal of consent within Canadian society that it is at the level of being pornography to be banned. We must make it very clear. We might want to have some restrictions on this kind of material, for example, that it not be freely available everywhere where it would offend people and that it not be available to children. We must have very, very tough laws on pornography.
I think Bill C-54 is an attempt to go in the right direction. At least I give the Government credit for wanting to bring in tough and careful legislation, but unfortunately it makes a lot of mistakes. However, they are mistakes which can be redressed. Definitions can be redrafted. Careful work can be done. We could sit down with experts, with representatives of the women's movement, with representatives of the churches, and with representatives of art groups, to come up with something that would have broad Canadian acceptance. I am quite confident of that, but we do not quite have it in the Bill before us. We do not have it yet. It could be done at committee, but there must be agreement on the part of the Government to make real amendments.
Let me make very clear that my Party wants tough legislation. I want to read into the record a resolution that was passed at an NDP federal convention which is absolutely crystal clear in terms of the kind of legislation we want. It reads:
WHEREAS women's groups throughout Canada are deeply concerned about the avalanche of pornographic material which condones violence, coercion, abuse and degradation in its depiction of women and children;
WHEREAS such images are demeaning and destructive in their effect on the social fabric of Canada; and
WHEREAS there is growing evidence of a causal link between such pornographic material and the increase in violence towards women and children,
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the federal New Democratic Party:
November 30, 1987

1)	defines as pornography material which condones violence, coercion, abuse and degradation in its depiction of human beings and condemns the production and distribution of such material whether in film, video, print, or any other form;
2)	condemns the production and distribution of material which portrays or promotes the sexual exploitation of children and calls for severe penalties for offenders;
3)	calls for a strengthening of Section 159 of the Criminal Code of Canada to reflect these concerns;
4)	calls for amendments to the Broadcasting Act to prohibit the broadcasting of such pornographic material, with severe penalties for violation including the possibility of revocation of licence;
5)	calls for amendments to Section 281 of the Criminal Code of Canada to add sex as a prohibited category, and to strengthen the penalties and provide a clear method of enforcement under this section so that pornographic material which degrades the human person can be prosecuted as hate literature;
6)	calls on the New Democratic Party to participate in actions across Canada to develop public opposition to pornography as a form of hate propaganda, and to seek solutions to the problem.
That is tough, that is what we want, and I hope we will get it.
I want to commend the many people who worked on this issue. I particularly want to thank Mrs. Ulma Lee and Korean Christians in Toronto who have worked very diligently to bring forward petitions with literally thousands of names to protest pornography and to ask for a strong Bill C-54. I think the work was excellent. I was pleased to see it, and I fully support it.
Where will we go from here? We have proposals from many people, groups, experts, and so forth asking for careful redefinition. I should like to refer to a brief from the United Church of Canada, a very large church within society. It wants tough legislation. It wants amendments to the Bill. It commends the Government for bringing it in, but it asks the Government to work on amendments. The brief reads:
Bill C-54 distinguishes between erotica and pornography in terms of degree of explicit activity.
It asks for the qualitative, not the quantitative, difference to be taken adequately into account. It continues:
We believe the difference between erotica and pornography is a matter of quality of relationship rather than mere quantity of activity or inactivity.
We submit that the difference between unhealthy pornography and erotica cannot be measured in degrees of explicitness, but rather is determined in terms of context. Explicit sexuality in a context of commitment, mutuality, free choice, and non-violence is a good gift of God.
Pornography, in contrast, is the depiction of sexuality cut off from its full human context. Pornography loses sight of the whole person, focusing only on his/her ability to sexually gratify.
Women are reduced to vagina and breasts and men to the size of their genitals ... By portraying human persons, usually women, as sexual playthings eager to respond instantly to male, female, sexual demands, human persons, usually women, are turned into sexual objects, degraded and robbed of their humanity.
I think that is all too true. The United Church asks for amendments to take into account, in a very careful way, what these differences are. The church shows where it supports the Bill and where it needs to be amended.
Criminal Code
There is an extensive Bill from the committee against pornography which documents the way the courts have been dealing with the existing legislation. It goes to show the liberalization in our society and the growing acceptance of pornography as it becomes more and more available and harder and harder to fight. It shows also how the definition proposed in Bill C-54 is inadequate in both directions, namely, it includes some material which the vast majority of Canadians would not want included.
There are many ways in which Bill C-54 itself is not tough enough. There are loopholes that would allow some material to go through as erotica which most of us in a common sense approach would say is thoroughly offensive, degrading and humiliating normally to women and children. We need to have amendments in both directions. It shows, for example, a wrinkle which I had not thought of where the visual image may not be pornographic in and of itself but, with the text, the impression conveyed is one which is thoroughly degrading, humiliating and invites violence and degradation toward women and children. We have to take into account the whole effect. The present wording, by focusing on a dominant part of the image, may be very, very pornographic in its intent and result, although what makes it so may not be dominant in the quantity of the portrayal. Here we have a loophole.
There are pages of recommendations for careful amendment, but I cannot go into them in detail here. We need to pay attention to them. I hope the Government will look very carefully at the recommendations of this organization and that people will be active at the committee stage working for good amendments.
The question of the arts and pornography is a very difficult one. We have had representations from many arts organizations. They are afraid they will go into jail, that individual artists will be prosecuted, or they will have to censor themselves out of fear of prosecution. Artists, with very few exceptions, do not have very much money. They will have to hire lawyers to protect themselves. Clearly we need to have a law which does not include in pornography artistic, scientific, literary, educational work and documentaries. That is not the intent of the Government, but we have to make very clear that that intent is adequately reflected in the legislation, and I do not think it has yet been done adequately. The Canadian Association of University Teachers has proposed over the years amendments to ensure that that is the case. I think the Government has attempted to respond, but it has not done well enough so far.
Unfortunately, some artists are not helping by saying they do not want to have any pornography legislation whatever, that their creative spirit should be allowed to have full play without any law interfering with what they want to do. I do not believe artists ought to be above the law, and I would invite them to sit down with legislators and experts to see that we get a law that is fair. We do not want to prosecute artists. We

November 30, 1987
Criminal Code
want to distinguish between what is largely the pornography business, the billion dollar business coming from the United States, mass produced and schlock from California, which is what this Bill is all about, and artistic and literary works. This is what the women's movement is addressing when they say they want tough legislation on pornography, but we do not want to cast the net so wide that we include artistic and literary works.
Artists have to work and be constructive in proposing amendments. It is not good enough to say that they want nothing whatever.
I recall being lobbied by an artist who said he did not want to see any limits at all on his freedom of expression. I asked him about the extreme case of snuff movies where someone is actually killed in a pornographic setting, normally a woman. He said there should be a classification of films, to which he would agree. That kind of film would get a classification of a double X or a snuff movie classification, but he added that there ought to be no prosecution of the artists involved. The person committing the murder could be sought for murder, but the film would be shown. This would be a work of art and people would analyse it and deal with it as a work of art, a film in which somebody is actually killed, which is preposterous. I am shocked to hear this sort of proposal and to hear that actors and directors would ignore the violence taking place in order to pursue artistic endeavours.
Artists have to ensure that there are limits on pornography leading to violence against women and children, women being forced to re-enact pornographic scenes in magazines, videos and so forth and children being abused in more imaginative ways. Artists are sensitive members of society, but they are members of society with responsibilities to their neighbours. They have to have it on their conscience that violence against women and children is something to which we must put an end.
What about the hate literature aspects? This Bill would include sex as one of the categories for prosecution, and pornography is included here. That is desirable, and the New Democratic Party resolution to which I have referred also specifies that. However, our resolution goes much further and says it must be made applicable. Right now the hate literature sections of the Criminal Code are virtually unenforceable, so that merely putting in the word "sex" is entirely a political endeavour. It is something that will not have any practicality in making it possible to prosecute. By all means add sex to that list, but make that section enforceable, otherwise it is only window dressing and hardly good enough for the real problems.
We need to get experts and people from women's organizations to sit down and constructively work out something better. There is no doubt that the pornography issue has been a difficult one for the women's movement. After all, women have a very wide variety of concerns, expertise and interest, and political views go from one extreme to the other as to what
should be included and excluded in the Bill. There is a strong body of opinion in the women's movement to have tough laws, but they must be carefully nuanced. We have major organizations-not just extreme organizations-for example, the United Church, which asked for precise amendments, and we must look at those.
Let me raise one difficulty which comes from the United Church brief. Erotica, the sexual explicitness which is not coercive, which is consensual between adults-which does not include or involve abuse or exploitation of a child-is desirable and good. Yes, in principle, obviously it is so. If a man and a woman want to make home movies of their sexual activities, why not? Whose business is it apart from their own? However, once you get into commercial exploitation, on stage, film, television or video, you have a different set of problems. It is not so easy to deal with the question once you get into hiring someone to take on these roles.
How would you portray a consensual relationship between an adult man and a woman within a relationship? The United Church and other groups say that so long as there is consent and it is part of a relationship, it is not a degrading act, one person acting on another. Sexuality is part of human relationships and it is good to show that. Yet how do you do it in a film? Are you going to show the people as married? Are you only going to allow actors and actresses married to each other or who have a long-term relationship with each other to perform in these roles? The sex act can result in procreation. Do we really want children to be conceived in an act done for commercial purposes?
We are not just talking about ordinary events, we are talking about something that is qualitatively very different. I do not think people have looked at those aspects, it is all very well to say, yes, this is a healthy relationship and there is no reason why it should not be portrayed. However, once you get into hiring people to perform these roles, then you get into really serious problems, such as sexually-transmitted diseases. Should an actor or actress get a sexually-transmitted disease, including AIDS, as a result of taking on one of these roles?
There are a lot of questions which have not been adequately gone into. Experts have to sit down and consider these questions. They have to get out of this land of principle and high position which says that we are in favour of this because it is consensual, not exploitative. How is it going to be realized in a practical sense when actors and actresses, directors and so forth, are engaged professionally to perform roles of this sort? That is a much more difficult question.
I do not have very much time left so I want to conclude by suggesting that we need to have the Bill withdrawn, hold consultations with experts, and do some serious redrafting. Or, if the Government uses its majority to pass this Bill at second reading, it should go into committee and the various concerned
November 30, 1987

groups and experts should be invited to work on redrafting it at that stage.
I want to assure members of the Government that my Party will support the Bill at third reading if we get a good Bill back, and there are reasonable amendments which take into account the kinds of criticism we have raised. We want a practical response to a real problem. We have been waiting for this Bill for a very long time. We had the Fraser Commission back in 1984 and Badgley dealt with child sexual abuse before that. We really want to get moving on this.
The Government will have our full support, as I said, if it deals very carefully with this legislation. I hope this is not just a political gesture where the Government will be able to say it tried to get a pornography law through, but the Opposition would not let it. I hope it is not just a public relations effort to appeal to a certain amount of political opinion. It should be a serious endeavour to address a serious problem affecting the life and health of women and children in particular, and the dignity of everyone. I hope we will have serious amendments so we will be able to put in place a law which responds to the real situation where we have a lot of pornography, a lot of degradation, and in which women and children for the most part are suffering as a result. Let us get on with that task.


Mr. Stackhouse:: Madam Speaker, I want to express appreciation for the Hon. Member's speech. I always listen to her with great interest and usually with great benefit. I was very encouraged by the support she gave for the principle of the Bill and the Government's initiative in introducing it in this House. However, all of that led me to wonder why she would support her Party's amendment to the Bill. What she wants in the way of a further careful review is surely possible at committee stage. Why else do we have a committee stage? Why prejudge it? Why assume that we are not going to have a serious assessment of the legislation by a committee which will include members of her own Party? When she urges a careful review, she is not simply urging it on members of the Government but also on members of her own Party.
In view of the reasoning contained in the Hon. Member's speech I wonder why we need the amendment? This is especially true in light of her conclusion, which was that we have waited a long time for this Bill. We are certainly going to wait a long time because it will need careful examination in committee. Therefore, why does she want us to wait longer still by supporting this amendment? If it passes, and I trust it will not, it will simply cause extended and, I have to say, futile delay.


Lynn McDonald: Madam Speaker, I suggested in my remarks that there are two possible ways of proceeding. One is for the Government to withdraw the Bill and redraft it right now. The Government could agree to do that and, in an informal and speedy manner, work on redrafting. The other possibility is to have the Bill go to committee. At that stage it could redraft it.
Criminal Code
The reason for the amendment is to propose the speedier way of working. Redrafting can be done more efficiently in a more informal setting. Committees take time to meet. Their meetings depend upon the schedule of Members of Parliament, what happens during the Christmas holidays and other break periods. Committees meet only three days a week at most. If this were turned back to the Government for redrafting, the work could begin today. Consultations could take place on an all-day basis. One could assign people to work on the Bill without having to follow the sometimes cumbersome formalities of a committee.
I think we might be able to work more expeditiously by withdrawing and redrafting, but I certainly assure the Hon. Member that if the Bill is passed at second reading, we will work on it in committee. It may take a bit longer and be a bit more cumbersome, but we will certainly work constructively in committee if that is the way the Government chooses to go.


Lise Bourgault: Madam Speaker, I agree with my colleague for Scarborough West (Mr. Stackhouse) that the Hon. Member for Broadview-Greenwood (Ms. McDonald) has, in all her time in this House, always shown her concern about the problems related to child pornography, the degradation of women, and so on. Madam Speaker, as for young people today, about two weeks ago, I was invited to the CEGEP de TOutaouais where the students had organized a discussion similar to those on the program Parler pour parler with Janette Bertrand. The students invited me to play my own role of Member of Parliament. The subject being discussed was pornography and the pornographic material available everywhere. From what they said, the situation seems very clear to young people. They pointed out that some young Canadians have said that there should be specialized stores for purchasing pornographic or erotic material as exist in the United States and in other countries.
They say that when they see movies showing acts of violence, if there has not been that much open discussion in their own families, they are traumatized by this type of material. They believe that the Government was right to introduce Bill C-54. The Hon. Member says that it would be easy for the Government to withdraw this Bill and to rewrite it, but she knows quite well that it is not that easy in Parliament. As pointed out by my colleague for Scarborough West, why does the Hon. Member not ask her colleague for Burnaby to withdraw his amendment and to tell the House Leaders: Refer this Bill to committee as quickly as possible because there will be representations by the groups concerned about the definition. Everyone knows that it is not easy to define sexual issues. It is an extremely complex subject. Why does the Hon. Member not suggest that to the House immediately? It would be more logical and quicker. We could adopt the Bill and put an end to the degradation of women and children.

November 30, 1987
Criminal Code


Lynn McDonald: Madam Speaker, with regard to speed, we have been waiting a long time for this. This is the third year of the Government's mandate, and I think it could have proceeded very much more quickly. We have had the Badgley and Fraser reports for some time. The Government has been very slow to act. I have explained why I think that objective could be best achieved by redrafting.
The difficulty is that if we pass a Bill which contains a lot of mistakes we will be in a lot of trouble. There will be charter cases. The law which exists right now is very bad and is not very enforceable. The courts are starting to chip away at it because it does not have adequate support. If this Bill is passed without significant amendment there will be a lot of objections. People will fight it. The courts have gone in a very liberalizing direction. They have been allowing more and more pornography. You cannot enforce a law which people do not support. There must be tightening up in that area.
It is also true that there are some loopholes. The violent and degrading pornography which we are against is not included. Therefore, the law errs in both directions. In some respects it is too lenient and in other respects it is not lenient enough. This Bill needs very careful redrafting or we will be in a lot of trouble. We have a lousy law on the books. Let us take the time to ensure that we have a good law on the books which will be enforceable.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Madam Speaker, I was interested in the remarks of the Hon. Member with regard to national women's organizations. I wonder whether she would elaborate on some of the concerns which have been raised by these groups. At its last annual general meeting it adopted a resolution that the NAC reject the proposed legislation on pornography and lobby the Government to ensure that any new legislation focus on violence rather than sexual acts, not affect the distribution of sex education material to people under 18, and not reinforce heterosexualism, and that the NAC lobby the Government to ensure that any legislation puts the onus on the Crown to prove that material does not have artistic merit rather than, as is the case now, putting the onus on the artist to prove this, which is very likely in breach of the provisions of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
The Hon. Member is a former President of the NAC. Perhaps she could elaborate on some of the concerns which have been raised by respected national organizations, such as the National Action Committee for the Status of Women, with regard to this legislation.


Lynn McDonald: Madam Speaker, the National Action Committee is Canada's largest such organization. It is an umbrella organization which includes groups from the extremely conservative to the extremely unconservative. There is, therefore, a division of opinion within NAC itself on how to proceed. There is certainly near unanimity on having tough
laws. Concerns have been raised as to bias in the laws and the onus on artists to defend themselves. I think there would be a great deal of support for that.
I keep in touch with NAC executive members. They are keen to have a well-worded Bill passed. They are prepared to appear before the committee. Their position may be a little like mine. I believe that there are two routes to follow. The Bill could be withdrawn and redrafted. However, if the Bill goes to committee, they will be there to suggest practical and constructive amendments. We can certainly count on their support and expertise in achieving the objective of having a very carefully drafted Bill on pornography.


Mr. Ross Belsher (Fraser Valley East):: Madam Speaker, I was prepared to speak on Bill C-54 and welcomed the opportunity to do that. However, I understand that in the last few minutes an amendment has been moved that we not now give second reading to this Bill. I strongly disagree with the mover of that motion and with his reasons for it.
1 would like to confine my remarks mainly to why we should proceed with Bill C-54. I believe that this Bill is a guide for the future use of the Canadian public. Guidelines have to be set by Parliament. Therefore, it behooves every Member in this Chamber to accept the responsibility which we have been elected to perform, that is, to help set those guidelines.
Both the Fraser and the Badgely reports clearly pointed out the magnitude of the problem of pornography and child abuse in our society today. Upon reading these reports one must open one's eyes and recognize that even in what we like to think of as "civilized" societies atrocities are occurring to children and families, atrocities which can be tied to the availability of hard and soft core pornography.
The committee examining the sexual offences against children, commonly referred to as the Badgely Committee, found that there are two main sources of child pornography in Canada; importation and private individual production. The Fraser Commission concluded that 85 per cent of all pornographic material in Canada comes from the U.S., 12 per cent from Europe, and 3 per cent is made up domestically. Whatever the source, the people of Fraser Valley East and, undoubtedly, many other areas of Canada, want pornography stopped. Pornography offends our standards and demeans, degrades and abuses the persons involved.
Even the word "pornography" incites an emotion, the scope of which depends on the outlook of the person using it. I tend to believe that if Canadians knew the degree to which pornography was available, or in fact what pornography is, each and every one of us would stand up and shout, "We are not going to take it any more".
Bill C-54 has some very positive points. For the first time a definition of pornography will be added to the Criminal Code. The definition is clearly written in the Bill, so I will not get into it at this time. However, we are clearly cracking down on child pornography and violent behaviour. I am pleased to see
November 30, 1987

that other Members of this House do agree with that part of the Bill.
I strongly support the Bill as it now stands but would like to see it go even further. Specifically, 1 believe that there are too many ways out by proving artistic merit or educational, scientific or medical purpose. This leaves too much to interpretation. If the courts are to determine in each case whether a piece of work has artistic merit, we need to know the parameters for this term. It seems obvious that one person's idea of what is artistic is not another person's. "Artistic merit" will become the gateway for pornographic material to enter Canada and be circulated. This could become a major flaw in the Bill.
There are theories which suggest that a direct causal link exists between violent pornography and violence against women, although others state that this connection is somewhat difficult to prove. The Fraser Commission report concluded, albeit reluctantly, that available research is of limited use in demonstrating that pornography is linked to the causing of actual physical harm, but it strongly submitted that there is definite harm associated with much of what is pornography.
Arthur Gary Bishop, convicted of sexually abusing and killing five young boys in the U.S., once stated:
If pornography material would have been unavailable to me in my early states, it is most probable that my sexual activities would not have escalated to the degree they did.
He further stated that pornography's impact on him was devastating and "was a determining factor in my downfall". I find this statement absolutely frightening.
The final report of the Attorney General's commission on pornography, published in the United States in 1986, serves to show us that there are acts that need to be seen not only as the cause of immorality but as manifestations of it. Even though it may be difficult to find a causal link between pornography and violence or abuse, this report makes a very good attempt. It is well worth reading.
Let me briefly outline the highlights of the chapter entitled "The Question of Harm". Two categories of harm are identified. The primary category of harm is not where the act leads, but simply what it is, such as murder, rape and assault. The second category deals not with what the act is, but where it will lead. We can fit pornography into this category.
Even though no cause is exclusive, the report states that pornography is harmful because it causes some people to commit acts of sexual violence, because it:
causes promiscuity, because it encourages sexual relations outside of marriage and because it promotes so-called unnatural sexual practices which lead men to treat women as solely existing for the sexual satisfaction of men.
There may never be conclusive proof that a causal connection exists, if "conclusive" means that no other possibility exists. However, the Attorney General's Commission on
Criminal Code
Pornography states that there are multiple causes, that is, if they were to identify one cause and eliminate it, while having all the other factors remain the same, the problem would at least be lessened.
This is a very important point. Why must we wait for empirical evidence to point out one causal link between pornography and violence? Instead, it is time to acknowledge that if we correct the causes we have identified we will at least help alleviate the problem.
My constituents believe that the link I have been discussing does exist. Pornography not only causes physical harm in many cases, it causes social harm in all instances.
In today's fast-paced world, it is difficult enough to raise and protect our children. When we must constantly be on the look-out for negative external influences, the battle is even more uphill. More and more school boards are integrating a program for teaching our children to say no in an effort to prevent child sexual abuse. This is a sad statement on the way our society is heading.
Could we not prevent a lot of this abuse of our children by working hard to stop those who make or import pornography? Bill C-54 will be a start, a framework, from which I hope we can continue to take a stand against pornography, particularly as it relates to children.
The 1984 Badgley report stated that child pornography is a direct product of child sexual abuse. It states: "It comes into existence, and can only come into existence, through the base and coldly premeditated exploitation of a young person's sexual vulnerability". This is very clear. It is not the children who should or can be blamed because they are but the tools used by exploitative individuals for their own end.
The report states further that: "Where a young person has been used in the making of visual pornographic material, it is irrelevant whether some view the material as having literary, artistic, or aesthetic value". The point is that it is permanent abuse of the children and perpetuates the warped idea that children are available for such purposes.
We must also worry about the availability of pornographic material to our children. Municipalities can only regulate the pornographic industry by the way they determine how such material can be displayed.
This fall referendums were held in some of the municipal elections in Fraser Valley. Citizens clearly pointed out their abhorrence of pornography. I am proud of the stance that they took on this important issue.
It is difficult to decide what is pornography and what is artistic merit. The U.S. Attorney General's Commission on Pornography attempts to separate pornography into four levels or categories. The first and most serious is sexually violent material. This type of pornography features actual or unmistakable simulated or unmistakably threatened violence presented in sexually explicit fashion. Conclusions from

November 30, 1987
Criminal Code
clinical and experimental research clearly indicate an increase in the likelihood of aggressive behaviour toward women as a result of exposure to this type of material.
This is not to say that everyone watching this type of pornography will become violent, but let me remind the House of Arthur Gary Bishop, the murderer whom I quoted earlier. It is not surprising that the images that people are exposed to bear a causal relationship to their behaviour.
The second level or category of pornography is non-violent material depicting degradation, domination, subordination or humiliation. This type of material bears some causal relationship to attitudinal changes. For example, rape will be viewed as less serious and the victim as more responsible. We may become somewhat numb to the reality of the crime.
The third level or category is non-violent and non-degrading materials in which the participants appear to be fully willing participants. These activities affect our perception of promiscuity. Therefore, the ultimate harmfulness of much of this type of pornography reflects individual views. This type was found to be particularly harmful when it fell into the hands of children because this is not the way that children should be taught about normal sexual relationships. This type of pornography separates sex from love, commitment and marriage, and it is that effect that is negative.
The final category of pornography as defined in the U.S. Attorney General's report is nudity. This raises the problem of trying to establish when nudity stops being mere nudity and begins to have sexual undertones. Most of us would not find certain types of nudity harmful, such as that meant plainly for educational purposes, but certainly we must agree that nudity in other cases, and in the wrong hands, can be harmful. This brings us back to the question of what pornography can do to our children.
The Badgley report gave some startling statistics with regard to the access of children to pornographic material. It found that 540 different pornographic magazines were being sold in Canada and that six of seven retail outlets surveyed displayed these well within the reach of young children. Clause 159.7 of Bill C-54 states:
Every person who displays any erotica in a way that is visible to a member of the public in a public place . . . must (in order to see the erotica) pass a prominent warning notice advising of the nature of the display therein or unless the erotica is hidden by a barrier or is covered by an opaque wrapper, is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.
This is a welcome amendment, but is tempered by the next clause which gives the accused a way out, that being artistic merit or educational, scientific or medical purpose. Again, this is too subjective.
Bill C-54 also includes an amendment to the Customs Tariff Act by adding pornography as defined in this Bill to the list of items not allowed for importation. Since over 80 per cent of all pornographic materials come from the United States, tightening our laws may help prevent some material from coming into Canada. I only hope that this goes far enough.
I realize that there are many responsible groups who believe that this Bill is not definitive enough, and that even some libraries are stating the opinion that some of the material they have for educational purposes could be interpreted as pornography. However, I believe that this Bill goes a long way in helping us to get to the root of the problem.
Finally, I would like to compliment the Government for the Bill as it has now been initiated to try to curb pornography. By helping to curtail the openness of pornographic material, Bill C-54 will have a positive influence on the family, and any laws the Government makes are to be used as guides for society. I can assure the House that this Bill will receive my support. I would urge all other Hon. Members to vote against the amendment before us and to support the Bill as it now reads.


Mrs. Finestone:: Madam Speaker, I would like to ask my hon. friend whether or not he finds there is some displacement with respect to concerns around this Bill, for instance, the description of erotica and erotic material versus pornography and pornographic material? I can well appreciate that we have a need for this kind of Bill which will address the concerns of violence and pornographic material and its impact on men, women and children. However, I fail to understand the section on erotica. I also fail to understand not only the definition of erotica but the clause which deals with the display of erotica and exhibition of erotica to persons under 18.
Does the Hon. Member plan to take his children or his nieces and nephews to the museums of our country to show them the creative arts our artists see and which we display and enjoy? If so, what does he plan to do with some of the very beautiful nudes which are presently on the walls of our museums? How does he expect to handle that particular aspect of the Bill?


Ross Belsher: Madam Speaker, I thank the Hon. Member for her question. Yes, I have taken my family to these museums and have found the artistic merit and composition of the art forms indeed very enlightening, but I think the Hon. Member is missing the point of what we are trying to accomplish in the Bill. We are trying to get at the publications and advertising, trying to set some guidelines and standards for what we will accept to be displayed in the open market. While 1 firmly believe that when parents take their children to museums to see art it is a good thing and it is the right thing, by the same token, I believe there must at least be an attempt on the part of the Government to get at a very crucial issue. I am happy to see that the Hon. Member does acknowledge the fact there is a problem in our society with which we have to come to grips. This is only an attempt to come to grips with the problem.
If we can improve this Bill in committee when going through the clause by clause study, I am sure Hon. Members will welcome that. But I come back to my original premise, that this is a start, it is an attempt to try to correct something that
November 30, 1987

is very harmful to our society. I am sure the Hon. Member agrees that this has to be done.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Madam Speaker, I would like to ask the Hon. Member a question with respect to the kinds of imagery to which he has referred which would in fact be illegal under the provisions of this legislation. The Hon. Member has said he does not want in any way to tolerate imagery that might promote promiscuity. However, does the Hon. Member not recognize that the approach which the Government is taking, and which the Hon. Member seems to be taking, judging from his remarks, is a very dangerous and dictatorial approach? While his own personal standards may be those which he has outlined in the House today, and he is certainly entitled to those standards, what he is suggesting is that the police should enforce his conception of morality on all other Canadians, and if his perception of what should be allowed to be seen is somehow different from other people's perception, even if they are in the minority, they should be subject to criminal sanction. That kind of heavy-handed Victorian approach to sexuality is surely dangerous in Canada today.
Why would the Hon. Member make illegal, as would the Hon. Member for York Centre (Mr. Kaplan) who has just entered the Chamber, this kind of imagery? Why would he subject those who wish to have images of adult consensual activity not involving any violence or degradation, why would he make the distribution of that kind of material, a subject of criminal sanction?


Ross Belsher: Madam Speaker, I do disagree with the Hon. Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson) as to what should be the guidelines for our society. It is the responsibility of this House to talk in terms of what are our freedoms and responsibilities. Too often in a very free society we have to come down so far on the side of freedom that we fail to assume the responsibility for the harmful nature and effect of certain things on our society.
While we can talk in terms of what consenting adults will do, nonetheless we do not have to have it in explicit form displayed on the shelves of our newsstands and put into our theatres. I see this as a start at getting at that very harmful influence on our society.
If the Hon. Member would be perfectly honest, he would agree that there have been harmful effects to our society from the hard-core pornographic material that is out there on our bookshelves nowadays, and at long last we must come to grips with this.


Mr. Geoff Scott (Hamilton-Wentworth):: Madam Speaker, I want to congratulate my colleague on his remarks and say that I wholeheartedly support action taken now rather than a delay on this matter which is so crucial to society. I also want to pass along compliments to the Hon. Member for Broadview- Greenwood (Ms. McDonald) for a very thoughtful address. She said in her remarks that the New Democratic Party will
vote on third reading, in any event, for a Bill to curb pornography. Therefore, I would ask the Hon. Member, in view of the comments made by the Hon. Member for Mount Royal (Mrs. Finestone) and the question just asked by the Hon. Member for Burnaby, if those are not precisely the kinds of questions that should be asked in committee, which is the reason parliamentary committees are set up? Why should we even consider a nonsensical amendment to withdraw this Bill when everyone in this Chamber agrees it is high time we got around to dealing with this critical issue of pornography? Why should we agree with the amendment? Why would Hon. Members not agree right now to send this Bill to committee where it belongs?


Ross Belsher: Madam Speaker, I think the Hon. Member for Hamilton-Wentworth (Mr. Scott) brings up a very valid point. He was even better at expressing that point than myself. 1 want to re-emphasize that it really behooves Hon. Members to set the guidelines. We are the ones who are responsible. That is what the law is all about. It is the guidelines for the type of society we want to live under and be part of. While I uphold freedom in the truest sense of the word, nonetheless I want to take the responsible action we must. Therefore, I wholeheartedly say that we have to defeat the amendment put forward by the Hon. Member for Burnaby and pass the Bill.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Order, please. The period for questions and comments is now over. 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.

Lucie Pépin: Mr. Speaker, millions of dollars are spent every year on rehabilitation programs and mental health services for criminals. Victims of violent crimes, however, suffer long term mental problems as a result of these violent acts. It seems terribly unfair that criminals should receive mental health services while their victims must be personnaly responsible for the expenses of the psychiatric help they need.
The Department of National Health and Welfare has just cancelled its "Victims of violence" program which was established in 1984 with a view of getting a greater understanding of the mental health problems of these victims. I

November 30, 1987
wonder what the Government is prepared to do for these victims and why it has abolished this modest but useful program.
Mr. Speaker, I hope the Government will realize that although it is important to provide our criminals with psychiatric help, it is even more important to help the victims of these crimes. I ask the Government to reimplement as soon as possible its assistance program.


TAX REFORM
Mr. Guy St. Julien (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, the tax reform will be upon us very soon and we are well aware that the flow through share scheme has not been abolished. But the people living in Abitibi, Temiscamingue and other Quebec mining areas want to make sure that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson)'s tax reform goes in the right direction, insisting that now is not the time for reducing the 133 1/3 rate of the flow through shares.
Faced with free trade, it is vital to protect investment capital formation in the mining industry.
Mr. Speaker, Quebec prospectors and businessmen, the mayors of Abitibi and Temiscamingue, the elected representatives of these ridings in the House of Commons, and especially the whole population want this 133 1/3 rate to remain the same for the next three years.
Now, in the Abitibi-Temiscamingue region, the unemployment rate is 7,4 per cent, down from the 24 per cent and 27 per cent it was previously. Private industry has often been a very good partner in our region's economic recovery. Today, the junior members of the mining sector deserve this support from the Government of Canada for the next three years.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Vic Althouse (Humboldt-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, during the federal-provincial conference of First Ministers, the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and Premier Grant Devine indicated that any economy that gave up free trade for some form of managed prices was doomed to failure. Yet consider the experience of Margaret Thatcher's Britain where changing
from a free trade grain market to high domestic prices under the managed pricing of the European Economic Community resulted in unprecedent rural prosperity in Britain.
How can the Prime Minister and the Premier explain the great leap forward rural Britain has made under the common agriculture policy? Was that rapid progress not the result of going to $8 per bushel wheat instead of buying cheap imports? Was the rejection of the cheap food policy not the chief engine of growth for rural Britain?
Given the obvious success of the British experience in abandoning free trade for agriculture, why are Conservatives here forcing this option on the people of rural Canada?


SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
Mr. Bill Tupper (Nepean-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, on Friday a day-long dialogue took place in this institution between parliamentarians and the science and engineering community. It was organized by COPSE, the Committee of Parliamentarians, Scientists and Engineers, and the Royal Society, and was intended to bring parliamentarians up to date on an array of current social and economic issues with scientific overtones.
The symposium started with a remarkable presentation by the Speaker of this House in which he outlined how important it is for parliamentarians to be familiar with modern science because of its importance in the solution of many pressing global problems.
Some of the topics discussed included Canada's changing population, new developments in material science, global change, the impact of science on the North, space technology, the AIDS epidemic, bio-technology, the environment and sustainable development. The symposium ended with a creative presentation by John Polanyi, Nobel Laureate, on the importance of basic science and its eventual linkage to the market-place.
Parliamentarians who participated found the day remarkably informative, and we want to thank you, Mr. Speaker, and COPSE and the Royal Society for your and their contribution and support of a positive, historic, and creative day. It is dramatically important that parliamentarians like myself become more aware not only of the importance of research and development but of the manner in which it can be used to solve in a political way the very complex problems with which society is confronted.

November 30, 1987


BILINGUALISM
Mr. Sergio Marchi (York West):: Mr. Speaker, the decision by Premier Getty to ban the use of French in the Alberta Legislature, without prior approval, is more than regrettable. It is a shameful betrayal of Canada's policy of official bilingualism.
Moreover, in light of the recent Meech Lake Accord, it serves to depict the Premier's weak and unacceptable definition of bilingualism.

To him, official bilingualism is but a Quebec regional policy. His endorsing of the "distinct society" clause was very convenient for him because it enabled him to play Pontius Pilate to Alberta's 60,000 Francophones. He should at least recognize French as a working language in the legislature, otherwise his signing of the Meech Lake Agreement was but a hypocritical charade. Mr. Getty should not hesitate to immediately reverse that shameful and ill-advised decision.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Reginald Francis Stackhouse: Mr. Speaker, last week a Canadian delegation visited Central America in the cause of peace.
As part of that delegation I was privileged and happy to meet hundreds of Canadians who have been working for humanity in that region for many years. Typical of them is Joseph Gunn of the riding of Scarborough West who has been serving the Save the Children Organization.
Some of them have been there for a complete career, such as Bishop Corriveau and many of his clergy in south Honduras. Others have made a recent career change, for example, two Salvation Army captains who conduct a clinic for treating alcoholics and drug addicts in the city of San Jose, Costa Rica.
Whatever be their work, whatever be their background, they are still Canadian citizens who value their citizenship and remember their country with happiness and gratitude. I speak of them today in order that they can know Canada remembers them and that they are honoured within its Parliament.


OFFICIAL LANGUAGES
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Mr. Speaker, as M.P. for the Canadian constituency with the largest number of French-speaking people outside Quebec, I greatly deplore the decision made by the Alberta Legislative Assembly to treat French as any other language except English. In my view, it does not make sense to require that a French-speaking Member, in any province in this country, beg permission from someone else in order to speak in his mother tongue at the Legislative Assembly.
Mr. Speaker, I myself had the privilege and honour to serve as M.P.P. in a province where the use of French was not officially recognized, but at least in the Province of Ontario we had the right and privilege to speak in French if we so desired at the Legislative Assembly, although there was no simultaneous translation. I urge Alberta's Premier to reconsider that decision made in his Assembly recently and I also urge the Canadian Government, whose responsibility it is to look after official languages in Canada, to take a stand on that most important matter for all Canadians and to uphold this country's linguistic duality.


MULTICULTURALISM
Mr. Bill Attewell (Don Valley East):: Mr. Speaker, this evening the Canadian Order of the American Hellenic Educational Progressive Association is hosting a special banquet to honour the hard work and dedication of Canadian parliamentarians. However, I wish to commend AHEPA for its dedication to the assimilation and education of Greeks within their country of immigration.
AHEPA was formed 65 years ago. It is a philanthropic, socially conscious organization which not only operates within its original mandate but also participates in the broader social, political, and civic life of its community.
The AHEPA family of Ottawa has honoured Dr. Wilbert Keon for his remarkable achievement with heart transplants, and Dr. George Mintsioulis for his equally remarkable ability to restore sight with precision eye surgery.
The Ontario Special Olympics were singled out for special recognition since they produce real winners and give mentally handicapped individuals a true sense of their self-worth.
All Canadians can be proud of the contributions made by the Canadian Order of AHEPA, for its promotion of tolerance

November 30, 1987
and co-operation, and for its dedication and commitment to build a better Canada.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Howard McCurdy (Windsor-Walkerville):: Mr. Speaker, democracy in Haiti lies a bloody tattered corpse, struck by many mortal blows delivered with impunity as the governing National Council averted its eyes from the horror precipitated by its own refusal to act.
To those who have observed the tragedy of Haiti as it has unfolded there can be no doubt that the governing National Council has engineered a coup for which it had long prepared. Once again a brutal military with easy access to modern arms has used them to brutalize its own people.
Canada and other Governments should act now to signal their utter and complete rejection of the junta, and explore within the Council of the United Nations how nations of the world may effectively intervene to give democracy another chance in Haiti.
Canada should oppose any unilateral intervention which will inevitably replant the seeds of colonialism which lie at the roots of Haiti's tragic history.


NATIONAL FILM BOARD
Mr. Stan Graham (Kootenay East-Revelstoke):: Mr. Speaker, Canadians are by now aware of the deliberate negligence displayed by the National Film Board of Canada when it produced and released "The Kid Who Couldn't Miss", the wildly inaccurate portrayal and betrayal of Billy Bishop, holder of the Victoria Cross, and the most decorated Canadian serviceman ever.
I ask the Minister of Communications (Miss MacDonald) to join me in opposition to Ms. Joan Penefather, the vice-film commissar of the National Film Board and the currently the leading critic of Billy Bishop, and request from the Chairman of the National Film Board the immediate removal from circulation of the film "The Kid Who Couldn't Miss", which really should have been called "The Film That Missed Badly". Thank you, Mr. Speaker.


POLITICAL PARTIES
Mr. Mike Cassidy (Ottawa Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to congratulate my friends of the New Democratic Party in Quebec who, as a result of their excellent weekend convention in Montreal, have shown that the NDP now has strong roots in Quebec. In three years, NDP-Quebec membership went up from a few supporters to nearly 8,000. Associations have been established in 90 provincial counties and two thirds of Quebec's federal ridings. Some 360 delegates attended one of the best NDP convention I have ever seen.
There can be no doubt that the NDP will rally sociodemocratic supporters and that it is becoming the real voice of most Quebecers, men and women alike, at both the federal and provincial levels, while remaining an autonomous provincial Party.
I congratulate Mr. Rolland Morin for having been elected leader of the NDP-Quebec, and I expect that in the very near future we will see true NDP Members from Quebec in the Parliament of Canada and in the National Assembly of Quebec.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Don Ravis (Saskatoon East):: Mr. Speaker, for the first time in history I believe we have a Government which is expressing firm leadership in placing agriculture on the top of the priority list.
As recently announced under the Grain Stabilization Program, all member farmers will receive their final payment by early December. Approximately $1.4 billion has been committed for the 1986-87 crop year. Saskatchewan alone will receive $377 million, bringing the level of assistance under the program up to $759 million this year in our province.
As well, the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) has assured farmers that a deficiency payment will be made before Christmas to assist farmers who, through no fault of their own, are in an extreme cost-price squeeze.
In addition to current assistance for farmers, the Government is working at providing a long-term solution for eliminating subsidies at the international level. Our Government worked very hard to place agriculture on the agenda for discussion at the new round of GATT talks in Uruguay and at the Venice and Tokyo Summits.
November 30, 1987

Long gone are the Trudeau days under which the then Prime Minister asked farmers in Saskatchewan: "Why should I sell your wheat?"


OFFICIAL LANGUAGES
Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, the question is relevant: Where is the solidarity? What about the Meech Lake Accord? What about the commitment of the provinces to maintain both official languages?


Mr. Speaker:: Order! I am sorry but this is not Oral Question Period yet. I asked whether the Hon. Member had a statement under Standing Order 21. Does he have a statement. He does? . . .


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, what happened to the Meech Lake spirit? What happened to all these provincial undertakings to preserve the duality of Canada? What happened in the Alberta Legislature for it to ban the use of French and for it to insist that those who want to speak French would have to ask permission of the Speaker to do so?
I ask Members of this House where is the spirit of Meech Lake? I fail to see how provinces which have signed the Meech Lake Accord cannot stand behind their commitment to let Canadians express themselves in the language of their choice.
What about Canadian unity? Where are we going when we balkanize languages, making it impossible for people to use English in Quebec or French outside Quebec? That is not the type for Canada that I am looking for.


THE HON. STANLEY KNOWLES, P.C. FORTY-FIFTH ANNIVERSARY OF FIRST ELECTION TO HOUSE OF COMMONS
Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, 45 years ago today a young United Church Minister, Stanley Knowles, was elected to the House of Commons for the first time.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Rodney Edward Murphy: As someone who grew up in the city of Winnipeg in those years I know what Stanley Knowles meant to many people of our province. He was not only a symbol of someone fighting for pensioners and democracy in the House
Oral Questions
of Commons but he was someone who represented the House of Commons to all of us.
1 congratulate the people of Winnipeg for electing Stanley Knowles for so many years, and I congratulate Mr. Knowles himself for the service he has given to all Canadians.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Right Hon. John N. Turner (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister.
Will he explain what one of his officials was doing taping the private conversations of Howard Pawley, Premier of Manitoba, during the First Ministers' Conference? Does this practice conform with the Prime Minister's theory of ethics in government?


Right Hon. Brian Mulroney (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, no one from the FPRO from the federal Government was taping anybody's private conversations.
What takes place at the First Ministers' Conference is a continuation of FPRO practices that have gone on in the past. Simply when Premiers, during the course of scrums, are giving public comments a representative of the federal Government is there, only in regard to public comments, to bring to the attention of the federal Government the extent to which these comments might impact on the ongoing federal-provincial conference. All of these were done publicly and pursuant to past practice.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I have checked with the previous administration and that practice was not followed.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Napier Turner: Hon. Members laugh. It is symptomatic of how they view the public conduct of business in this country.


QUERY CONCERNING INSTRUCTIONS GIVEN TO OFFICIAL DOING TAPE RECORDING
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, Premier Pawley is reported to have said that the taping took place not only of scrums but of private conversations and informal receptions.
On September 20, 1985, in this House when the Prime Minister was confronted with a leaked government communications strategy relating to the trade negotiations with the

November 30, 1987
Oral Questions
United States, suggesting a campaign of dirty tricks against opponents of the deal, including the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry, myself as the Member for Vancouver Quadra, and the Member of Parliament for Saint-Henri- Westmount, the Prime Minister gave us his assurance that that practice would not be followed. I quote what he said:
I give that assurance-because we stand for individual rights and liberties.
Why then was a public servant taping Premier Pawley's private conversations? Who instructed the official to tape Premier Pawley's conversations? Was Premier Pawley singled out, or were other Premiers having their conversations taped at the same time? What kind of sneaky, sleazy operation is the Prime Minister running in this country?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, we are running the same kind of operation that was in full force pursuant to directives of the previous Liberal Government in 1978 and 1982. I am informed that a similar process was in place at the 1978 and 1982 First Ministers' Conferences on the economy and the 1981 constitutional conference.
Information officers of the FPRO were assigned to record public comments, at scrums, made by Premiers which related to the agenda of the First Ministers' Conference. That is all that was done and it was quite proper and pursuant to practices of previous Governments. If my right hon. friend has any information at variance with that, please share it with the House.


STATEMENTS ATTRIBUTED TO MANITOBA PREMIER
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I have checked previous practice and it does not accord with what the Prime Minister is saying. The Premier of Manitoba said his conversations were being taped not only at scrums but in private conversations at cocktail parties and informal receptions, and he was being shadowed and tailed throughout the conference.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Napier Turner: I ask the Prime Minister how often this practice has occurred? Is it an official dictum of his Government that First Ministers should be surveyed, taped and followed while at First Ministers' Conferences? I would also ask if it is his policy to tape only those Premiers who oppose the trade deal, and are those of us opposed to the trade deal supposed to be engaged in subversive activities?


Martin Brian Mulroney: No, Mr. Speaker. The private conversations at cocktail parties and this kind of stuff that my right hon. friend seems to have some knowledge of- perhaps he could share the specifics with the House. The information I received from the FPRO indicates exactly what I have told the House. No one was shadowed or tailed. In fact I suspect that if anyone in this country was
going to be shadowed or tailed, Mr. Pawley would be among the last.


EXTERNAL AID
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Winnipeg-Fort Garry):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State. I think he will share the incredible sense of disgust and reprehension most Canadians felt over the spectacle in Haiti this weekend involving the squashing of the first light of democracy and the reinstitution of government by torture and intimidation that we witnessed on our television screens.
In the Government's official response to the Standing Committee on External Affairs and International Trade Committee's report on foreign aid, the Government says that where violations of human rights are systematic, gross and continuous, government to government aid is denied or reduced. The basic principle is to ensure that repressive regimes are not legitimized through Canadian development policy.
Considering that the situation in Haiti clearly violates the standards set out in that statement, is the Government prepared either to suspend or reduce government to government aid to Haiti until such time as the innocent people of that country can return to the polls without being threatened by death squads running loose in that country, as they were this weekend?


Hon. Monique Landry (Minister for External Relations):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to inform the Hon. Member that of course the Government was shocked, and disappointed when it first heard about yesterday's events in Haiti.
I must say, however, that our aid program is very specifically directed to the neediest groups in Haiti and that at this moment, we do not think it would be appropriate to withdraw from these people, who really need Canada's help, their very means of survival.
I can assure Hon. Members that our aid to Haiti does not go directly to the government. It is not a blank cheque for the government. Generally speaking, it always goes through nongovernmental organizations and provides some support for institutions, in order to help the people to help themselves.


GOVERNMENT POLICY-REQUEST FOR ACTION
Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I will address my supplementary question to the
November 30, 1987

Secretary of State for External Affairs. His colleague says that the Government will not do anything about aid, but the question clearly is what the Government is going to do in terms of a statement or action on behalf of Canadian people against this regime.
I would like to remind the Minister of clearly stated government policy. Where there have been repression and a denial of rights, there has been a clear and unmistakable contradiction of these principles.
Will the Government not take action commensurate with those standards to show that this country will not stand by and allow democratic rights to be snuffed out and that kind of intimidation to continue?


Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, we stated the policy which the Hon. Member quoted. We are, as my colleague said, shocked and deeply disappointed by the developments in Haiti and particularly, as she indicated outside the House, by the questions relating to the role of the Government of Haiti itself in these developments.
We do not have all the information which we require in hand. The Government and the House would certainly not want actions taken by Canada to disrupt the flow of aid to those people who are most needy which would, consequently, impose a double hardship upon them.
However, if it is clear that the authorities in Haiti have been contributing to the disruption and destruction which we saw yesterday, as may very well be the case, the policy which was referred to by my colleague and which was stated by the Government in response to the standing committee will be followed. I think the House would share our desire to ensure that we have all the relevant information in hand before we take action of that kind.


CANADA-UNITED STATES TRADE AGREEMENT-REQUEST THAT GENERAL ELECTION BE HELD
Hon. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister knows that the Government of Canada did not have a mandate to negotiate a free trade deal arising from the election of September, 1984. It is now too late to have one before the proposed date of signing on January 2.
In an interview on the weekend the Prime Minister seemed to rule out having an election before January 1, 1989. The Prime Minister knows that complex legislation has to be passed by the Parliament of Canada, by the provinces of Canada, by Congress, and by many States in order to implement such an agreement some time during the course of 1988.
Oral Questions
Does the Prime Minister not think that the most responsible thing to do, both in terms of getting a democratic mandate and in terms of being conducive to good Canada-U.S. relationships, is for the Government of Canada to have an election sometime early in 1988 so that the people of Canada will have an occasion to demonstrate their views on this important matter?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, the Government has a mandate to engage in and provide economic renewal for Canadians. Within three years we have created a million new jobs. I think that is exactly what the Canadian people want.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: Economic renewal finds expression in many changing and challenging ways. One of them is to innovate, to be daring, and to provide leadership in the world of new trade, new technologies, and new economic prospects and possibilities for all Canadians.
Pursuant to the creation of a million new jobs in three years this is exactly what we have done. We hope to be able to do this on a regular basis. At an appropriate time the Canadian people will have an opportunity to express their views.


PRIME MINISTER'S POSITION
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, many Canadians would think that to be daring, innovative, and responsible would be to get a mandate from the people of Canada before acting.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: I would like the Prime Minister to consider the serious implications for Canada-U.S. relations of proceeding in 1988 without an election. At this time he has the support of only five of the provinces. Three provinces are opposed and two are undecided. Both opposition Parties in the House of Commons are against.
Does the Prime Minister not think that the responsible thing to do in terms of his obligations to the people of Canada and the implications for Canada-U.S. relations in the future, is to go to the people of Canada in 1988 with his message and let them decide between him on the one side and those of us on the other?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, the Canadian people know that both opposition Parties are against. They are waiting to find out what you are for.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: Call an election and you will find out.

November 30, 1987
Oral Questions


Martin Brian Mulroney: With regard to our obligation to provide for economic renewal, my hon. friend seems to discount very quickly the creation of one million new jobs within the space of 37 months. The first 10 months of this year have brought about the creation of some 375,000 new jobs, which is a very important record.
My hon. friend will be interested in the quality of these jobs. Ninety per cent of the jobs created are full-time as opposed to part-time job creation, and 55 per cent of these one million new jobs have gone to women. That is economic renewal at its best, and we plan to continue this program of economic renewal.


John Edward Broadbent: I would even add that when the Prime Minister began the negotiations we had a $20 billion surplus. We have about a $7 billion surplus now. If the Canadian economy is so strong, why is the Government rushing headlong into one of the most complicated deals in Canadian history? That is the issue that has to be faced.


FREE TRADE-DEMOCRATIC PRINCIPLE-GOVERNMENT POSITION
John Edward Broadbent: If the Prime Minister wants to make his decisions as a man who supports democratic principles, why does he want to deny Canadians the right to say yes or no to the proposed trade agreement with United States? Why not make this a democratic decision?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, there will be a democratic decision at the appropriate time. If I am not mistaken, the Canadian Constitution gives us a five-year mandate, and it is up to the Government to act responsibly during that time. There is also parliamentary tradition, and we still have one year to go before we finish our fourth year. We still have to deal with some important issues. I think that what we have achieved today should be reassuring for my hon. friend. If he is at all serious, and I know he is, he must be very happy with an almost unique job-creation record, more than one million new jobs, with the job-creation rate in Quebec seven times what it was under the previous Government. That is good news for Canada and Quebec. At the appropriate time, Canadians and Quebecers will have a chance to express their opinion, and I am sure the Hon. Member will regret the outcome!


LABOUR RELATIONS
Mr. Jacques Guilbault (Saint-Jacques):: Mr. Speaker, Friday last, the Minister of Labour skated around the question I asked him. I wanted to know whether he intended to appoint a mediator in the Air Canada dispute. Since Friday, the situation has worsened-16,000 employees are now without
work by reason of the lockout. Thousands of Canadians are deprived of services. In the meantime, the parties to the dispute are not even negotiating and the Government is doing nothing to try to bring them back to the table. Here is my question to the Minister: Does he not believe he should himself meet separately with both parties, to try and convince them to resume negotiations, or else does the Minister prefer to sit on the fence, hoping the dispute will be resolved by itself?


Hon. Pierre H. Cadieux (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, as the Right Hon. Prime Minister indicated a few moments ago, the skating artists are on that side of the House rather than on this side. As to the specific question asked by the Hon. Member, my position has not changed. The parties have a responsibility to show to the Canadian public that they are capable of coming back to the table, and at least to try and solve the issues between them, taking into account the negative impact the dispute has on Canadians.


REQUEST THAT MINISTER APPOINT MEDIATOR
Jacques Guilbault: Mr. Speaker, one of the answers the Minister gave me last Friday was:
-the Government will take appropriate action at the appropriate time. But
we will surely not act prematurely-
Surely this slow moving Minister was pulling my leg when he said that he would not act prematurely. We all know that he would not be able to do that in any event. Why does the Minister not believe that now is the right time for someone to talk to both parties and try to bring them closer together? For example, someone like Bill Kelly could act as a mediator or in any other function to try to get the parties to negotiate again. Or is this simply a tactic in another grand plan, preparatory to trying to privatize Air Canada?


Pierre H. Cadieux: With respect to acting prematurely, Mr. Speaker, if I understand my hon. colleague's question, I presume he's changed his mind since the last conflict because in the last conflict he was telling me I was acting too quickly.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Jacques Guilbault: I never said that.


Pierre H. Cadieux: With respect to this particular case, Mr. Speaker, the Government will act at the appropriate time with the appropriate action.


FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL RELATIONS ALLEGED TAPE RECORDING OF PREMIERS' CONVERSATIONS
Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. The Premier of Manitoba,
November 30, 1987

Howard Pawley, has said that he was taped. Will the Prime Minister confirm the statements of his officials that they taped every one of the Premiers of this country in their private and public conversations? Is that what the Government did?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, that is an absolutely false statement, that anyone in the federal Government properly acknowledged having taped private statements of Premiers.
The information of the Government is the information that I imparted to the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition. Pursuant to past practice, public scrums being given by Premiers during the course of the First Ministers' Conference were recorded in much the same way as they have been in the past, for exactly the same reasons.


Rodney Edward Murphy: I think the Prime Minister had an option. He did not have to follow what he calls past practice.


REQUEST THAT PRACTICE OF TAPE RECORDING BE STOPPED
Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, not only has the Premier of Manitoba said that he did not know he was being taped, we also have information from the Premier of Prince Edward Island that he did not know he was being taped. Will the Prime Minister cease and desist this practice? Will he destroy the tapes and apologize to the Premiers of this country?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I regret that the Premier of Manitoba and the Premier of Prince Edward Island did not know that their conversations were being taped when every time I saw them there were about 40 microphones stuck right in front of them.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Rodney Edward Murphy: Tell the truth, Brian.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Let me tell you, they were not running the other way.


Rodney Edward Murphy: What happened to civility in this country?


Martin Brian Mulroney: I am just explaining to my hon. friend that it is part and parcel of the First Ministers' process, and it is agreed upon in advance that the First Ministers will comment to the large media contingent during coffee breaks and luncheon breaks in terms of their views of what is happening.
Premier Pawley was giving interviews, as did all of the First Ministers. There were literally dozens of journalists recording their every public word and they were volunteering regularly to provide this information to the public. The FPRO was simply part of this large horde of people trying to record their information for the purposes of accuracy so that when the federal response was prepared, or a new item was raised by a Premier, we were able to respond in kind and in an appropriate way. There is absolutely nothing improper-
Oral Questions


Rodney Edward Murphy: It is immoral.


Martin Brian Mulroney: If it is immoral, then my hon. friend has just indicted every journalist in this country, or anyone who believes in freedom and access to information.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Reginald Francis Stackhouse: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs or the Minister for External Relations. It refers to the shameful massacre of innocent people in Haiti, which must have created revulsion throughout the entire civilized world. I, therefore, ask the question: what initiative can Canada take, through the United Nations or other international body, to show what passes for a Government in Haiti the absolute horror with which the world views both that Government and the action that was taken yesterday?


Monique Landry: Mr. Speaker, as indicated earlier by the Secretary of State and by myself, all Government Members of course are very concerned about the situation in Haiti. We are worried and also concerned about the apparent lack of action by the authorities in the face of the escalation of violence yesterday during the elections, and also the day before the elections. We will need explanations from the authorities as to the reasons why yesterday's elections were cancelled, so that we may knowledgeably appraise the situation. We are, therefore awaiting explanations on the situation that developed yesterday in Haiti and will consider later what position should be taken with respect to that Government.


CANADA-UNITED STATES TRADE AGREEMENT-POSITION OF FORMER U.S. RESERVE BOARD OFFICIAL
Mr. George Baker (Gander-Twillingate):: Mr. Speaker, Paul Volcker, former head of the U.S. Reserve Board, in his keynote address last night to the fortieth anniversary of GATT in Geneva said that while he had to support any new trading arrangement between Canada and the United States, he went on to warn: "Trade deals, such as the Canada-U.S. deal, are a threat to the system of multinational trade and could degenerate into regional trading blocs". What is the response of the Prime Minister to these statements? Does he not feel that such

November 30, 1987
Oral Questions
criticisms delivered to almost 100 nations in the world can do irreparable damage to Canada's stature in the eyes of our international trading partners, both present and future?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, the negotiations into which we have entered with the United States are explicitly authorized by the GATT and are entirely consistent with the GATT. More than that, other trading nations in the world know as we do of the force and destructiveness of protectionist pressures in the United States.
I have spoken, if the Hon. Member has not, to Trade Ministers and Foreign Ministers of other countries, all of whom welcome this initiative, both because it demonstrates to the protectionists in the United States that there is a way to deal in the world other than hiding behind walls, and because it is breaking new ground that will be important to the whole GATT in terms of the new issues that have been dealt with in the negotiation between Canada and the United States and that can serve as a model for the world, establishing trading rules in matters like services, investment, and other fields where there are not now good enough rules.


PRIME MINISTER'S POSITION
George Baker: Mr. Speaker, in response to the seemingly endless criticisms and weaknesses of this trade agreement, the Prime Minister on the weekend had one soothing, sweeping, cleansing message. He said: "Don't worry, it will all come out in the wash". Does the Prime Minister feel he can really go ahead with this deal when the vast majority of Canadians are either totally opposed to it or want more information?


Some Hon. Members:: False!


George Baker: And, by the way, where is the final text? When will it be released? It will all come out in the wash all right, after Canada has been put through the wringer and hung out to dry. The only wash the Prime Minister knows about is a whitewash.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Transport, the Hon. Member for St. John's West, is absent today so my hon. friend will have to await perhaps a direct answer.
Meanwhile, the Hon. Member refers to the weaknesses of the free trade agreement. If that is so, this will come as a great surprise to countries such as Korea, Taiwan, Japan and Israel, all of which, having been apprised of the realities of the Canada-U.S. trade agreement, want to negotiate a similar agreement for themselves because they think it is such a fine trading instrument.


GENERAL AGREEMENT ON TARIFFS AND TRADE
Mr. Jim Fulton (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. It is in regard to the GATT panel ruling which stands to ruin the West Coast fishing industry. Since this item is on the agenda for this week's GATT meeting in Geneva, and is to be handled by officials from the Department of External Affairs who are presently in Geneva, will the Minister assure this House that he has directed those officials who are now in Geneva to oppose the panel ruling?


Mr. John McDermid (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for International Trade):: Mr. Speaker, as the Hon. Member, I think, knows, the panel's report has no legal status in the GATT until it is formally adopted. This requires the consensus of all GATT members. The first discussion of the report in GATT will not take place until tomorrow. We have representatives there who will be making representations on behalf of the Government at that meeting.


CANADIAN RESPONSE
James Ross Fulton: My supplementary question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Surely some Minister has directed those officials who are in Geneva as to whether they are for the panel report or opposed to it. My question is very simple to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Has he directed his officials to oppose the contents of the panel ruling?


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, we are very aware of the importance of this issue to the West Coast processing industry. We have been working closely with the industry, with the unions and with the Government of British Columbia with respect to this. We are engaging in detailed consultations on our options in responding to the GATT panel.


James Ross Fulton: When are you going to make up your minds, at midnight?


UNITED STATES ACTIONS AGAINST FISH IMPORTS FROM CANADA
Mr. George Henderson (Egmont):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister or to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Since the Mulroney-Reagan trade agreement-


Some Hon. Members:: Order!


George Roland Henderson: -our fishing industry has been harassed through a series of trade actions by the United States, for
November 30, 1987

instance, the British Columbia salmon and herring harassment, the fresh cod fish harassment where all cod under 19 inches in length have been banned from going into certain parts of the United States and, of course, last week we found that whole lobsters packed in brine and over 6,000 pounds of groundfish has been seized by the Americans upon entering that country. This was fish which had been packed in my own Province of Prince Edward Island.
In light of these facts, what serious action is the Prime Minister going to take against the Americans to stop this harassment? Is he going to continue to allow the Americans to impose their fish management regulations on our Canadian fishing industry?


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, we share the concern of the Hon. Member for this harassment to our fisheries by the United States. We have made very strong representations to the United States with a diplomatic note and we are waiting to hear its response. We are also examining all avenues we can follow within GATT against this type of harassment by the Americans which we feel is totally unwarranted.
I want to make very clear to the hon. gentleman that this is what this Government has been talking about for a very long time, the problems with protectionism, with the non-tariff barriers, and the harassment our trade with the United States has been going through. That is why we have been negotiating a free trade agreement with the United States of America.


REQUEST THAT CANADA-UNITED STATES TRADE AGREEMENT BE TORN UP
George Roland Henderson: Mr. Speaker, 1 want to address my supplementary question to the Prime Minister because here is one area where the Prime Minister clearly has an option. Will the Prime Minister tell the President of the United States, and his Government, to halt this trade harassment, withdraw the regulations they are putting on our Canadian fishing industry, forthwith? And, if they do not do that, will the Prime Minister tear up the free trade agreement that has been signed by the Prime Minister and the President?


John Horton McDermid: To answer the last question first, no, we are not going to do that. That is not the problem, that is the solution to the problem, so we are not going to tear it up.
We will be doing everything within our power to stop this harassment of our fisheries, which we feel is totally unwarranted. We will take any action possible to stop this harassment.


UNITED STATES OFFER TO SELL SUBSIDIZED GRAIN TO U.S.S.R.
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs.
Oral Questions
On Friday the United States offered the Soviet Union another highly subsidized sale of grain. That is the third offer this year from the United States to the Soviet Union, and the second since the signing of the trade deal with our Prime Minister and President Reagan.
In light of the fact that a few weeks ago in the House the Secretary of State said that this was at least a violation of the spirit of the trade agreement and that he would talk to Mr. Shultz in Brussels, I wish to know now from the Secretary of State for External Affairs why the Government is so ineffective, incompetent, and inept, that despite talking to Mr. Shultz on Friday of last week, the United States made another offer to the Soviet Union, which is an important market for Canadian grain, using a subsidy that violates the very deal signed by the Prime Minister and the President of the United States?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, just to be precise, and I know that the Hon. Member would wish to be precise, what I said and what I believe is that this is inconsistent with the spirit of the deal. I do believe it is inconsistent with the spirit of the deal. I think it makes bad sense in trade law, and I think it makes bad sense in terms of promoting the acceptability of the trade arrangement that has been negotiated between Canada and the United States. I do not think it serves the interests of Canadian or American farmers, but it is part of the trade war in agriculture that is going on between the European Community and the Government of the United States. We are victims of that war.
As was indicated in a statement made by a Member of this House earlier this afternoon, we have been among the leaders in the establishment and functioning of the Cairns Group to try to bring an end to that type of costly conflict between two massive Treasuries.
No one regrets more than I do that the United States is carrying on that type of program. So far, the reality is that, despite those programs, the quality of the production and reputation of Canada have meant that we have been able to maintain and even increase our share of world markets, but that does not make what the United States is doing acceptable.


UNITED STATES EXPORT ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM
Lorne Edmund Nystrom: I mentioned the offer of last Friday, but according to the press today China has accepted to buy some 265,000 tonnes of wheat under the U.S. Export Enhancement Program of subsidies.
What on earth is George Shultz telling the Secretary of State for External Affairs? Why are we so ineffective at putting the message of Canada across when it is a direct violation of one of the sections of this trade deal that the Prime Minister wants to sign with President Reagan? Why are we so ineffective?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, what he is telling me is that the Export

November 30, 1987
Oral Questions
Enhancement Program is not a policy that the United States administration mounted, nor one that it likes, but is part of the law of that country. Particularly in the circumstances of an election year, I am afraid that we will face more of those types of actions under the Export Enhancement Program.
I will continue to oppose and protest them. I would hope that instead of trying simply to make this a partisan matter in the House of Commons, there would be a common action on the part of Members of this House who want to stop this type of practice which is damaging to our farmers and distorting international trade practices, and that there would be a common determination on the part of all of us here to try to persuade the Americans to leave aside that type of destructive subsidy.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Joe Reid (St. Catharines):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of the Environment. It arises out of a report in The Ottawa Citizen this morning which states that an Environment Canada study completed over one year ago will soon be released.
The report indicates that the over-all death rate from cancer in the Niagara area is 5 per cent for men and 3 per cent for women over Ontario's average, with an approximately similar infant mortality rate.
I wish to ask the Minister of the Environment when the report will be released, if it was not this morning? Since the report calls for major initiatives now, what corrective or remedial action will be formulated or planned to accompany that release?


Thomas Michael McMillan: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member is referring to a study that was conducted by a sociologist and an economist on contract with the Department of the Environment. It synthesizes much of the existing information on the effects of toxic chemicals in the Great Lakes.
Because the report cut across many different disciplines, the scientists in my own Department established a panel to vet the study from a scientific point of view. That panel found the study wanting on grounds of scientific rigor, and recommended to me that it not be published with the imprimatur of either my Department or the Government of Canada.
However, because it did contain a lot of useful information that would stimulate debate, the scientists recommended that the study be released in the name of the two authors. I have accepted both recommendations. The report is being released today, and it is available upon request.


THE ADMINISTRATION
Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, talking about reports that have been suppressed, I wish to ask the Government a question on the Parker Commission Inquiry into the conflict of interest allegations involving the former Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion.
Why is it taking Cabinet longer to study the Parker Commission Inquiry Report than it expects Canadians to study and assess the so-called Reagan-Mulroney trade report?
Why is the government taking so much time? You have had it for five days, it has been printed, translated-


An Hon. Member:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member, who is an experienced Member, is getting a little out of order. I am sure that he would want to put the question appropriately.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, why is the Government hiding the report? Let us read along with it what is in the report, and let it tell us when the report will be made public.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I believe that the Privy Council received the report on Thursday while I was in Toronto for the First Ministers' Conference. Immediately upon my return, I began to consider the matter today. I will meet with my cabinet colleagues. It is a substantial report where recommendations are made that warrant legal analysis by the Department of Justice, which is presently ongoing. As quickly as the matter is complete, it will be fully released.


REQUEST THAT GOVERNMENT TABLE REPORT
Jean-Robert Gauthier: So, Mr. Speaker, the Cabinet has had the report of the Inquiry Commission for five days. I am informed that it has been printed and translated as expected.
Why does the Government not table that report in the House today? Why not allow Canadians to read it along with the Cabinet? Will there be a report on the substance, the content of the inquiry, and another one with recommendations? Does the Government hesitate because there is more than one report?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member seems to be suggesting that it is somehow peculiar that a report containing several hundred pages which was received last Thursday, while the Prime Minister was presiding a First Ministers' Conference in Toronto, has not been tabled yet on the next Monday. There is nothing unusual in the fact that my colleagues and I started to consider it.. . First of all, we have to read it, to examine it.
November 30, 1987

And when the Government will have well considered and analysed it along with its recommendations, it will be tabled in due time . . . Yes . , . Yes, and a Member as serious as the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier knows full well that his question is trivial. There is absolutely nothing improper here.


ACID RAIN
Lynn McDonald: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Environment who is aware that an American team is now in Ottawa either to negotiate or to discuss a treaty on acid rain. Will there be a real treaty with the Americans and, if so, will it provide for concrete and specific acid rain reductions or only reseach, discussions and publicity? Are we to expect real action or propaganda?


Thomas Michael McMillan: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member will know that on April 6 last the President of the United States committed himself to a negotiation process which might well lead to a bilateral accord between Canada and the United States similar to the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement.
On May 22 Canada put to the American negotiators a specific program proposal which would see acid rain-causing emissions reduced on a targeted and scheduled basis on both sides of the border.
There have been meetings between Canada and the United States at the officials' level, both in Washington and today in Ottawa, toward that end. The negotiators are in fact meeting even as we talk. We will know later today, I hope, something a little more about the American response to our specific proposal. I will keep the House and the Hon. Member informed.


CONTENT OF POSSIBLE AGREEMENT
Lynn McDonald: Mr. Speaker, does the Minister know that Canadians would rather have a treaty on acid rain than any trade deal?
Will he come clean with us about what we are going to get? Will there be real reduction standards? Will there be real spending on the part of both countries? Or is this just another exercise in public relations as I am afraid the last one was?


Thomas Michael McMillan: Mr. Speaker, the people of Canada want a trade deal and an acid rain deal, and I hope we will get both.
Oral Questions


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Hon. Bob Kaplan (York Centre):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Justice, I will direct my question to the Prime Minister with regard to the status of our other official language in Alberta.
According to an Appeal Court ruling, a person accused of a crime, in this case Luc Paquette, is not entitled to have his criminal trial proceedings conducted in French.
Could the Prime Minister explain to us why, notwithstanding the claims of the Federal Government in favour of minority linguistic rights, as in the Meech Lake Accord, the Federal Government, in this case, opposed Mr. Paquette's request to have his trial conducted in French? This is terrible, I must say!


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member says it is terrible, when in fact this Government has never failed to promote both our official languages. Terrible, you say, when talking about a ruling that I have not seen. The Minister of Justice is absent. He will study this decision and report to the House.
To a Government which has negotiated the Meech Lake Accord, which has moved major amendments to the Official Languages Act, which has always looked after the interests of minorities . . . you have the audacity to talk about a terrible situation? Come on!


RIGHT TO HOLD CRIMINAL TRIAL PROCEEDINGS IN FRENCH IN ALBERTA-POSITION OF PRIME MINISTER
Robert Phillip Kaplan: This was a Federal case. The Federal Government has won, at the expense of minority rights!
Mr. Speaker, could the Prime Minister agree to find out about this trial and change his policy of denying the right of people accused of criminal acts in Alberta to have their trial proceedings conducted in French?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Absolutely, Mr. Speaker! If my Hon. friend had listened to my reply, he would know that I will be delighted to do so! I do intend to do so. The Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada will give careful consideration to this ruling and report to my Hon. friend and the House, with all necessary clarification.

November 30, 1987
Introduction of Government Bills


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg-Birds Hill):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Could he tell the House whether Canada intends to take any action at the United Nations in respect of what the United Nations may be able to do to restore democracy to make free elections possible in Haiti?
This would be another avenue through which the people of Haiti might be able to have their tragic situation addressed. Does the Secretary of State for External Affairs have anything to say about the Canadian position on that?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, that is a very helpful suggestion. We will take a look to see if some initiative can be taken through the United Nations after we have received the fuller information which, as my colleague indicated, we are seeking from our authorities and from others in Haiti.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Abitibi. This will be the last question.


INDIAN AFFAIRS
Guy St-Julien: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Since 1979, Cree children in the Waswanipi reserve in Abitibi go to school in old mobile homes and old houses. A new school was to be built in time for the beginning of 1988. Plans and specifications are ready, tenders have been called, the contractor has been chosen and his bid is valid until December 6. But the Department of Indian Affairs now blocks the project. Mr. Speaker, my question is this: Would it be possible for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and his officials to meet this week with Chief Abel Kitchen of Waswanipi and Great Chief Mathew Coon Come in order to solve this problem which is causing hardship to the children? At the beginning of 1988, many of the future pupils in Waswanipi will have to stay home if no solution is found. Mr. Speaker, all Abitibi residents want this school built soon in the interest of these children.


Hon. Jake Epp (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development I should like to tell my hon. friend that
the Minister is not only aware of the Hon. Member's interest in this issue but also of his desire to advance education on the reserve.
It is my understanding that within a certain fixed budget there was a possibility to build a school, but additional funds might be needed.
The Hon. Member's suggestion to meet and to resolve those differences is a helpful one. I will pass it on, but it is my understanding that the Department would have a similar view to trying to resolve it in that way.


Mr. Lewis:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. There have been discussions among the Parties, and I think Your Honour would find unanimous consent to revert to the introduction of Bills to permit the introduction of the Bill presently on the Order Paper in the name of the Minister of State for Grains and Oilseeds, intituled: "an Act to amend the Canadian Wheat Board Act".
May I say in advance that I appreciate very much the cooperation and understanding which I received from the opposition House Leaders in this matter.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the suggestion of the Minister of State. Is there agreement?


Jacques Guilbault: Mr. Speaker, we sometimes try and help the Governement correct some of its mistakes-


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Not too often, though.


Jacques Guilbault: Having been consulted this time, we will help the Minister introduce his bill.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Hon. Frank Oberle (for Minister of State (Grains and Oilseeds)) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-92, an Act to amend the Canadian Wheat Board Act.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


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

November 30, 1987

Mr. Speaker:: I should like to advise Hon. Members that I have a question of privilege and a point of order upon which to report to the House.
On September 22, 1987, the Hon. Member for Thunder Bay-Nipigon (Mr. Epp) raised a question in relation to the Translation services required by Members of Parliament. A point of order of a similar nature was also raised on November 18, 1987 by the Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin). The Chair has carefully considered both matters and, because of their similarity, will deal with both of them in the ruling.

The Hon. Member for Thunder Bay-Nipigon referred specifically to two occasions when, to put it in his own words, "the translation services of the House of Commons and of the committees of the House have been hard pressed to fulfill their obligations, and to enable Members of Parliament to complete their work and carry out their duties".
In the first instance, the Hon. Member argued last spring that the work of the Standing Committee on Multiculturalism was impeded because the translation of documents was not always available at the time the committee was considering various drafts of a report. In the second case, the Hon. Member referred to the one week delay in the presentation to the House of the report of the Special Joint Committee on the 1987 Constitutional Accord because of difficulties encountered in completing the Translation work. The Hon. Member suggested that the problems facing the Translation Bureau are the direct result of staff reduction in recent years and the policy of contracting out translation work since 1978.

In his contribution on the issue, the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier) most appropriately reminded the House that, when requiring translation services, the House of Commons is merely a client of a Government department, namely the Department of the Secretary of State. The Chair also appreciates the good words of the Hon. Member regarding the exceptional quality of the translation provided by the Translation Bureau, despite the recurrent difficulties.
The Hon. Member for Saint-Denis (Mr. Prud'homme) was right in talking about the sensitivity of the whole issue and the frustrations felt by some Members when unable to benefit from the necessary services in order to function adequately in their own language.
Point of Order

Last November 18, the Hon. Member for Regina West apprised the House of the fact that two meetings of the Standing Committee on Transport had to be cancelled because its report, sent to the Translation Bureau three weeks earlier, had not been translated. The Chair had this matter investigated and it was discovered that the Translation Bureau had negotiated with the research branch of the Library of Parliament, which is preparing the report, an extension of its deadline to complete the translation. This was done without the committee's knowledge. Although this is clearly an administrative misunderstanding, and not a point of order, it nevertheless shows again how the operations of the various committees of the House can be frustrated.
In relation to the question of privilege raised by the Hon. Member for Thunder Bay-Nipigon, the Chair would like to indicate at the outset that, in order to establish that there exists a prima facie case of privilege, the Speaker must be satisfied both that privilege appears to be sufficiently involved to justify giving the matter precedence over all other matters before the House, and also that the matter is being raised at the earliest opportunity, as specified in Citation 81(1) of Beauchesne's Fifth Edition.
While considering the matter, the Chair consulted the precedent of November 5, 1968, to which the Hon. Member for Thunder Bay-Nipigon referred in his intervention. At the time an Hon. Member complained about the insufficient number of translators and interpreters available to meet the needs of the House and its committees. Speaker Lamoureux did not find a prima facie case of privilege, but acknowledged the merits of the Member's grievance.
The Chair cannot conclude otherwise in the present matter raised by the Hon. Member for Thunder Bay-Nipigon. Neither the House nor the Members were prevented from actually performing their duties, although I would admit that access to some of the working tools was not made easy for some Members. Therefore, the Chair must find that the matter raised by the Hon. Member for Thunder Bay-Nipigon does not constitute a prima facie case of privilege.
But, as was the case with Speaker Lamoureux in 1968, the Chair finds the matter of the utmost importance and is thankful to both the Hon. Member for Thunder Bay-Nipigon and the Member for Regina West for raising it in the House. It is, indeed, very distressing to realize that some Members and, in particular, francophone Members, do not have the same immediate and ready access to documents and files as other Members have. It creates an unfairness which is simply not acceptable.

As indicated by the Hon. Member for Saint-Denis, the Chair has been very sensitive to this issue. While one understands the problems facing the Translation Bureau in the management of its operations, the House, as a special client, is

November 30, 1987
Criminal Code
right to express its concerns to the Department of the Secretary of State with respect to translation delays. The Board of Internal Economy has examined the matter in the past and officials of the House have approached the Translation Bureau on many occasions in order to improve the situation and to see that the level of service provided fulfilled the best expectations of the House of Commons.
We were assured by the Department of the Secretary of State, last April, that every effort would be made to avoid delays, but in the light of the comments of Hon. Members, it appears that in some areas the time taken to provide translations is still unacceptably long. The solution ought not to be to ask the committees of the House to delay their work while unduly waiting for a translation to be completed; on the contrary, the Department of the Secretary of State must be made fully aware of the particular needs of legislators so that the required resources are made available in order to meet the translation requirements of the House.

The Hon. Member for Saint-Denis (Mr. Prud'homme) suggested that a mandate be given to the Standing Committee on Management and Members' Services to consider the matter. But may I be permitted, with respect, to indicate to the Hon. Member and the House that the standing committee may already have that power in its general mandate, as provided in Standing Order 96(3)(c), to review:
-and report to the Speaker as well as the Board of Internal Economy, on the administration of the House and the provision of services and facilities to Members-
The fact that the Hon. Member for Thunder Bay-Nipigon and the Hon. Member for Regina West chose to bring their concerns to the attention of their colleagues is a good indication to the Chair that the question of translation services continues to be viewed as fundamental by many Members. Again, I must thank both Hon. Members as well as the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier) and the Hon. Member for Saint-Denis for sharing their views with the Chair.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Hnatyshyn that Bill C-54, an Act to amend the Criminal Code and other Acts in consequence thereof, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.
Sheila Finestone: Madam Speaker, I rise today to address Bill C-54, an Act to amend the Criminal Code and other Acts in consequence thereof.
I want to begin with perhaps a look at the injustice and the imbalance of the scales of justice inherent and implicit with the application of the Bill. What we have here is an
unbalanced view by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Hnatyshyn) being presented, to try to counteract the very serious concerns that we have with child pornography, obscenity and violence toward men, women and children. We have as well concerns about human sexuality and its normalcy in society. We have all those groups who have looked at the Bill and see that it is contrary to the basic principles of law that say a defendant is innocent until proven guilty. We can find it no longer acceptable to have this kind of repressive and regressive legislation within our laws.
With respect to that aspect, often there have been individuals who have said that this Bill is right, that it is on target and that it is a response to what the community is asking for. But this Bill has raised a tremendous furor in the artistic and the legal world. There are serious concerns about its propriety. The legislation has not been overlooked in international circles either. I have been told that the fiftieth Congress of the International Writers' Organization, PEN, meeting in Lugan, Sweden, passed a resolution on May 15 expressing concern about this proposed law, especially the section dealing with artistic merit which shifts the burden of proof from the state to the defendant.
One talks about obscenity, pornography and kiddy porn or child porn in this Bill but at the same time we are addressing the issues of erotica. There is an intrusion by the state into the life of people within their own homes. 1 suggest that adult Canadians expect their legislators, their Government and their police to treat them as adults. I suggest also, Madam Speaker, that the conduct of consenting adults in the privacy of their homes is a personal affair and is not the affair of the state. While saying that, Liberals are concerned with recent trends that demonstrate an increase in violence, battering and the number of pornographic books, magazines and literature which depict an untrue picture of sexuality to our young people. Child pornography, violent pornography, and human degradation need tougher legislative sanctions of the type proposed in Bill C-54. I suggest that concern has been raised about the long-term effect of this violent and degrading pornographic material. There are studies to this effect which were conducted on prisoners.
The public needs to be educated against violence to men, women and children, but success depends on how you go about it and how the attitude of Government is reflected in the law. I suggest that pornography needs a much more clear definition. The Government should be prepared to re-examine its definition of erotica and pornography. The Bill tries to cover a garden variety of sex, and that is totally repressive and regressive.
As far as I am concerned, what is really at issue is child pornography and violent pornography, and the definition of erotica. Because of the broad definition in this Bill, erotica is reduced to covering mere nudity; when it is associated with
November 30, 1987

sex, it becomes illegal. I find that unacceptable in today's society. If you read the definition of erotica, it is really enough to blow your mind. It says:
"erotica" means any visual matter a dominant characteristic of which is the depiction, in a sexual context or for the purpose of the sexual stimulation of the viewer, of a human sexual organ, a female breast or the human anal region;
That is a pretty broad definition of the normal facts of life. Under pornography we have a long list of no-nos, many of which I agree with. Yet when you get down to Clause l(a)(vi), it includes:
masturbation or ejaculation not referred to in sub-paragraph (iv), or vaginal, anal or oral intercourse,
I suggest it all depends how those normal daily functions, in many cases, are defined. This is a rather broad sweep to cover what I think the legislation wants to cover, which is undue exploitation. That has been covered in previous legislation but not defined as accurately as one would like. I suggest that this is not the place for that particular definition. I hope that when this Bill goes to committee, this particular clause will be examined much more closely and put in the right place. There should, in any case, also be some improvement in the definition.
I suggest that the obscenity legislation in Canada has been ambiguous, and this is what we are trying to clear up. That is the whole point at issue. Two provisions in our Criminal Code have been employed to prosecute alleged offenders in the past. There was the antiquated "disgusting object" provision, and the obscenity code modified in 1962 as a result of a Supreme Court ruling which called for the inclusion of a community standards test. Then the obscenity provision was amended by Bill C-58 in 1959 to qualify "obscene" as any publication the dominant characteristic of which is undue exploitation of sex. Again that term left considerable room for defence against prosecution, as did the indefinable nature of community standards. These provisions, coupled with Customs and Excise restrictions on obscene materials, and provincial legislation, have helped create a climate of subtle repression of artistic freedom. Yet the lack of definition accorded the terminology used has provoked the Government to outline in sweeping terms what it has deemed pornographic.
The Government seems to have a very difficult time in making definitions. We have seen it in the copyright legislation and we see it again in this Bill. The definition of pornography and erotica is too narrow and vague. That results in the criminalization of sexual activity among consenting adults. I hope all Members of this House plan to have a criminal activity of this sort at some point or another in the near future.
The dominant characteristic in an artist's mind is symbolism. It is character study. It is theme, or other artistic development or expression. Sexual stimulation or the naked body are essential conduits for this artistic intent. Whose perspective decides whether sex is the end or merely the means to an end?
Criminal Code
If you read Clauses 159.4, 159.5 and 159.6 you have to ask yourself, what did the Department of Justice have in mind? They are regressive, repressive and unbelievable. I call them the fig-leaf clauses. They are talking about exhibition of erotica to persons under the age of 18 years of age, yet they define erotica as normal sexual behaviour. I am not talking about violence and other than tender loving care, as we think about it in today's world. That is not what the intent was, but that is the way they wrote the Bill. It talks about the exhibition, or sale or rental of erotica to persons under 18 years of age. Then it talks about what the offences are going to be and how they are to be defined. You have to prove that the accused took all responsible steps to ensure there was no erotica in the thing sold, rented or offered for sale, and that it has artistic merit.
Having to define and defend artistic merit, and being guilty until proven innocent, is a rather strange concept in British common law and certainly not what we are used to. I suggest that when you have to prove your innocence, it becomes a strain, a drain on time and dollars. Lord only knows that our artists are not exactly the best paid in our society. Yet it is not enough to prove that the purpose is artistic merit. If the art falls below what is called the artistic merit threshold-and who determines that-there is no defence. It is not up to the Crown to prove there was no artistic merit. The accused must establish that there is artistic merit once the Crown has proved that the work falls within the broad definition of erotica. This definition is too narrow, excludes the act of love between two consenting adults, and all the normal parts of the body, which are in themselves, as well as the act of making love, legal. There is something rather strange in the whole approach.
The erotica clause has an interpretation which now classifies intercourse as pornography. The definition of pornography is thus made to stand on depictions that may simply be offensive to some members of society. I hope, first, that it is not offensive to most of us and, second, that the legislators will clean up their act in terms of that wording. I do not think that was their intent.
The reverse onus provisions of Bill C-54, which require artists to prove artistic merit, place an unjustifiable hardship upon the artistic community. Where they have to prove that the consumer is under the age of 18 there is no artistic defence. The following example used by Pierre Berton demonstrates the silliness behind some of these definitions.
If the Charlottetown Festival revived Johnny Belinda, it would have to plead artistic merit in order to enact the rape scene. The same would apply to Les liaison dangereuses. It would not matter whether the actor or actress in these instances were fully clothed or whether the rape was clearly simulated. Moreover, if there is a single 17-year-old in the audience at a family festival, artistic merit goes out the window as a defence and it is pornography.

November 30, 1987
Criminal Code
Therefore, if you show any sexual activity on the screen or on the stage which involves anyone who even looks as though he or she is under 18 years of age, there is no defence. You cannot say that it is educational or artistic even if the part of a teenager is played by a 25-year-old. You are still guilty of depicting pornography. Do you think that is the purpose of this legislation or is it only that they did not understand what they were writing?
The Actors' Equity Association believes that such provisions intended to prevent child pornography would effectively prohibit productions of coming of age material and material dealing with the topic of sexual abuse and exploitation of children. For example, the internationally acclaimed play by Dennis Foon, Feeling Yes, Feeling No, concerning sexual abuse prevention would be in jeopardy.
Not only are live theatre and movies affected, but so are art galleries and museums. For example, the painting now presently hanging in the National Gallery of Canada by Paul Peel entitled After the Bath might well be in contravention of Bill C-54 as it shows naked children clearly under the age of 18. It would be hard to imagine the Crown charging the National Gallery, but this might well arise if the Bill remains unaltered.
We may be able to prevent that by putting up a sign indicating that the painting is erotica or if we wrap it in an opaque material. Of course, we would then have to peek behind the opaque material to find out what the erotica was. There are things in this Bill which I find absolutely mind blowing.
I believe that the defence of artistic merit is unworkable in its present form. It represents a significant departure from the normal approach to criminal sanctions contained in other parts of the Criminal Code. It is a sort of looking glass approach which creates a philosophic and legal bias in favour of the Crown against the rights of the defendant. Long ago Canadians elected to follow the British tradition which prefers to allow a few guilty people to remain free rather than deprive an innocent person of liberty.
Clarke Rogers, artistic director of Toronto's Theatre Passe Muraille, sums up well the feelings of many creators on this point with the following statement:
The inability to distinguish between works of art and gross pornography is a social failure, not an artist's problem. Yet we become the scapegoats. All that you do is intimidate artists and encourage self-censorship in the name of economic survival. If you're constantly being threatened by big legal bills, creativity is bound to suffer.
I am sure that all Members of this House would agree with that. Theatre and art gallery owners will be wary of presenting any work which may appear to violate pornography laws as interpreted by the local law enforcement authorities.
I would like the House to give serious thought to some of the concerns which are being expressed by other groups. The Canadian Artist's Representation association believes that
they have been placed upon the fringes of society, unable to enjoy freedom of expression through Bill C-54. They said:
-it is a part of our function as artists to question society; to hold a mirror up to society; to analyze our own shortcomings; and to explore the more remote territories of human experience. We rejoice in our senses. We do not create "pretty pictures" or amuse. Because we are not society's clowns and because we are vitally important to our society's well-being any restriction placed upon freedom of artistic expression will be a serious jeopardy to us and our society as a whole.
We believe that such restrictions upon our rights and freedom of artistic expression are not demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society. Have we as a society elevated moral and political censorship to the status of a social idea?
I think not, Madam Speaker, and I know that my Party does not think so and we are looking toward proper amendment.
I would like to bring to your attention an exchange which I had in committee with Mr. Maceroia, the Director General of the National Film Board. I asked him whether he thought that we could make and show Le declin de I'empire americain under the new pornography Bill. As you know, that film won all kinds of awards.

Do you think that the new legislation on pornography would allow you today to produce and show the movie The Decline of the American Empirel No, replied Mr. Maceroia. Did you point it out to the Minister? Yes, said Mr. Maceroia. Did you discuss the matter with the Minister of Justice? Yes and not only with respect to The Decline of the American Empire. We are now drawing up a list of motion pictures taken out of our catalogue to be in a positiom to advise the Minister that it would be impossible to produce such movies with the new bill.
We went on dealing with various findings which show that the contents of some of the provisions of the bill should be amended.

Mr. Pelletier, the Acting Secretary General of the National Museums, said that they saw an earlier version of the Bill and that it had been changed somewhat recently. A document was prepared within the corporation by their policy people examining the implications and they were worried. They brought that to the attention of the Minister.
The Canadian Independent Record Production Association said that it is are concerned that the present Bill may be akin to using a sledgehammer to crack a nut and may well result in creating more anomalies and abuses than it cures.
Objections come from Brick Books, the League of Canadian Poets, the Toronto Arts Council, the Playwrights Union, Harry Cuff Publications, the Canadian Library Association, the Association of Canadian Booksellers, the Photographers Gallery, and the Royal Canadian College of Organists. I could go on and on. I plead through you, Madam Speaker, with the Government to amend the Bill and section off the part on erotica which is totally unacceptable, regressive, and repressive in today's modern society.
November 30, 1987


Mr. Nicholson (Niagara Falls):: Madam Speaker, the Member for Mount Royal (Mrs. Finestone) and I, I am sure, agree on how difficult the problem of pornography is. She and I were members of the Special Committee on Child Care. I remember having a very serious discussion with her on some of the difficulties in prosecuting pornography cases. We discussed the case of Penthouse magazine which, depending on your point of view, is soft core pornography. However, in at least one instance it was convicted. It was very difficult to get a conviction because, as I am sure the Hon. Member would agree, the present provisions in the Criminal Code are inadequate. They are vague, in some cases to the point of being almost unenforcible. Therefore, all of us share the problem of what to do with this very difficult problem. The Government has made an attempt to do so in Bill C-54, with which I am pleased and proud to be associated. It defines for the first time in the Criminal Code exactly what pornography is.
If the Hon. Member and her Party and Members of the New Democratic Party do not like the definition, I suggest that it is incumbent upon them to give us their definition of pornography. It has been my experience on the justice committee for a couple of years that while everyone agrees there is a problem with street soliciting, pornography and sexual exploitation, whenever the Government attempts to come to grips with the problem and put a definition before Parliament, the Opposition states they do not like it because it is either too narrow, too broad, too vague or too regressive.
I suggest to them, as 1 have suggested to witnesses who have appeared the committee, that if they have a better definition, let us see it in the committee. I sit on the legislative committee with the Member for Mount Royal. Let us see their definition and have an opportunity to compare. We are all trying to control the same problem.
I have heard comments in this debate that the definition is too repressive, too vague or too narrow. Let us see what the NDP and Liberals have to propose. I think that is only fair. If they have as many reservations as they say they do about what I believe to be an excellent piece of legislation, let us see what they have to offer.


Sheila Finestone: Madam Speaker, I think that is a constructive observation. 1 recommend that the Hon. Member reread the Fraser and Badgley reports which contain some definitions that I believe all three Parties could address.
I believe that the present provisions are inadequate. One can see on the cover of Hustler magazine a woman's legs sticking out of a mincemeat grinder, with other parts of the body coming through, or the picture of a woman bound and hanging on a Christmas tree. I do not believe that is very appetizing or what Canadians want.
I agree with the Hon. Member and I stated in my speech that we need change. I also recommended that we need to consider other changes. I sincerely hope we can agree upon a
Criminal Code
description that will remove the particular reference to masturbation, ejaculation, vaginal, anal and oral intercourse. I think those are totally unacceptable and out of place.


Michael Morris Cassidy: Madam Speaker, I am concerned about the comment of the Hon. Member for Niagara Falls (Mr. Nicholson). He is trying to pretend that there have not been constructive and specific alternatives put forward, which have attracted broad support from women's groups, the artistic community, others who are concerned about censorship, human rights, and people concerned about pornography, particularly against children.
The Hon. Member for Mount Royal (Mrs. Finestone) just mentioned the Fraser committee report. This report came to grips with the issues and the Hon. Member is being deceptive and misleading in suggesting that constructive proposals have not been put forward not only by Members of my Party and the Liberal Party, but from what appears to be a much broader basis of support than the proposals being put up by the Government which seem generally to be put before the Conservative Party by REAL Women and a few other groups that are excessively right wing and do not represent the mainstream of Canadian society.
My question to the Hon. Member is related to her comments on the film The Decline of the American Empire. That is an award-winning, commercially successful film and it represents part of the coming-of-age of the Canadian cinema. I agree with her view that this film would not in fact be able to be shown in any way in Canada according to Bill C-54.
The lovely film entitled Lies my Father Told Me dealt sensitively and evocatively with Montreal some 60 years ago. It is based on Mordecai Richler's book. I presume that scenes which involved children learning a bit about life by finding out that the woman down the street made her living as a prostitute because of the Depression would not be allowable according to the Bill. As I understand it, even a chance depiction of a female breast in a television production which came to us from France, the United Kingdom or other countries that do not have the puritan standards which the Conservatives want to impose upon us would in fact be treated as erotica and could not be shown to children, meaning people up to the age of 18. Therefore, a whole range of television productions, including drama, science, and art from other countries would effectively be banned from Canadian television.
Is that how we are proceeding into the 1990s with the Conservatives? Are those the kinds of standards that a repressive minority is trying to impose on a majority who are concerned about pornography but do not at the same time want their ability to function as adults to be seriously impaired by such a ridiculous restriction?


Sheila Finestone: Madam Speaker, my hon. colleague is right on target. Not only will it affect the choice at the film theatre and the selections on our TV screen, it will also affect those of us who go to the public libraries for books. It will certainly

November 30, 1987
Adjournment Debate
have an effect on the paintings in our museums. I hope the Minister of Justice will not be insensitive to this restrictive and repressive Conservative view and will make the necessary changes.


Geoffrey Douglas Scott: Madam Speaker, I respect and fully understand the importance of the arguments that the Hon. Member for Mount Royal (Mrs. Finestone) has been making. As a former journalist, may I associate myself with her argument that the definition of undue exploitation of sex is far too ambiguous. One could drive a legal transport truck through its passages, as most people have since this particular definition came out.
Since school children, including my 16-year old son, are returning home at this hour, I respectfully request that we defer all of the explicit references such as those which have been made by the Hon. Member for Mount Royal and the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Cassidy), until we get to committee. I believe that is where we can iron out some of the real problems, including the definition of undue exploitation of sex.
Would the Hon. Member not agree that the House is in agreement that this matter should be referred to the committee at once and dealt with there in the more informal surroundings that are not within ear-shot? I would respectfully suggest that Hon. Members please refer this matter to committee at once and let the committee deal with the more lurid details.


Sheila Finestone: Madam Speaker, in acknowledging my hon. colleague's concerns for the nebulous aspects of the present Bill, and also respecting his sense of personal discomfort with some of the wording referred to in the Bill, I would, however, bring to his attention that as a mother and a grandmother- and, by the way a grandmother of my third grandchild-1 have always referred to the parts of the body by the way they are defined. I have not used itsy bitsy cutesy phrases. I do not know what is wrong with using natural and normal phrases. Human sexuality is a beautiful part of life. Without it we all would not be here, nor would we have a future. I would suggest it is not an aberration and it is not difficult to discuss with one's children. I would hope that the kind of books which would be accessible in the libraries and schools of this land, and the kind of films we will use, will be such that our children can protect themselves and be able to make an intelligent decision as to how to handle themselves. I hope that will be carefully and clearly thought through in the legislative committee.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 66, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the Hon. Member for York East (Mr. Redway)- Immigration-Senate Committee's Report on Terrorism; the Hon. Member for Broadview-Greenwood (Ms. McDonald)- Health-Acid rain-Health hazard query/Request for stricter pollution emission standards; the Hon. Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson)-External Affairs-Victims of brainwashing experiments funded by CIA/Request for financial assistance in seeking legal redress.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Hnatyshyn that Bill C-54, an Act to amend the Criminal Code and other Acts in consequence thereof, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee; and on the amendment of Mr. Robinson (p. 11291).
Michael Morris Cassidy: Madam Speaker, I am participating in this debate because I am concerned that Bill C-54 is just a clone of Bill C-l 14, which was presented by the Government a year or more ago and which was found so seriously wanting, it had to be quickly withdrawn. It had to be quickly withdrawn because there was a general feeling in the community of Canada as a whole that the views of the narrow so-called moral majority were in fact not acceptable views to be imposed upon Canadians as a whole when it came to the question of pornography.
My Party, as our justice critic has already indicated, has in convention considered the matter seriously. We have devoted a lot of time to this particular question and we have indicated that we do believe there needs to be changes in Canadian law. Quite specifically, we have said that the law should be changed to define as pornography, material which condones violence, coercion, abuse and degradation in its depiction of human beings and this should include the production and distribution of such material whether in film, video, print or any other form. We also said that the definition of pornography should include material which portrays or promotes the sexual exploitation of children. We called for severe penalties for offenders. In response to the Hon. Member for Niagara Falls (Mr. Nicholson), therefore, the New Democrats have at the very least been very specific.
November 30, 1987

What we are debating right now is a reasoned amendment on second reading of this particular Bill which was proposed by my colleague, the Hon. Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson). The amendment states we should decline to give second reading to Bill C-54 because it fails to clearly define pornography in the way I have just mentioned. It does not distinguish pornography from material of an artistic, literary, educational or scientific nature in a fashion acceptable to the Canadian public, including artists. I suppose part of the reason I am participating in this debate is to say, let us be sensible and relax a bit while at the same time recognizing that new laws on pornography, particularly on child pornography, are needed.
There is something that is deeply troubling to me. If I turn on the television some evening when I am rather tired, in the course of that evening I can see 8, 10 or 15 acts of extreme violence, the kind of acts which lead people to think that we live in a violent society and older people to think that they are hardly safe to walk on the streets at night, something which, at least in Canada, is certainly far from the truth. Yet those kinds of depictions of violence, which are quite out of sorts with what actually happens in our daily lives in a country which is relatively peaceful in relation to violence and which has a low murder rate, and so on, go unpunished. At the same time, the least passing look at a female breast on television will, according to this law, be considered erotica and because it is shown to children, there will be no artistic defence, as I understand, and in fact might lead to up to two years of imprisonment. In certain cases, some of the definitions of pornography can lead to up to 10 years in imprisonment.
The way in which artists help to perhaps define societies and what societies might become is interesting to me. I would draw to the attention of Hon. Members and to the attention of the viewers who are watching this debate, including some of the 16-year-olds referred to by the Hon. Member for Hamilton- Wentworth (Mr. Scott), Margaret Atwood's recent novel, the Hand Maid's Tale, which I read a few months ago. It depicts a society in the 1990s with severe sexual repression, and what happens when a society has severe sexual repressions along those lines. People who are rich, powerful and well connected then go and do on the side what they are telling the population as a whole it cannot do.
It is equally ironic that we should be discussing this Bill not that long after the collapse in utter disarray of the moral majority in the United States. We find out that this is not just something that happens in fiction but in real life. People like Jimmy and Tammy Bakker were playing around in all kinds of ways, rather similar to the kinds of things that occur in soap operas on daytime television, which those two condemned so roundly. To put it mildly, they failed to live up to the standards of sexual conformity which they were seeking to inculcate in their followers.
The entire right wing in the United states showed a total incapacity to live up to basic standards of ethics and laws and indulged, condoned or were involved in such things as Irangate
Criminal Code
and the various kinds of shenanigans which went on there. They showed themselves totally unprepared to live up to the most basic of constitutional law as it is understood in the United States. To bring us back to the debate here, as you are about to do, Madam Speaker, these are the same people who have been passing messages to the moral majority, to the new right wing in Canada, saying we need the kind of legislation which is represented in Bill C-54. If we have that kind of hypocrisy taking place, we are going to get lousy results. At the same time, excessively repressive legislation, I believe, is going to backfire in all kinds of unpleasant and undesirable ways.
My colleague, and former colleague in the Press Gallery, the Hon. Member for Hamilton-Wentworth, suggested he was concerned about what his 16-year-old son might see on the way home from school. Some years ago I took two or three of my teenage sons, at that point in their mid-teens, to see the movie Fame in Toronto. That movie, for people who have not seen it, is a movie about young men and women at the high school for the performing arts in Brooklyn. It is not about just growing up artistically but growing up as human beings. Some make it and some fail. One of the scenes which I can depict without trouble on daytime television is of a young girl who wants to be in films and is tricked into going for what is said to be a film test. In fact, some cruel adult makes her strip in front of a camera for a so-called film test when in fact it is just erotic exploitation of a young person. I ask myself if it would be better for a teenage girl living and growing up in Toronto who wants to get into films to learn the lesson to watch out for that kind of thing by seeing a film or to have it happen to her in person. The answer is obvious.
During the course of that film there was the scene where the boys in the school happen to find a way of looking into the girls' washroom. In what I thought was a rather innocent and amusing way they saw one or two of the girls changing. Again, that is something which happens in the life of every teenager, I would assume. It happened in my life and I am sure it happened even in the boyhood or teenage years of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Hnatyshyn). That, too, would attract the attention of the moral protectors under Bill C-54.
In fact, we could not get into the film Fame. We could not take our teenage kids into that movie despite the fact it had a very solid, positive message about growing up in all kinds of ways, and in ways which are real to teenage men and women. Later, as a consequence, we sneaked our children into the film. We broke Ontario's film censorship laws and took our children into an unrestricted movie that was part of a double-header, and when the first film ended they stayed and watched the second film and received the types of benefits-


Frank Oberle: Breaking the law?


Michael Morris Cassidy: The Minister of State for Science and Technology (Mr. Oberle) states "breaking the law". If there

November 30, 1987
Criminal Code
are bad laws, sooner or later people will start to find ways of changing them.
I wish to cite another example. The Tin Drum, an artistic film of the highest merit, one of the finest films that I have seen from continental Europe in the past 15 or 20 years, was banned by the Ontario film censor. As Leader of the Ontario New Democrats, I took a group, we defied the law, and attended a special screening of that particular film. As someone who had spent some time in post-war Germany, I was astonished at how effectively that film, using all types of literary and artistic devices, transmitted the terrible and awful things that had happened in Germany before, during, and after the war. Because the central character in that film is an adult with only the growth of a child, it would not be permitted under Bill C-54.
I would venture to say that a reasonable number of Conservative MPs from the Toronto area have seen the production of O Calcutta. I believe it has been running in Toronto for seven or eight years. I think that it is a silly production, but I am not sure whether the moral fibre of Toronto has gone permanently to the dogs because of a stage production which features nudity and which is essentially preoccupied with sex.
In all of this, I look at the Bill and ask myself, what is really different from Bill C-114? The Library of Parliament has kindly prepared a summary which I have looked at. I wish to read the definitions of simple pornography.
In Bill C-l 14 was outlawed pornography which was defined as visual matter showing vaginal, anal, or oral intercourse; ejaculation, sexually violent behaviour, bestiality, incest, necrophilia, masturbation, or other sexual activity. That was particularly criticized because of the reference to "other sexual activity" which could presumably mean giving your cousin a kiss.
However, Bill C-54 is almost the same. It refers to bestiality, incest, or necrophilia; it refers to masturbation or ejaculation, and then it refers to vaginal, anal, or oral intercourse.
The Hon. Member for Hamilton-Wentworth stated that the details will be fixed up in committee. Let us address the principle involved. The fact is that the Bill is a clone of the previous Bill. The Bill means that a great deal of normal-let us put it quite bluntly-human activity, which I venture to say every Member of Parliament has taken part in, and hopefully with a great deal of pleasure, anticipation, and fond remembrance is dirty. That is true of the adult population. Members of Parliament, our constituents, and all of us would not have been here if it had not been for human sexual activity. We must be careful before we turn around and say to our children and everybody else that somehow everything in this area is dirty. It is not.
Activities which involve violence and sex are dirty. Activities that involve brutality and degradation of one human being by another are dirty and should be stopped. Activities which involve the exploitation of children in a sexual sense are dirty
and should be outlawed. But for goodness sake let us have some sense of proportion in all of this.
I find it astonishing that a Government could have brought in a Bill which responded to widespread concerns about pornography, and then narrowed the definition and made it so restrictive, repressive, and objectionable that virtually every important group representing women, as well as the artistic community and people concerned about censorship, has spoken against Bill C-54.
ACTRA, the AIDS Committee of Toronto, the Canada Council, the Canadian Committee Against Customs Censorship, the Canadian Conference of the Arts, the Coalition for the Right to View, Feminists Against Censorship, the International Women's Day Committee in Toronto, Media People for Social Responsibility, the National Action Committee on the Status of Women, the Ontario Association of Art Galleries, the Ontario Coalition for Abortion Clinics, the Ontario Film and Video Appreciation Society, the International Writers' Organization, PEN, the Periodical Marketers of Canada, the Toronto Arts Council, and the Writers' Union of Canada. That is one range of groups. What about the media? The Globe and Mail, La Presse, Le Devoir, The Ottawa Citizen, the Toronto Star, The Toronto Sun, and The Vancouver Sun have all spoken out against the legislation in Bill C-54.
What is being done in this Bill will mean, among other things, I suppose that the police can come along and either if by hazard or with a search warrant can go into my library and look and see if I have any documents which I made about 25 years ago which are deemed to be child pornography.


Lise Bourgault: That is an exaggeration.


Michael Morris Cassidy: I am not exaggerating, Madam Speaker. The Hon. Member suggests that I am exaggerating. A book which involves children in one part of the book and which talks about intercourse in another part of the book could be deemed to be child pornography, and I could probably be jailed for having that book in my library, even though I inherited it from my father who bought it 30 or 40 years ago. That is the situation.


Some Hon. Members:: Nonsense.


Michael Morris Cassidy: If it is nonsense, then we should change the Bill so it is not a possibility. I speak with passion. A former Prime Minister said that the state had no place in the bedrooms of the nation. I wonder if the state has a place in the libraries or the book rooms of the nation, along the lines of what are presently suggested.
Would a book which talks to children about sex in a positive and sensitive way, for example, Show Me, be permissible or not? Will we be in a situation where every work of art and every work that touches upon sexual subjects and which has been published in Canada over the last 50 years will risk being taken before the courts? Many of those books are still in circulation, if they are not in first printing, perhaps they are in used bookstores. Used booksellers and booksellers in general
November 30, 1987

and people like myself who have a substantial library will have to look through all of our books to see whether or not they are all right.
What about Arabian Nights? Could I be taken to court because I have a copy of Thousand and One Nights in my library, and which certainly involves sex? It involves young people under 18 or apparently under the age of 18.


An Hon. Member:: Read the Bill.


Michael Morris Cassidy: The Hon. Member says to read the Bill. I will read the Bill. They will know that the test of artistic merit is not a test which has to be proven by the Crown, it is the defence which has to be proven by the accused. I could be dragged through the courts and forced to pay thousands of dollars in legal fees in order to prove that Arabian Nights had artistic merit, and therefore-


An Hon. Member:: Absolutely not.


Michael Morris Cassidy: The Hon. Member states "absolutely not". Well, let him change the Bill.
In addition, if somewhere in Thousand and One Nights there was a concubine in a harem, who, according to the book might have been less than 18 years old, then there would be no defence of artistic merit. That is what is in the Bill.
Now I simply say to the Hon. Members opposite in the Conservative Party, is this the ridiculous type of thing that they are trying to suggest? They will make this country into a laughing stock around the world when people look at what is being put forward in Bill C-54. I do not think that I can accept that.
I repeat that I believe, as my Party believes, that it is necessary to have a redefinition of pornography. What we have now has proven to be inadequate and unacceptable. I have no problem saying that. However, it is crazy to put a legitimate artist in a situation where, for example, he or she may have to go to court and with limited resources defend whether or not a work of art has artistic merit. We are all put in a situation where the entire Bill will inevitably be challenged under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms because of its restraints on freedom of expression. 1 believe it incontrovertibly goes far beyond what is necessary in a free and democratic society concerned about pornography as the degradation of women, about pornography where violence and sex are linked, or about pornography where perhaps males are being encouraged to indulge in acts which are demeaning to the human dignity of another person.
This is why I endorse and support the reasoned amendment moved by my colleague. I hope Hon. Members will join with me in saying to the Government, as many in the media have said, "You blew it again". The Fraser and the Badgley committees have come up with some positive alternatives. Let us go back to those and come up with a Bill which will have
Criminal Code
broad consensus support, particularly from mainstream organizations representing women across Canada.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Madam Speaker, I have looked at the definition of pornography, and I have heard the allegations of the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Cassidy) that Members of the House were engaged in activities which would be wrong under the Bill. The Hon. Member felt that it was common for Members of the House to be involved in degrading acts in a sexual context, including a person who treats any other person as an animal or object, who engages in acts of bondage, who penetrates with an object the vagina or anus of the person, who defecates, urinates, or ejaculates on to other persons, or who is involved in bestiality, incest, or necrophilia which, for the information of the House, is intercourse with a dead body.
I thought that we had honourable people in the House, but it may be that we are going too far in this Bill, because the standard of conduct of the Member opposite and his colleagues in the NDP would treat these matters as ordinary matters. Would the Hon. Member like to tell us which Members of the House are involved in defecating and ejaculating over other people, in bestiality, incest, or necrophilia?


Michael Morris Cassidy: Madam Speaker, I think the Hon. Member knows that in the first place the acts to which he has just referred have always been illegal. I would hope that no Members have indulged in such acts.
However Clause 6 of the Bill indicates that any visual matter which shows vaginal intercourse is pornography. In addition, if it is done or is associated in any way with a person under the age of 18 years, not only is it then child pornography but also the defence of artistic merit is not admissible in the courts. For example, an actor involved in a stage presentation which was deemed to have met those particular criteria could be subject to a jail sentence for simply having participated.
I must assume that that is what the Government intended when it included that in the Bill. As a consequence, between that and the very restrictive rules relative to erotica, the Government has included an important area of human expression in which presumably all Members or almost all have engaged with pleasure and certainly without which none of the Members of the House would be here, except for perhaps a few members of the Conservative Party who may have been the products of virgin birth. To suggest that that is not part of normal human expression and to treat it as dirty is wrong.


James Ross Fulton: Madam Speaker, I wonder whether the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Cassidy) could expand a little on a point which he made earlier in his speech regarding-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!

November 30, 1987
Criminal Code


James Ross Fulton: Madam Speaker, Hon. Members on the government side seem to have a lot to say. I hope they will rise to speak on the issue.
Prior to being elected I was involved in the field of corrections, probation, and parole. I happen to know something of what I speak in terms of those persons who unfortunately have serious sexual deviations and problems resulting in all cases from childhood and childhood training. They are not instinctual behavioural problems associated with human sexuality.
I wonder whether the Hon. Member would expand for a moment or two on the value, not only to young people but to humanity generally, of learning from film and literature about human sexuality.
It is only through these kinds of learning experiences that standards of acceptable sexual behaviour can be learned. Sexuality in terms of what is acceptable sociologically in Canadian society and elsewhere in the world is only learned through film, literature, and so on. I should like to hear further remarks from the Hon. Member, because I think Canadians generally are interested in what kind of law is most appropriate to provide the kind of peaceful and sane society in which we would all like to live and raise our children.


Michael Morris Cassidy: Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for a good and sensitive question.
I have three sons. The youngest is now 19 years of age. I have watched them and their friends learn about life. They have always seemed to choose the hard way, but that is their affair. I have watched them grow up and gradually begin to make friends with young women. Some of them have now reached the point of adulthood where they are sharing their lives with young women.
One does not suddenly become a sexual being the moment one turns 18, which I believe is the essential picture suggested in the Bill. Communications between parents and teenagers, as I well know, are not always easy. Often it is difficult, no matter how much we would like it to happen, for parents to be the only source of information and guidance for our young people.
This is why we have story-tellers, and we have had storytellers in society since the days when a few savages sat around a camp-fire half frozen in the northern nights of Canada. Today our story-tellers are novelists. They produce pictures, films, and plays. They are the story-tellers of our times.
As we said in our Party resolution, material which promotes the sexual exploitation of children and is violent or degrading in a sexual context toward children is clearly inadmissible. However, what about sensitive material dealing with children reaching out as they begin to recognize that they are sexual beings or dealing with the difficulties faced by young girls who menstruate these days at the age of 12 or 13? It may be as many as 10 years or 12 years in society today before they decide to get married. They must contend with a whole range
of feelings, responsibilities, potentials, and risks, as we increasingly have a more egalitarian society which more equally understands the obligations of men and women in terms of preventing conception and in terms of raising children. These kinds of things must be felt by boys as well once they reach the ages of 12 years or 13 years. Through older brothers and sisters they cannot help but be aware of burgeoning sexuality. These are the facts. We cannot take away those facts by pretending they do not exist.
I have a friend who teaches in a school with a very repressive, may I say, religious point of view under which only religion teachers are entitled to talk to 14, 15, and 16 year old kids about sex. This does not stop the fact that they are brim-full of hormones and that they are trying to learn about these things. It is a very difficult matter which needs to be approached sensitively. It does not require the sledge-hammer approach which I am afraid we find in Bill C-54.
It is a difficult area. Although I welcome changes in the law, I do not welcome these changes because I do not think they adequately come to grips with what is needed in terms of helping young men and women on their way to adulthood in sexuality as well as in other things.


Lise Bourgault: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to deal with this major Bill aimed at correcting a situation which has existed for the past 20 years and which has been deteriorating year after year.
Madam Speaker, I must admit it is not easy for a person raised in a very conservative family and under a rather puritan system to deal with such issues as sexuality, pornography and bestiality. When I was attending school, we simply did not talk about those things, and although my father and mother were very good parents, they always had a lot of difficulty talking openly about sex.
Ever since we came into office three years ago, Madam Speaker, it is clear that each time legislation was introduced, NDP and Liberal members have always whined about the new calamity which was being visited on the Canadian public. They always exaggerated, describing any new piece of legislation as terrible and frightening. Whether it is the famous Bill C-22 or other Bills which they claimed would result in hundreds of thousands of jobs being lost, while on the contrary they created a great many. In short, Hon. Members opposite always find Government legislation terrible, but in the end people adapt to it. A Government certainly cannot hope to please the Canadian people 100 per cent. I do not believe that those who make money selling pornography exploiting children and, of course, women-as women, we have always been victimized by this somewhat uncommon moneymaking exercise-will be pleased with this Bill. That is understandable.
November 30, 1987

Madam Speaker, I remember that, not so long ago, when the Government introduced Bill C-49, we heard exactly the same arguments from hon. Members opposite. I realize today that municipalities finally got over it and people involved in prostitution have changed their attitude. I suggest that people will do like- wise with Bill C-54.
First of all, the House should remember that in 1978, the Liberal Government of the day introduced a similar Bill-1 do not know what it did with it-but nothing came of it. It is easy to be a Liberal today and speak against Bill C-54-after having been in office for 25 years and unable to come up with legislation to curb prostitution and the pornographic plague from which, as I see it, stem other types of violence on which I will be commenting later on.
In 1981 or 1982 ex-Minister of Justice McGuigan had also made an attempt to introduce a minor amendment to the Criminal Code, but he finally came to the conclusion that dealing with this kind of issue was not a popular endeavour within his own Party, so he opted for commissioning the Fraser committee. Madam Speaker, we have to be honest enough to admit today that after so many years-I think this need to be said-there was a lack of leadership in governments, and the situation has degenerated to such an extent that Canadians can no longer tolerate what has happened and is still happening today in society.
Madam Speaker, I am glad to see that a Conservative Government which has more faith in traditional and family values has had the courage to introduce this Bill which is the logical complement of Bill C-15. At long last we have found ways to make sure that in future our Canadian society will show respect for the dignity of women and the integrity of our children.
Madam Speaker, the Bill sends a crystal-clear message to men and women who exploit children: such behaviour will no longer be tolerated. Our children have the right to be protected against such exploitation and such prejudices. All of us here in the House must see to it that children are sheltered from degradation and sexual violence.
Madam Speaker, very often, the movies, pornographic material and other disgusting things being showned to men and women who view this kind of material will cause a simple fantasy in the mind of these people to degenerate into an act of violence or even murder. One just has to read newspapers that specialize in murder stories, for instance Alio Police or Photo Police, to see that very often there is pornographic material involved in cases of murder or sexual assault on children or women. One can easily imagine how a person who has access to this violent material, especially if that person is young and unarmed, if I can use that phrase, how a teenager can be traumatized and how this type of material can encourage him or her to do the same thing.
Personally, Madam Speaker, I would like all pornographic material including movies and any other kind of pornographic material to be accessible only to adult persons. In other words,
Criminal Code
one should not be able to view or buy any of these things in book stores, not even the so-called adult movies. It is so easy nowadays to rent a videotape. And when one tries to draw the line between pornographic movies and so-called erotica, it is easy to make up definitions that do not mean anything in reality.
What we have here is an amendment to the Bill that doesn't mean anything, because the amendment proposed by the Hon. Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson), who is the official critic of the New Democratic Party on the matter of justice, provides for . . . actually, it does not provide anything. If the amendment is passed, it will mean that nothing more will be done and that the Bill would have to be reintroduced and studied all over again. This would bring about confusion to no end and ultimately there would be no answer to the Fraser and Badgley Committees.
Madam Speaker, the Bill provides for innovative and useful changes. To start with, it gives a clear and detailed definition of pornography that contrasts with the present legislation. That is important and must be underlined. The present legislation defines an obscene publication as follows: any publication a dominant characteristic of which is the undue exploitation of sex or of sex and one or more of the following subjects, namely violence, etc.
Presently, artists and writers must deal with a very vague definition of the word "obscene" and they have but one available defence, that is to serve the public interest. Although the artistic value is taken into account upon determining whether there has been undue exploitation, it is not by itself an excuse. At that level, Bill C-54 is a significant and genuine improvement.
Madam Speaker, a number of observers have suggested that Bill C-54 goes too far on the grounds that writings can encourage or promote sexual conduct involving children or for that matter any degrading or violent sexual behaviour. Some librarians believe that the provision in the Criminal Code dealing with obscenity does not apply to writings, as against Bill C-54.
I submit, Madam Speaker, that those people although they may be well meaning are mistaken. That provision of the Criminal Code clearly and specifically applies to written material. There is no doubt about that, Madam Speaker. Librarians and authors should not only realize that writings have been subjected to the Criminal Code for a number of years, but also appreciate that this Government is dealing with the matter of writings in a more subdued way.
Finally, anyone with artistic or literary concerns should note the improvement in Bill C-54, as against the legislation introduced by the former Minister of Justice in June 1986.
Madam Speaker, it is my view that for partisan reasons they are indulging in hairsplitting. It is my very honest belief that we must trust Canadians. I am sure, Madam Speaker, that you and I know very well the difference between erotica and

November 30, 1987
Criminal Code
pornography. I am also sure that any judge who would have to rule on that is quite capable of drawing the line between a movie that depicts normal sexual activity for educational purposes and a movie that depicts a sexual act for pornographic purposes, in other words that deviates from the normal sexual act in order to make it attractive for viewers, that goes further and uses some kind of violence, performing the sexual act in such a manner that it be not viewed as a normal sexual act. That is clear in Bill C-54.
Suggesting, as they do, contrary to the Bill, that erotica and pornography are ill-defined amounts to running with the hare and hunting with the hounds. In fact, it means opposing the legislation while being in favour, but this is something we have known for a long time, Madam Speaker, since 1984 the Opposition parties do not know where they stand. As for us, we know where we stand; Bill C-54 states our position. The Liberals and the New Democrats do not know where they stand. They agree with the Bill, but they do not agree with it. They move amendments which would have us withdraw the Bill and begin the entire process all over again, and it is long and difficult and would involve negotiations and discussions which would not achieve anything.
In my opinion, Madam Speaker, the arguments of the women's groups are being used inaccurately. Some have said that the women's groups are against the Bill. It is not true. They are not against the Bill. Quite the opposite. The simple fact is that, like other groups, certain women's groups have expressed an opinion about the definition. The committee to which this Bill will be referred will certainly be able to make recommendations about the definition which concerns the opponents of this Bill. However, they are not opposed to the provisions on child pornography or to the provisions dealing with other matters. They do not even oppose the Bill because of the definition. They have simply expressed their concern about the definition of pornography and erotica.
Madam Speaker, the Minister of Justice (Mr. Hnatyshyn) should be congratulated for having finally introduced Bill C-54. As the Hon. Members will certainly recall, Bill C-15, which also dealt with sexual offences against children, was passed by this House last June. If Hon. Members are honest, they will recognize that the Conservative Government has responded adequately to the recommendations of the Fraser and Badgley commissions. If they want to be honest intellectually and otherwise, they will also admit that the Government and the Minister of Justice deserve our congratulations for having finally adressed this issue.
Madam Speaker, I am looking at my colleague for Niagara Falls (Mr. Nicholson). I shall never forget that, when I was a member of the committee considering Bill C-49 on prostitution, the mayor and pressure groups from Niagara Falls came before the committee to speak about the ills of prostitution. A question was asked of the mayor of Niagara about pornographic material. In his mind and in the opinion of the groups that appeared before the committee examining Bill C-49 on prostitution, pornography was the starting point for all kinds
of violence. Any way one looked at it, some pornographic material, a film, a magazine, articles, could always be traced back as the source of violence.
Madam Speaker, I do not think there is any Member who does not recall the horrors inflicted on some children by maniacs, as they are called, because they are very sick people. At the hearings or trials, it was once again clearly demonstrated that those people got the idea of committing such acts of violence from something they read or from viewing pornographic movies.
Something had to be done since we are in 1987. That issue has gone on for the last 20 years. It was about time a government stood up and came up with a bill that is not one hundred percent perfect, of course, but that takes into consideration the public concerns at large. And I am sure, Madam Speaker, that Canadian men and women will give credit to the Governement for having dared speak up, in this piece of legislation, and bring forward a bill that will deal with and, hopefully, put an end to the degradation and violence inflicted upon women and children, and will lead to greater dignity for our country as a whole.


Ms. McLaughlin:: Madam Speaker, 1 found the Hon. Member's speech very interesting. I agree with her that this is an important issue and needs to be discussed now. Like my colleague from Broadview-Greenwood, I think it is good that the Government has brought this issue forward for discussion. I can definitely say that the Conservative Party is bold in bringing this forward. My hon. friend is a feminist and I am sure she has fought to have this issue brought forward. We are all very concerned about it. However, there are a couple of things I would like to raise with her.
She mentioned that she knows what eroticism is. She knows what pornography is. She also mentioned that Madam Speaker knows, but I will not ask her to comment. She mentioned that the courts know. Given that she knows the definitions, which seems to be the heart of the dispute, why would the attorneys-general, who will be in part responsible for dealing with this question of definition, raise such serious concerns? They will be involved with those courts which my hon. friend says should be so clear on the definitions.


Lise Bourgault: Madam Speaker, my thanks to my colleague from Yukon (Mrs. McLaughlin). Of course, like all the women who sit in this House, we are the first ones to be interested and concerned by that question since we have been the models, we are the persons who have been exploited over all those years. Now my colleague is saying that the Attorney General will be responsible for the definition. Somebody has to be responsible. The role of Parliament is to legislate, courts are there to interpret the laws, and I think I can safely assume that Parliament could amend the definitions if it ever becomes clear
November 30, 1987

that the Attorney General is unable to define clearly a precise problem. As 1 have said earlier, I have faith in our court system, and in Canadian men and women. 1 am sure that we will eventually agree upon a definition of erotica and pornography.


Rob Nicholson: Madam Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleague on the very fine way in which she articulated the problem and the challenges which the Conservative Government faces. She gives the Government full marks for being bold in this area as should the entire Parliament and as do, I believe, the people of Canada.
1 have to take exception with comments which I have heard made by members of the New Democratic and Liberal Parties that this measure is not finding wide support among the people of Canada. That is absolutely wrong. Much of the support for this Bill, I admit, is not coming from lobby groups but from individual Canadians who recognize pornography when they see it in the corner store and who want something done about it.
When I heard the allegation that this concern about pornography and the Government's response to it was only something which the Tories had dreamed up and that it did not have widespread support, I checked my mail of the past week on the subject of Bill C-54.
A Mr. Ed Woodman from Niagara Falls concludes his letter to me of November 10 as follows:
I hope and pray, sir, that you will throw your whole weight behind this 100
per cent.
I also received a letter this past week from Mary Beasley of Shakespeare Avenue in Niagara-on-the-Lake. She said:
I would like to state my support for the passage of Bill C-54, as I am
strongly opposed to pornography. This legislation is long overdue.
Among other things she says:
I wish my voice to be heard and to count in this battle.
I can tell Mrs. Beasley and other constituents such as Phil LoForti and Erwin Fluisbrink that they are being listened to in this debate. The Government is again bringing forward the kind of legislation for which the people have been asking. We are not passing the buck as has so often been the case in justice-related issues.
My colleague referred to the prostitution Bill which was before the House. That is another example of where the buck was passed. The previous Government talked and talked about how concerned it was with the subject. However, it was the Conservative Government that finally did something about it. It gave tools to the law enforcement agencies to do something about the problem of street soliciting. The same is true in this case. Anyone can criticize, saying that they do not like the definition or that it is too narrow, too broad, too vague, too
Criminal Code
this, or too that. However, as my colleague has said, we have had the courage to go ahead and try to do something about this problem.
The people who are not part of lobbying groups, who are not being financed by the Government, are being listened to. This legislation is a response to the very genuine concern of people about pornography. I would again like to congratulate my colleague and invite any further comment she might have.


Lise Bourgault: Madam Speaker, my colleague is right. The great majority of Canadians have been waiting too long for this Bill. I have received many phone calls from constituents who were sick and tired of being obliged to take pornographic videos away from their young children. The 15 or 16-year-old children do not understand why these videos are available at the store if they are harmful.
During the leaders' debate in 1984 the three leaders agreed that the Government of Canada had a responsibility to stop the illegal entrance of pornography and the degradation of women and children. The Government has decided to act and I am proud to be a member of the Government which has addressed this problem. The women and children of Canada will finally regain dignity in our great country.


Mr. Roland de Corneille (Eglinton-Lawrence):: Madam Speaker, 1 rise to speak on this most important Bill dealing with a most important subject. When Calvin Coolidge was President of the United States he was asked by his wife who was unable to attend church that morning, "What did the Minister say, Cal? What did he talk about?" Coolidge, who was known as a man of very few words, said, "Sin". She asked, "What did he say about it, Cal?" Coolidge's reply was, "He's agin it".
I think we are all against sin. We are certainly concerned about the recent avalanche of pornographic material, especially as it becomes harder and harder in its depiction of violence, whether on television, in magazines, or what have you. We are alarmed and horrified by the pornographic and sexual abuse of children.
Various things have been said about one party and another. However, in order to counter the deluge of material which has been increasing over the years we must ensure that we pass legislation which will stamp out the proliferation of violent and degrading sexual material, especially that which applies to women and children.
Brutality, bestiality, degradation and violence are regarded by us all as abhorrent. We must try to prevent that which will educate or in any way influence people to perform violent acts or to accept them in a human and decent society. We are, therefore, in agreement with those steps which will move in that direction.
We must ensure that in doing this we do not create legislation which achieves the goal we want while bringing those goals into disrepute and making the Bill itself an objection.

November 30, 1987
Criminal Code
That is the task of every Member of the House of Commons. It is not merely the goal of the Opposition, although it is certainly our special role to study legislation and pick it apart in an effort to ensure that it is good legislation. There are parts of this Bill which concern librarians and the artistic community. There are parts of the Bill that concern churches and religious leaders. They are not happy with aspects of this Bill. It is their responsibility to communicate their concerns and make sure that the Bill is good. Personally, I must call attention to the clause which deals with the subject of erotica. Clause 1 of the Bill states:
'erotica' means any visual matter a dominant characteristic of which is the depiction, in a sexual context or for the purpose of the sexual stimulation of the viewer...
It then lists certain parts of the anatomy.
Clause 159.7 then states:
Every person who displays any erotica in a way that is visible to a member of the public in a public place, unless the public must, in order to see the erotica, pass a prominent warning notice advising of the nature of the display therein or unless the erotica is hidden by a barrier or is covered by an opaque wrapper, is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.
It is provisions such as these which concern the libraries, the religious community and the artistic community. They ask whether we are dealing with those things such as hard core pornography that we want to stop, or also including in the Bill such an omnibus list of concerns that it will create a backlash and a loss of respect for this legislation.
I hope the committee will examine this Bill very carefully and make sure that the objectives I have outlined will be achieved and, at the same time, eliminate those concerns so that, by being so puritanical or unenforcible in its nature, this Bill will not earn derision rather than respect.
We all know the dangerous results of the Bill that was passed in the name of temperance. That Bill which in effect imposed prohibition did not cease the use of alcohol as hoped, or bring about temperance in alcohol, but stimulated its use in the United States far beyond anything it had been before. That Bill brought about waves of crime, gang wars, smuggling and tax evasion. That Bill which was supposed to bring temperance left in its wake a whole way of life that was violent. It brought about total disrespect for the law. That is certainly what we must avoid. We must not pass legislation that will bring about such a backlash from the general public that it will be merely regarded as a joke.
We must deal with this matter with respect and great care. For example, we must recognize that 5 per cent or less of the pornographic materials to which we all object is created here in Canada. Over 95 per cent of it is created in the United States or transshipped through the United States. When we consider free trade, let us hope that this will not be more of the free trade that we want. I hope we will remember that not all blessings come from the south when we think of what it means to have open borders.
We also must consider whose responsibility it is to prove someone's innocence or guilt. The committee must carefully consider the question of responsibility for proving whether or not this law has been contravened. There must be due process and respect for the ancient rule and view of British common law that a person is innocent until proven guilty. We must not create a situation in which it is up to the artist, for example, to prove his or her innocence. I do not know that anyone could regard themselves as artists and feel free in any society if they were afraid there would be laws in this country making one guilty until proven innocent.
I hope the House will make a radical examination of these matters when the Bill goes to committee, to ensure that mistakes are not made again.
I refer to Bill C-114 which was known as the Crosbie Bill. The Government presented this Bill to the House for passage. However, not only did the Opposition and many people throughout the country object to the Bill, Members of the Government benches, in private and in caucus, urged that the Bill not be passed because it was bad legislation.
It is not necessarily correct that the Government has taken positive action simply because it has brought forward a Bill to finally deal with a subject. If the Government is so incompetent in drafting a bill to deal with a particular problem that it cannot get the support of its own benches, obviously it had better take a hard look at this Bill.
There are many people who definitely want to stamp out every form of hard core pornography, which is evil, and at the same time want to make sure that our freedom of speech is maintained. Our artists must not feel that they live in a country where they cannot create a society that will bring about sensitivity and respect for the love of people and their relationships. We must ensure that that legislation does not attack love, sexuality or the artistic depiction of love in some way.
I believe the committee should analyse some present forms of art that are acceptable to Canadians to see whether this Bill will pass the test. Let the committee be absolutely sure that the language will eliminate what we want while respecting the values of our society, especially for education.
Let us also be sure that our children will be educated safely and adequately due to the dangers of AIDS, sexual diseases and so on. We must pass legislation that does not merely supply a platform for someone to make a point. Let us have legislation that is worded in a way that good educational material for children about sexual behaviour, sexual relationships and explanations will not be ruled out and make us in the House of Commons look absurd.
I see my time has expired at this point, or at least that my time is up.
November 30, 1987


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The Hon. Member will have an opportunity at a later time to continue his intervention.
It being 5 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.


PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS-BILLS   CANADA ELECTIONS ACT MEASURE TO AMEND
Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops-Shuswap) moved: that Bill C-268, an Act to amend the Canada Elections Act (non-listed electors), be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.
He said: Madam Speaker, I would like to begin my comments by suggesting that often many Canadians take our democratic privileges for granted. When one considers the turn-out in federal, provincial, regional and local elections, one is somewhat disappointed by the relatively small turn-out which would indicate that many Canadians simply do not take the opportunities presented to them to cast their ballots for the candidates of their choice. We have been reminded of the precious value of what we have in Canada, what we have known for many decades, by the recent developments in Haiti. For years and years its people have not had an opportunity to express their views of those who would govern them. The attempt at a return to democracy in Haiti has resulted in terrible bloodshed and harassment of voters by armed thugs and we have seen the democratic process which was attempting to reawaken in Haiti set back for some time.
It is interesting, when we consider that the United Nations identifies about 165 countries in the world, how many of these countries actually practice a democratic way of government as we do in Canada. How many of these countries actually hold free and open elections based on the principle of universality and on the right of an election to be called regularly so that the people of these countries have an opportunity to evaluate those who govern them and decide whether they want to change or continue with the status quo? Out of those 165 countries, less than 30 countries actually practice a democratic system as we know it in Canada. That really brings home to us just how precious is our democratic way of life.
Today's Private Members' Bill is really two-fold. It recognizes this precious way of government in our country, and it offers three changes to the way people cast their votes so as to make our system perhaps more equitable and able to provide a fair opportunity to more electors.
I want to begin by reminding Members that in the last federal election, at the last minute, so to speak, 510,000 people
Canada Elections Act
had their names added to the voters' list. This gives us an idea of how accurate and thorough the normal procedure is for assembling those voters' lists. For one reason or another nearly one-half a million Canadians found themselves off that list and had to take steps at the last minute to have their names placed on the voters' list, either successfully or unsuccessfully.
This modest Bill attempts to do three things. It attempts, first, to allow urban voters to be sworn in and be able to vote on election day. This is a privilege, of course, that we have had in rural Canada virtually from the very beginning because in times past it was recognized that as high as 80 per cent of the residents in Canada were rural dwellers, and the assumption was that it would be difficult to find everyone at home, or to make the necessary calls to place everyone on the voters' list. In order to provide a sense of fairness, on election day, if one was living in what was designated as rural Canada, one could be sworn in, have one's name placed on the voters' list and be able to place one's ballot. Such is not the case in urban Canada. With more than 80 per cent of Canadians living in urban centres, it is time, I feel, that that same opportunity be offered to urban voters.
I suppose in sociological terms, one can make the case that the modern city often makes it difficult to enumerate voters because of the transient nature of the population. People are regularly moving, particularly in some parts of our cities, and I am thinking primarily of those living in rented accommodation. There are incredibly high levels of transition with apartment dwellers. I know from talking to some of my colleagues in the House of Commons that there is 100 per cent turnover from one election to another for a lion's share of their constituents which indicates the rather transitory nature of many of our voters.
The days when everyone knew their neighbours and could offer suggestions and assistance to help urban voters get on the election rolls are unfortunately passed for many Canadians who now live in virtual anonymity. They do not even know the person in the next apartment, in the next condominium or, in many cases, in the next house. In sociological terms one could make the case that the same opportunity ought to be offered to those living in our urban areas as traditionally provided to those living in the rural areas.
A second provision in the Bill allows candidates and canvassers to have entry to apartment buildings, condominiums or hotels which have in place a "no soliciting" policy. I recognize that a number of provinces through various pieces of legislation, usually respecting the Landlord and Tenants Act, provide this opportunity and in a sense prohibit owners of apartment blocks, hotels and condominiums from stopping canvassers and candidates from entering buildings to go door to door in order to offer the traditional presentations that we find during a federal election campaign. However, there are some provinces where this provision does not exist and I feel that because of the federal Government's constitutional control over the electoral process, it would make sense to complement what some provincial legislators have already done in the past,

November 30, 1987
Canada Elections Act
and that is to provide this access. I think in the tradition of the federal electoral process, it ought to be part of our Act as well.
I think we have all encountered, and it is actually prohibited by law, harassment of canvassers and candidates from certain apartment blocks where the owner perhaps simply does not like the individual involved or does not want to present any kind of harassment to his or her renters or those staying in the apartment, hotel or condo. This would simply make it impossible for one to deny the access of a candidate or canvasser to that particular building.
Although I do not see this as a significant problem, I think we have all encountered it, this would simply set the record straight so that every Canadian, regardless of where they live in a community, will have access to canvassers or to candidates. This information, of course, is necessary. We assume that in the democratic process, the voter will cast his or her ballot as a result of informed decision making. That requires them to have access to canvassers and access to candidates. It is also important for the canvasser or candidate to have access to all of the voters for their files and to complete their information and, of course, to present themselves face to face with the person who will eventually be casting the ballot. It is an attempt at fairness in order that all Canadians, regardless of where they live, will have access to that same level of information.
The last part of the Bill is to allow travellers and students who are temporarily resident outside of Canada to vote in federal elections. Canadians are among the most travelled people in the world. On a per capita basis we are the world's travellers. In the summertime Canadians are well known for travelling abroad. During the cold winter months the mass exodus into the sun belt is now a Canadian phenomenon. If an election is called in the summer, as was the last federal election, or in the depths of winter, large numbers of Canadian travellers will be outside the country, to say nothing of the students involved.
One of the most positive aspects of our student population is the increasing numbers of Canadian students, young and not so young, who are taking the opportunity to pursue their studies outside of Canada, to spend a year or two at other institutions of higher learning and take advantage of opportunities in schools and institutions abroad. We ought to take steps in order that we do not deny those people the opportunity to cast a ballot on election day.
In the Canada Elections Act steps have been taken to provide that opportunity to those serving in the Armed Forces, and those working abroad in External Affairs offices. They are able to register and cast their ballots in a federal election. This Bill suggests that the same opportunity ought to be provided to Canadians who can swear their residency in Canada, indicate and demonstrate that they are citizens of the country, and if they are students studying abroad or Canadians who are
travelling abroad, that they will not be disenfranchised or lose their right to cast their ballot in a federal election.
In a nutshell, that is what Bill C-268 is all about. It is an attempt to remedy three problem areas. As parliamentarians those areas are not particularly new to us. On a number of occasions the Chief Electoral Officer of Canada has brought these and many other problems to the attention of parliamentarians. When one considers that hopefully a winter election is in the offing, the Government will see fit to call an election on the free trade, and that will mean a winter election when a lot of Canadians are outside of the country and a lot of students will be caught outside the country.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Which winter?


Nelson Andrew Riis: I hear that other Members are listening. If it is not a winter election, possibly it will be a summer election. But at whatever time, there will be large numbers of Canadians caught outside of the country and denied the right to cast their ballot.
I hope that Hon. Members will see fit to send this Bill to a legislative committee for thorough examination and study. Hopefully it will be passed at the following sitting, and we can get on with removing some of those more obvious inequalities and injustices when it comes to casting our votes in a federal election.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Madam Speaker, I think that the House should be indebted to the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis) for bringing this Bill to the House. It is an important Bill. It deals with issues that the House must from time to time deal with, and that is the Canada Elections Act. As the Hon. Member pointed out, there will be an election one day. We would not want to have that election without adding four people to the representation from British Columbia in this House. I am surprised that the Member pointed to a winter election. Any election would have to be after there was an opportunity for a representation to the extent of the way it ought to be bearing in mind the last census.
I wish to address the issue in Clause 2 of the Bill which deals with the question of canvassers for a candidate or the candidate himself being able to enter rented or condominium premises. The Bill also mentions hotels. I point out to the House, and my friend, that in a number of provinces that right has already been given. The reason it is given is that under our Constitution the provinces are responsible for the property and civil rights in the province. The provinces of Newfoundland, New Brunswick, Quebec, Ontario, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, and British Columbia have provided that not only in provincial elections or municipal elections which are within the purview of the province, but also in federal elections, candidates and canvassers are entitled to enter and bring forth the necessary messages to let people know that an election is on, and present their candidate's viewpoint. That is a very important right.
November 30, 1987

Obviously, apartment houses are private places. To give someone the right to break in or enter private premises and wander the corridors and do the things that candidates or canvassers do in an election, knock on doors and disturb people and ask for a vote, to some extent is interfering with privacy. But it is an important interference of privacy. I think the House would agree that it is important.
The House would also agree that perhaps we do not have the right constitutionally to insist in the Canada Elections Act that we can break down the privacy of private property, as that property is within the jurisdictional confines of the provinces.
If, in bringing this Bill to committee, we find that we cannot go ahead with Clause 2, perhaps we can use the pressure of the House to persuade the provinces of Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia, and Alberta to extend the rights that other provinces have given people who are campaigning in federal elections.
I wish to point out that the Province of Alberta extends that permission to people who are campaigning in provincial elections, but not in federal elections. It would not be much of an extension to extend the benefit for federal elections.
The question of whether canvassers should be able to enter hotels is another matter that ought to be looked at very closely, and if people in hotels should even be enumerated. Normally hotels are places where people stay for a short period of time. There are certain requirements of being resident at the time an election is called, and actually being resident in the hotel and not just temporarily staying there. The question boils down to how is a hotel defined. Perhaps the Bill is deficient in that definition. Surely, it is not the right to enter any hotel. Surely, it is not the right to enter the Westin Hotel and wander up and down the halls knocking on every door and saying, "I want your vote". That hotel is there for people who come to this city to do business, and it is not a residential hotel where people stay week after week or month after month and use it as their permanent residence from which they will vote. There must be some definition work done on this Bill, or perhaps the word "hotel" removed from the Bill. Certainly, the committee can do that.
I do not wish to take up a great deal of time on the matter. I think it is good that the Hon. Member has brought the Bill to the House.
Turning to the section dealing with the special voting right, I think that matter has been before the House previously. Certainly it has been brought to the attention of the House by people studying the Canada Elections Act. Of course the question is: What about people travelling abroad or who are only temporarily abroad? It seems that to extend the voting ability to people who are just temporarily abroad would be most improper and most difficult. Perhaps proxy voting systems might better solve the problem. However, to have some provision where people could register their vote with an
Canada Elections Act
embassy or consulate would seem to be very difficult, particularly people who are away from the country on holiday. Clearly people who are away on a long-term stay, temporarily no longer resident in Canada or staying outside Canada on a posting, ought to be given some special right to vote in our elections.
Having made those few comments, I commend the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap on a good Bill. I hope that it will go on to committee.

Mir. Marcel Prud'homme (Saint-Denis): Madam Speaker, I would like to join the previous speaker in thanking the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis), since the Bill is in his name, for introducing this Bill on October 6, which means we now have an opportunity to consider his Bill this evening.
Madam Speaker, we know it is only a matter of time, and I hope it will be very soon, before the Government tables Bill C-79, an Act to amend the Canada Elections Act and other Acts in relation thereto. First reading was on June 30, 1987, and I think the Government will be bringing in the Bill for second reading very shortly. I intend to take a very active interest in the proceedings when we consider this Bill.
Meanwhile, the Hon. Member has submitted a number of proposals to the House, and at first glance,-and with my experience of election campaigns, both my own and the campaigns of others, which should total about 100, with at least eight of my own-I believe there are a number of items here to which we can say yes immediately. I hope that if we do not reach some kind of agreement this evening, we will be able to reconsider the Hon. Member's suggestions when the Government brings in its own Bill very shortly.
I agree it is very annoying when you get people who arrive at the polling station on election day who, the day before, suddenly realized they were not on the voters' list. I must admit it is very frustrating, both for the elector and often for the political organizations who urged these people to get out and vote during the election campaign. But there is also the question whether this has to be left until the very last day, until election day.
It works all right in small urban centres and in rural areas. Then there is no problem. However, in our cities, many people would think twice about giving this kind of last chance to someone who comes in under the wire, at a time when everybody is busy processing hundreds of voters. Someone will have to decide who is and who is not a voter and swear them in. I think that would unduly delay the process and would also discourage some electors who are already on the list. However, I do feel positive about this proposal.
I know that Bill C-79, the Bill the Government intends to table very shortly, contains a reference to this problem, since so far, we can add electors to the list up to the seventeenth day before the election. I believe the Government is proposing in

November 30, 1987
Canada Elections Act
Bill C-79 to extend the revision period until the 12th day, including a specific clause that provides for the registration of a voter. That is in Bill C-79. Now, with this Bill, we could . .. and I am all for it, not that I am against what the Hon. Member is offering us, but the Government goes so far as saying that until three days before, that is until the Friday before the vote, it will be possible to go to the office of the returning officer in order to add to the electoral list the name of the people who might have been left out during the revision and who might come up at the last minute.
So I think the Hon. Member, who is a reasonable gentleman, will be interested to discuss it further when we deal with Bill C-79, an act to amend the Canada Elections Act and other acts in relation thereto.
To this day, I am satisfied that there is at least a disposition to act. I wanted to put forward an amendment myself but there we have a proposal by the Government to extend the period until Friday. That is a considerable improvement, especially for people who live in urban areas. Because my colleagues and I, during the electoral campaign, we keep finding people who are not on the list and it is very frustating not to be able to have them added. At least, we know that we will be able to have them added to the list up until the Friday before the election. So whether it is the Friday before or the very same day, 1 believe there is not much difference between what the Hon. Member is proposing, what we have been requesting for a long time and what should be done. There will be a possibility when the day comes to combine all the various proposals.
The second proposal of the Hon. Member would also be a source of difficulty as some building owners forbid any entry because the tenants are senior citizens, people who are afraid of seeing so many visitors circulate in their building, as the previous speaker pointed out. There also, I am rather inclined to agree with my colleague. However, I would like us to be able to examine all implications very carefully.
We all know what it means and how difficult it is to visit certain large apartment buildings in Montreal, Toronto or Vancouver. There could be twelve candidates coming once, twice or three times. This could mean up to thirty-six visits by people, either by themselves or with others, to campaign in a building. There are problems, but it is always possible to find solutions. For my part, I am an optimist. We can look at all that later on when we examine the legislation which the Government should bring back very soon. The Hon. Member is certainly better informed than I am about that as he is the House Leader of his party. I imagine, however, that Bill C-79 will be referred to a committee in the near future. If this Bill does not pass today, I hope that he will be in the House then to go over all his proposals.
Therefore, there are no major objections except for the fact that this will create difficulties. We shall have to look at a way to appease the fears that many people may have in seeing all kinds of visitors in their buildings, especially in the major
centres, where people have a greater tendency to be scared. I do not blame them. It is a major problem in the downtown areas where there are big buildings in which no strangers are admitted. But how can we defend democracy if we cannot talk to people? It would be appropriate to have a lengthy debate on this issue.
The third proposal of the Hon. Member, the last one, after which I shall sit down and let others speak as provided by our rules, aims at allowing travellers and students who are temporarily residing abroad to vote in a general election, just like the members of the Canadian Armed Forces and public servents posted are allowed to do.
However, I forsee problems in this regard also. For twenty years, we have been looking at ways to make it possible for the greatest number of Canadians to vote. How can we do that? Members of the Armed Forces are registered annually, and so are public servants on foreign postings, but it would be difficult to do the same for students and travellers.
I am certain that our discussions will be lengthy when the Government Bill is being considered. In fact, the Bill includes a whole section on the right to vote of others than the military and public servants. This raises enormous difficulties. The Hon. Member is aware of that. Where will we stop? Students in Canada, that's understandable. Students abroad, that's also understandable, but is their status permanent? We always have much sympathy for students. As for Canadian citizens travelling abroad, we do not know. Once you open the door in the case of travellers, the next time you probably would want to open it for . . . As a matter of fact, a provision in the Government's Bill makes it possible to extend the right to vote to people temporarily residing outside Canada without losing their citizenship. But as you know, their situation is similar to that of people coming to Ottawa to work for a while. If you keep talking long enough about the people who are in Ottawa on a temporary basis, you suddenly realize that they are here on a permanent basis. This will create difficulties.
I know that in the Bill introduced by the Government, it is difficult to decide when to say yes or no? Personally, I have no final opinion on this for reasons which I will explain when we deal with this Bill. I prefer not to indicate my final opinion, because I intend to be very actively involved when the House considers Bill C-79. The reason I wanted to speak to this Bill was to show the difficulty we will have to face, but there is no doubt that it will be possible to follow through with our colleague's number one proposal.
As far as the second proposal is concerned, we will have to decide how we can assure the safety of people living in a building while carrying out our duties during an election campaign in a democratic society. I share the concern of my Hon. friend on this.
As to the third proposal, we will consider it more thoroughly soon, because it represents something which I feel is new, complex, but we want to extend the right to vote to the
November 30, 1987

greatest number of Canadians. With his proposal, therefore, our Hon. friend has given us food for thought.


Mr. Guy Ricard (Laval):: Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis) is tabling today Bill C-268 to amend the Elections Act in order that we may have a greater number of registered voters on the voters lists during an election. First, I must commend him for his work because I believe there is a genuine problem there. Whenever there is an election and an enumeration is made, there is always a number of persons-that may be quite high in some cases-whose names do not appear on the voters list. This may be due to two things: first, people are not enumerated, either because they are not home when the enumerators call and their names cannot be entered. Second, during the revision process names are omitted from the list. And in order of course for a voter to have his or her name on the list, he or she must meet that requirement.
Therefore, Madam Speaker, the Canadian Government in Bill C-79, an Act to reform the Elections Act, indeed had that in mind and provided for a mechanism to revise voters lists so that a greater number of persons may have their names entered, and there is a mechanism as my colleague from Saint-Denis (Mr. Prudhomme) stated earlier, for unregistered people to have their names added to the lists. But there is another one also, for those whose names were written down but were omitted from the list itself.
On voting day, those people can apply to the electoral officer to have their names entered on the voters lists because they were omitted. They must of course submit evidence of having been enumerated. That is the main requirement. If they cannot submit such evidence, of course, they are not listed but if they can, they may then go back, with a permission or a chit from the electoral officer, to their own polling stations in order to register and exercise their most basic right.
Now, let us turn to the way the Bill now before us is submitted, Madam Speaker, and I will deal with Clause 1 only which provides that a person whose name does not appear on the voters list could do so, if this Bill is passed, provided he or she is vouched for by a voter whose name appears on the voters list, who is known there and who can testify to the identity of that person whose name is not on the voters list. I can see some danger in that. The danger might be minimal in rural constituencies, but in urban areas where there may be as many as 300 polls in the same riding a person resorting to that principle could make arrangements with other people in various polling stations and vote about ten times on the same day.
Madam Speaker, I can still remember-and I am sure you do as well-the way elections used to be held in the old days in the great Province of Quebec where they would use that same principle: a person was substituted for another of one's own choice and asked to vote. That happened time and time again. Thank God we had election legislation to do away with that kind of things. But if we follow clause 1 of Bill C-268 to the letter, I have the impression we will go back in time and once
Canada Elections Act
again defeat the purpose. I do not think we can afford to do that in 1987.
I believe the basic problem as such is real and as the Hon. Member for Saint-Denis (Mr. Prud'homme) said earlier, we will have to try, at the second-reading and committee stages of Bill C-79, to foresee everything so that will never happen again. I know it is not easy. I know there are cases, as considered by the Hon. Member in his bill, where people cannot be contacted in apartment buildings, hotels, for instance. That is obvious. But could there be a mechanism flexible enough so that all those people could really be contacted and enumerated? That is what we will have to do.
The Hon. Member alluded earlier to the possibility of a winter election on free trade. I must tell him that in an election campaign on free trade people will be so eager to come and vote for it that there will be much fewer names missing on electoral lists.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-268, an Act to amend the Elections Act presented by my colleague, the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis). Having recently experienced a byelection, I think the problems addressed in this Bill are more apropos for me than others. There are serious problems which I personally have experienced.
Just subsequent to the by-election, I received a number of phone calls and communications from constituents most concerned because, in their words, they were disenfranchised. I quote briefly from one of my constituent's letters which reads in part:
I was born in Canada and have lived here all my life. For the past six years 1 have been a resident of the Yukon Territory residing at the same address. 1 have voted in previous federal and territorial elections in Whitehorse. When residents of the territory were enumerated, apparently the whole apartment block I lived in was missed.
When this person phoned the returning officer it was too late to register and so she could not vote. A number of other people raised the same question.
It is extremely important to support this Bill. I cannot speak so much for the provinces, but in the Yukon territory the issues which my colleague addresses in his Bill are already contained in our Territorial Elections Act, for example, being able to be sworn in at the polls. In a territorial election one can be sworn in at the polls, as is being proposed in Bill C-268. In the past federal election this was not possible. This is confusing because the general public will not make these distinctions. People assume election procedures are similar.
Because one could be sworn in at rural areas but could not be sworn in at Whitehorse, there was a lot of anger, confusion and frustration during the recent by-election because people thought they could be sworn in at the polls. This Bill will go a long way to putting consistency into the regulations as to who

November 30, 1987
Canada Elections Act
can and who cannot vote. In many ways, Whitehorse is a rural area to many people. In our riding many people work out of town, particularly in the summer.
Although the previous speaker said the proposed amendments would address this problem because you could be registered on the Friday previous to the election, I am afraid I cannot agree. For example, I have seen many construction workers and highway workers who live in lodges out of town and do not even come into town until perhaps the Sunday prior to election when their employer has allowed them some time off. It is quite possible that they would be left off the lists. The amendment proposed would not address that issue. I do not believe this is strictly a regional problem. I am sure many people in many Canadian towns work outside of those towns and simply are not there to be registered at enumeration time.
This Bill rightly addresses a very serious problem for many people. 1 realize, as the previous speaker said, that there are always problems of abuse. There are those problems the way it is now. An enumerator comes to your home and you can say you are John Smith, I suppose. Yet we rely on the honesty and integrity of our citizens to make the system work. It will not work if we do not operate from that assumption. Therefore I believe this Bill will not occasion any further abuses but will in fact address a very serious problem of disenfranchisement. I feel very seriously about this issue, having witnessed many of the problems this summer, and harmonizing territorial and provincial legislation with federal legislation simply makes good sense.
On the second issue of access to condominium apartment buildings and hotels, I recognize there are some problems with that. However, again in territorial legislation at least, and I understand it is in the legislation of many provinces, it is possible to enter apartment buildings and so on for this purpose. Generally speaking, the person entering the building must have a letter to show that they are legitimate workers for the Party or the candidate. I appreciate that this can cause some concern but if everyone entering the building has the proper documentation, I do not see it as a great problem. Again, this conforms with existing territorial and in many cases provincial legislation which allows entry to apartment buildings or condominiums during elections.
As to the question of hotels, I quite agree that going to a hotel down the street from this House may not be necessary in order to enumerate and canvass. Yet in many areas of Canada, and I suggest many urban areas, certainly in my own area, many people reside in hotels. On every enumeration list numerous people appear as permanent residents of a hotel. That is not unusual. For a variety of reasons people choose to live as permanent residents of hotels. I do not think one can make a sweeping statement about hotels being a non-legitimate residence for election purposes. It is a residence for many people in my riding and I believe in other ridings in which I have canvassed and worked for other political candidates.
With respect to those two issues, in particular that of trying to bring about consistency between territorial, provincial, and federal legislation so that people understand what they can and cannot do with respect to swearing in at the polls and access to apartment buildings, I think they are very important and would lead to greater democratization of the system.
As to the third issue, that of allowing overseas visitors and students to register to vote, I presume at an embassy, again I cannot see that as particularly contentious. Obviously if you are abroad you must have legitimate documents as a Canadian citizen, some travel documents, and so on. It seems to me it is not particularly hard for such a person to register abroad and vote.
In conclusion, I very strongly support the points made in this Bill. It is very important that it receive support and go forward because the issues it addresses will unfortunately not be addressed, at least at this point, by the amendments in Bill C-79.


Reginald Francis Stackhouse: Madam Speaker, like other speakers in this debate, I want to support the intent of the Bill which I think will redress serious problems affecting many electors in our country.
I think of the provision in Section 2(89)(1) as affirming the rights of the elector rather than giving any advantage to the candidate or the Party or the campaign worker. It affirms the right of the tenant in the apartment, the owner of a condominium, or a permanent long-term resident in a hotel or apartment hotel to have access to the candidates among whom he or she must select. That right has been denied in many parts of this country on the assumption that if you are living in an apartment, condominium or hotel you somehow do not have a residence. There is an assumption in our country that unless you own a house, you do not really have a home.
Increasingly we find that people make their homes in the kinds of domiciles to which this legislation refers. I raised my children in a house. We now live in an apartment. I have owned a condominium. They are all great, but the assumption that a house is what everyone must have is no longer viable. Different kinds of accommodation suit different kinds of people at different stages in their lives. At all stages of their lives, regardless of condition or circumstances, they should have an equal right to participate in democracy.
Thank God we live in a country where voting does not put us at risk. I certainly want to endorse what the Hon. Member said in introducing his Bill, that to contrast the deplorable and savage situation in Haiti with the rights we have in this country is to make a statement which will drive home to everyone the great privileges we have in a democracy like Canada. However, always we have to make the system work more effectively. I believe that is the intent here and I hope the Bill will have an opportunity to be considered and find its way into legislation, particularly with reference to the provision
November 30, 1987

that will extend the right of people travelling or living temporarily abroad to have an opportunity to demonstrate that they are still Canadian citizens.
Earlier today I made reference to some of the volunteer workers I met just last week in countries of Central America. They had been there perhaps one year, five years or 25 years and were still Canadian citizens. They prize their citizenship. They bring honour to Canada. I have to wonder why we should not extend the provisions of this amendment to include those people who are working abroad for the objectives of the Canadian people and Canada in another part of the world. I am thinking of the clergy, social workers, aid workers, all of whom stay out of this country for a long time. Do they cease to be Canadians? I was privileged to meet so many of them, young, old, middle-aged, male and female, of different religions and political ideologies, but all with two things in common: Their dedication to the good of the human race, and their love for their native land. I hope that at some point in committee study and further examination of this legislation, it will be possible to provide for them.
When I read the explanatory note with regard to Clause 3 of this Bill which indicates that this provision would allow travellers and students temporarily resident outside Canada to vote in general elections, I thought that there ought to be some provision for the teacher as well as the student. There are many people who are temporarily outside this country as teachers. There are junior faculty members at colleges and universities in other countries who intend to come back here when there is an opportunity for a long-term teaching position. Must they lose the right to vote?
I hope there will be an opportunity for us to consider the many Canadians who go out of this country for different periods of time in order to practise their professions, take employment, serve in service organizations or whatever, who have a great love for their country and a great sense of belonging which they can manifest most effectively by casting their vote.
I want to take that a step further, namely, to provide for the Canadian traveller. I like very much the way in which this legislation refers to those travelling abroad because more and more Canadians today have the opportunity to do just that. I think of people who take early retirement, who have perhaps put away a little money during their working years with the hope of taking a long-postponed trip. They may find that their trip takes place just at the time when an election has been called.
I once checked into the dating of elections and found that elections have been held in this country in every one of the 12 months. There is no reason to assume that an election will not be held in any particular season. Must people who are fulfilling a perfectly legitimate and admirable desire of taking a long trip lose their vote?
Canada Elections Act
I can recall being in a position where I would have lost my vote but for the provision of an advance poll. Elowever, a person who is away on an extended trip of the kind I described when the advance polls are held has no opportunity to vote. I am pleased, therefore, to join the Eton. Member who introduced this legislation in pleading that there be some recognition of this need.
In conclusion, this Bill points out the great opportunity of Members of this Elouse. There are so many human needs which, to use the colloquialism, fall between the cracks. There are needs which no government Department or Minister has thought of, needs which have not found their way into the policy statement or election platform of any Party. Elowever, they are important needs. It is then up to the private Member to recognize them and seek redress of them in legislation which he or she can introduce. Such a Bill as that has been brought before us today. I know that in principle it receives the general approbation of this Elouse. I trust that at some time it will find its way into the statutes of the country.


Mr. Morrissey Johnson (Bonavista-Trinity-Conception):: Madam Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to join in debate on Bill C-268, an Act to amend the Canada Elections Act. This Bill makes a number of interesting suggestions on how we might improve the framework and procedures for voting in federal elections. It is, indeed, a timely subject.
The Government has taken a close look at the Elections Act, taking into account various recommendations made by the Chief Electoral Officer in his annual reports, recommendations made in the past by Members of this Elouse, particularly those on the Standing Committee on Elections, Privileges and Procedure, and recommendations based on the experience of the last general election. The Government has also suggested changes to bring the Act into line with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
There is an overlap between some of the proposals made by the Member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis) and amendments which the Government is proposing to make to the Canada Elections Act through Bill C-79. One example of this is contained in Clause 3 of Bill C-268 which we are presently debating. As Members know, the present Canada Elections Act provides the means for people in the Armed Forces and the public service and their dependants who live abroad to vote under special voting rules.
The Member who sponsored this Bill now suggests in Clause 3 of the Bill that this category of voters be broadened to include Canadians who are travelling abroad or living temporarily outside Canada at the time of a federal election. He goes on to suggest that these Canadians should use the same voting mechanism as that which is now in place for the Armed Forces, public servants, and their dependants who live abroad. I can say that I support this proposal in principle, although not in detail. In principle it is consistent with reforms proposed by the Government in Bill C-79.

November 30, 1987
Adjournment Debate
The issue of overseas voting has a long history. The Government's White Paper on election law reform points out, for example, that a recommendation to extend the franchise to Canadian citizens living abroad for voting in general elections was made by the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections as long ago as June 30, 1981, and again on June 26, 1984.
The Government announced its approval of the extension of the franchise to overseas voters in the White Paper. Further, it provided detailed proposals for a complete revision of the special voting rules contained in Schedule II of the Canada Elections Act. It is these amendments, with some additions, which are contained in Bill C-79.
The proposal made by the Member for Kamloops-Shuswap for extending the right to vote to more Canadians abroad is a good one, but it is not complete. For example, there is no provision to indicate how voters already abroad would make a statement of ordinary residence to indicate where their vote should be assigned. This step is now done automatically for Armed Forces and public service personnel and their dependants living abroad.
Under the present special voting rules the small number of Canadians now eligible to vote abroad do so at their base if they are in the Armed Forces, or at their respective unit or post if they are diplomats or other public servants living abroad.
This special voting procedure is adequate for the present population of Canadian voters abroad. In fact, under Bill C-79 it will be continued for Canadian Forces personnel overseas. However, the administrative difficulty of handling the much larger population of Canadian voters abroad who will soon be enfranchised through the present voting system would be too great.
According to estimates by the Department of External Affairs the number of Canadians residing abroad in 1983-84 was approximately 2.3 million. That represents almost 10 per cent of Canada's population. It is for this reason that a new system of voting by mailed ballot is proposed to replace the present special voting rules for all Canadians other than Canadian Forces personnel living outside of Canada.
Canadians will be eligible to register for voting abroad up to 10 days following the issue of the writ under the proposed Bill C-79. The voters' lists for Canadians abroad will then be closed to ensure that there is ample time for the sending and return of mailed ballots. To accommodate the procedure of mailed ballots there will be a longer voting period provided to overseas voters.
In essence, I think Bill C-268 is unnecessary because Bill C-79 will deal with what the Hon. Member has in mind.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The hour provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has
expired. Pursuant to Standing Order 42(1), the order is dropped from the Order Paper.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Mr. Alan Redway (York East):: Madam Speaker, during this past summer I had a visit to my constituency office from a delegation representing the survivors of the Air-India crash that occurred over two years ago. They wanted to point out to me their concerns about the fact that under our current immigration laws they believed it was easy for known terrorists and potential terrorists to enter Canada and cause us problems.
That was an understandable concern on their part, bearing in mind the fact that the Air-India crash had occurred years ago now and, in spite of at least two investigations and an ongoing investigation by the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, no one has been convicted of the bombing of that aircraft, no one has been arrested or even charged in connection with the bombing of that aircraft. Therefore, the feelings of the survivors of that Air-India crash are certainly understandable.
They are not the only ones who expressed their concerns to me about immigration and refugee laws and procedures with respect to terrorists and potential terrorists. Many other people expressed those same concerns to me last summer. In fact, one of my good friends, a leader of the Italian community in Toronto, Sabastiano di Lorenzo, expressed those same concerns. In fact, on the day before Parliament was recalled for its emergency session, he indicated to me that he expected to see and hear me speaking out on this issue on his behalf and on behalf of all his friends and neighbours who felt the same way.
That is also not surprising in view of the fact that at that time 174 people had just landed on the coast of Nova Scotia. Many of them did not have any identification papers and there was evidence that those who apparently had identification papers at one timS destroyed them when they landed. Therefore, there was a concern growing out of that situation.
Furthermore, the concern was also being expressed because of a report that was released at that time. It was the report of the Senate Special Committee on Terrorism and public safety. That report, which was released in July of this year, outlined the problem of international terrorism and pointed out that in Canada between 1960 and 1985 there were some 351 acts or threats of violence by terrorist groups in Canada against Canadian targets. At the same time, between those years 1960,
November 30, 1987

and 1985, there were another 48 acts or threats of violence by terrorist groups in Canada against other countries.
The report went on, as you will remember, Madam Speaker, to outline the legal framework in which we operate with respect to terrorists. It outlined the organization which was in place to try to deal with terrorists. It had some comments on the role the media should be playing with respect to terrorists and, on top of that, it dealt at considerable length with the whole issue of our Immigration Act, procedures and policies. It expressed the concern that those policies had been developed prior to the rise of international terrorists. It expressed concern as well that the system was now buckling under the weight of the numbers of people coming to this country, perhaps as applicants for landed immigrant status, perhaps as refugee claimants, or perhaps just as visitors. It pointed out that in 1986 some 80 million people entered Canada and there was in fact no way to identify these people properly, block the entry of terrorists, detain them or deport them.
Since that time we have had Bill C-84 and Bill C-55. I see that the Parliamentary Secretary is here tonight and I would like to ask him if those two Bills meet the recommendations of the Senate Committee on Terrorism. If they do meet those recommendations, why is the Senate holding up the passage of those two Bills? If in fact they have met the exact recommendations the Senate made to the people of Canada with respect to immigration procedures dealing with terrorists and potential terrorists entering this country, why is it holding up the passage of those Bills?


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to be back in the House and to respond to the Hon. Member for York East (Mr. Redway). I would like to give a little history. First, let me deal with the Air-India situation. Investigations are proceeding. At the point in which evidence is gathered that will enable prosecution, I think the Hon. Member can rest assured that the Government will move as quickly and thoroughly as possible to do what can be done to right that very grievous wrong which was perpetrated on so many innocent people.
The Hon. Member may or may not realize that in June of 1986 the House of Commons committee on immigration presented a unanimous all-Party report which certainly expressed our concern about the security issue. It was a departmental report that was subsequently caused to be put together interdepartmentally really, to look at the security concerns related to immigration. The Senate in the meantime conducted its investigation into the issue of terrorism.
The two reports have really led to the two pieces of legislation, at least in part. The Government introduced in May of 1987-which was really rather quick for the Government; it was about 10 months time-Bill C-55, which dealt with part of the problem that had surfaced to that point. In August, after
Adjournment Debate
releasing the Senate report, the Government responded very quickly indeed with a piece of legislation tabled in the House shortly after we came back on August 11. Those Bills are in the Senate.
The Hon. Member asked why they are not proceeding quickly through the Senate. I think he might have to ask the Senators. Certainly, Members of the House, the elected people of this country, have expressed their concern not only with the issues which are dealt with in the two pieces of legislation, but we have also had the ruling of the Speaker that the matters are urgent. Time is going on. Months are passing in the other place and so far it has not returned the Bills or approved the Bills.
The problem which was identified through both investigations had many facets and features to it, but today, under current legislation, until the Act is changed, we have no assurance that we can in fact detain people whose identities are unknown or who are suspected of being terrorists. The thrust of the two Bills would give the Government the powers to do that, always safeguarding the rights of the individual in terms of the provision of council, moving to use the federal court system instead of the CSIS body to make final determination so that it is done under Canadian law.
Much more could be said, Madam Speaker, and perhaps we could have a debate on another day.
HEALTH-ACID RAIN-HEALTH HAZARD QUERY/REQUEST FOR STRICTER POLLUTION EMISSION STANDARDS


Lynn McDonald: Madam Speaker, usually when we talk about the effects of acid rain, we talk about the physical environment and the destruction of lakes, rivers, farms, maple forests, buildings, and monuments in our cities.
Recently I raised a question with the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp) respecting the health consequences of acid rain. There are basically two types of health consequences. One is the immediate, and those are consequences which are largely in the respiratory system and the effect, for example, on asthmatic children. There have been some studies which show that lung functioning is not as good in children who live in areas with a large amount of acid rain, compared to children who live in areas with very little acid rain. This is certainly cause for concern.
There have been some American studies recently published in the newspapers respecting acid rain pollution killing 4,000 people. There was reference to death rates for different forms of cancer. For example, breast cancer and colon cancer may be affected by acid rain. We do not know the exact numbers for Canada, that is an estimate of 4,000. In the United States there have been estimates of up to 50,000 premature deaths a year. That is very serious.

November 30, 1987
Adjournment Debate
Incidentally, comparing those rates to tobacco related diseases, 4,000 for Canada is much less than the 35,000 people who die from tobacco related diseases who are directly smokers, but it is a lot more than the people that we have been able to document, which is in the hundreds, who are dying from the indirect consequences. This is a very serious problem, probably affecting a substantial number of people in Canada.
We cannot approve the association of acid rain and health consequences in an experimental fashion, which is in a way similar to the fact that we cannot prove a connection between tobacco smoking and lung cancer or heart disease deaths. It is a statistical association. There will never be more than a statistical association, because morally speaking we could not separate people at birth into groups who will be exposed to acid rain, or tobacco smoke, and people who will not be exposed, or who will be minimally exposed and in years later see what rates of cancer they get. Cancer takes a long time to develop; respiratory ailments usually take some time, although in the case of asthma there may be immediate consequences. It would be unconscionable to do that type of thing, and totally impossible to think about it. So the statistical association must be investigated.
That would help us considerably in our fight for acid rain in the United States. That is where at least half of our fight for acid rain controls has to take place, because half of our acid rain in Canada comes from the United States. American Congressmen and Senators would be much more keen on tough measures if they could see the health consequences, and not only the effects on the environment. Given their legislative programs and the atmosphere in which they work, that would help our American friends who are concerned about the environment and give them useful ammunition in the struggle for good, strong laws and programs.
Unfortunately, that is not what our Government has been doing. I am sorry to say also in the case of the recent conference in Geneva on emissions of nitrogen oxides of various sorts, our Government's representatives took a very complacent attitude indeed. What they asked for was simply not adequate. We need tough emission standards for cars and trucks. There needs to be real reductions. Instead, Canada opted for a freeze which is not to come into effect immediately, but after some years. In the meantime, these pollutants are increasing in quantity. I suspect in our very approach to the question of so-called critical loadings, that the Minister likes to talk about, that in the case of the nitrogen oxides each country would set its critical loads, how much the environment can take and still survive.
I suspect that these amounts have not been estimated correctly. We do not know what are the consequences of these kinds of emissions year after year. We do not know whether the effects in areas where there has already been substantial destruction have been reversed.
The same goes for health consequences which were not considered when the critical load numbers were decided upon. It became a much more political exercise-what can we get the Americans to accept, not what are the health consequences or how can we protect the Canadian natural environment and the health of Canadians?
We need to go a very long way in pressing our case with the Americans. I am sorry that the opportunity in Geneva was not taken for Canada to be a leader in the reduction of emissions. Canada took the same position which the Americans have been taking on acid rain in our bilateral discussions, that is, that the case has not been proven, that we can be complacent, and that we do not have to worry about it.
We have a long way to go to clean up our own act. I urge the Government, when it looks at the issue of critical loads, to consider the health consequences, to look seriously at what is happening to the health of Canadians, and to look seriously at what is happening to our waters, forests, and farms.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Madam Speaker, the Government shares the Hon. Member's concern about the potential linkage between acid rain and health consequences. However, I do not think the Government shares the Hon. Member's view that scientific data are irrelevant, can be ignored, or can be taken on one side of the fence.
It is clear from scientists in a number of countries that the link between particular health hazards and the presence or absence of acid rain cannot be proved or disproved.
I think the Hon. Member knows that the Department of National Health and Welfare has been actively engaged in research and attending international symposiums around the world because of the concern that there might indeed be a link and that steps might have to be taken if those links are at all demonstrated. She mentioned the studies on lung function, particularly in children, conducted by Health and Welfare Canada in terms of areas where acid rain pollution was high and areas where acid rain pollution was low. There was a 2 per cent impact in high pollution areas on lung functioning, but certainly no correlation was established with lung disease. In fact, when children were removed from the pollution, lung functioning returned to normal. I think that is the scientific evidence.
Similarly the Department has conducted studies in the cottage areas of Canada where water is sitting around in cisterns and in tanks of one kind or another. There are elevated levels of chemicals associated with acid rain, but a flushing of the systems tends to remove the contaminants, so they are relatively easy to get rid of.
A major study is under way, sponsored by the Government of Canada in collaboration with American environmental scientists. It is a five-year population based study which may provide us with more answers down the road. It is just another indication of the Government's concern for this issue.
November 30, 1987

Also the Hon. Member mentioned the association of sulphur dioxide with colon and breast cancers. That study more clearly showed that the presence or absence of Vitamin D might be associated. There is some sense that indeed acid rain pollution might affect Vitamin D levels because of its impact on ultraviolet radiation. However, it is a bit of a leap to come to the conclusion that acid rain is indeed responsible for those increases in cancer. Scientifically it is a very difficult proposition to make and to hold on to.
In fact, just two short months ago an international symposium on the health effects of acid aerosols reviewed adverse health effects studies in many countries. It clearly concluded that more research was needed, because none of the results to date have anything more than a very tenuous link to the phenomena identified by the Hon. Member.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS-VICTIMS OF BRAINWASHING EXPERIMENTS FUNDED BY CIA-REQUEST FOR FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE IN SEEKING LEGAL REDRESS
Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, it was a little over seven years ago that nine Canadians, all victims of terrible brainwashing experiments by the late psychiatrist Dr. Cameron at Montreal's Allan Memorial Institute, launched a $9 million lawsuit against the CIA of the United States. Indeed, both the CIA and the Canadian Government, particularly the Ministry of Health and Welfare, funded these experiments which were not only unethical but brain damaging, resulting in permanent damage to the victims of the experiments which took place in the 1950s and early 1960s.
For seven years, these Canadians have been seeking justice in U.S. courts. Unfortunately, they are also seeking support from the Canadian Government but to date, at least, that support is sadly lacking. Nine victims have sued the CIA for its part in these grisly experiments, alleging that the CIA was criminally negligent and reckless in supporting Dr. Cameron's brainwashing experiments. One of the victims has died since the suit was launched. We can only hope that more will not die before justice is finally done in this matter.
What we are talking about here is a horror story in which both the Canadian Government and the CIA were implicated. As one of the victims, Velma Orlikow-incidentally, the wife of one of our colleagues in the House, the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow)-said:
-get off your horse and help us. We need some help from our government. We're innocent victims of something that happened that should never have been. You can't put us back where we were, but at least do something to help us now. Do something to stand up and say this can't happen in Canada.
The lawyer who was working tirelessly and courageously on behalf of these victims cannot understand why the Canadian Government will not stand up for nine Canadians who were victims of terrible experiments. He says:
I keep asking Canadians why your Government is acting this way. Some say it is the usual Canadian fright of the Big Brother to the South. Others say it is Canada's, now admitted, involvement with Dr. Cameron. I still do not know.
Adjournment Debate
But one thing I do know-it's a hell of a note when a 75 year old U.S. civil liberties lawyer cares more about these injured Canadian citizens, now in the twilight of life, than their own Government.
What did the Conservative Government do in response to this tragic situation? It appointed a former Conservative Member of Parliament who was defeated in the 1984 election to conduct the study, a Mr. George Cooper. Cooper came to the conclusion that there was no moral or legal responsibility whatever on the part of the Government of Canada to the victims of these experiments. Cooper suggested that there was perhaps no permanent harm done and that the involvement of the CIA was simply, in his words, "a red herring". All of this without Cooper even interviewing a single one of the victims of these experiments and without examining any of their medical files or reviewing any of the records of the CIA offered by the U.S. Government.
Approximately a year ago I asked the then Minister of Justice what action he would take to assist these individuals in their lawsuit against the CIA in Washington. The Minister of Justice stated at that time that the Government has assisted and will continue to assist the plaintiffs. Nothing has happened so far. On June 3, 1987 I asked the Minister of Justice (Mr. Hnatyshyn):
In view of the commitment over a year ago by the then Minister of Justice to consider seriously assisting these people financially, when will the Conservative Government finally move to assist these victims of these terrible experiments in their pursuit of justice against the CIA.
The Minister of Justice said:
I can only say to the Hon. Member that I am in a process of consulting and looking at this matter... I hope that we will be able to come forward with some concrete results in the very near future.
How much longer must the victims of these brainwashing experiments wait before getting action from the Canadian Government? What about a simple offer of assistance of legal aid or access to all documents which might help them in their court battle? This same Government was very eager to assist the Hon. Member for York-Peel (Mr. Stevens) in spending hundreds of thousands of dollars on his legal fees. Why will the Government not do the right thing in this case and assist the victims of these brainwashing experiments as well? Joseph Rauh said:
If I were a Canadian I'd be ashamed of my own government.
I am ashamed of a Government which has so far refused to do the right thing and assist the victims of these experiments. I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will rise in his place tonight and give some concrete support to the eight individuals and the estate of the ninth, and some assurance that they will not be doubly victimized. They were victimized by these terrible experiments by Dr. Cameron and now they are being victimized by their own Government. The time for action and justice is long overdue.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Madam

November 30, 1987
Adjournment Debate
Speaker, sometimes the Elon. Member makes me somewhat ashamed to be in this Chamber. He is somewhat loose with the truth where the reputations of others are concerned. I would simply point out that he said Mr. Cooper was defeated in the 1984 election. Mr. Cooper was a Member between 1979 and 1980. He has first rate credentials in the legal profession extending over at least 20 years. This attempt to paint him as something less than perfect as a political appointment is unworthy of the Hon. Member.
It is also unworthy of him, in a situation so serious and one about which this Government cares so much, to attempt to paint the Government as a do-nothing Government. In 1977, long before we became the Government, this case was brought to the attention of the Canadian people. Since the late fall of 1984, when we became the Government, we escalated concern about this matter by bringing it up directly between our Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) and his U.S. counterpart, Mr. Shultz. They have had top-level political discussions on this issue.
The Hon. Member mentioned in a denigrating fashion the Cooper commission. That legal investigation by a reputable member of the Canadian Bar was brought about by this Government for the purpose of determining whether there was any possibility of legal liability on the part of the Government of Canada.


Svend Johannes Robinson: It was a whitewash.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: He calls it a whitewash. He uses inflammatory language and attempts to turn a very serious human problem into political advantage for himself and his Party. He cheapens himself in the process.
This Government is still considering the possibility of financial assistance under current laws for this group of people. We have provided not only all of the information available in Canada to the plaintiffs for use in their U.S. court action, but insisted that we be allowed to turn over to the plaintiffs' counsel all the information provided to us by the U.S. government counsel. That has been done.
The Government is in touch on a regular basis with the plaintiffs and their lawyer. To try and characterize that as doing nothing is to cheapen the Member's intervention, his question, and put in doubt the sincerity of his commitment to these nine people. I think this Government has shown more commitment to the human dimension of this situation than the Hon. Member has.


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


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 6.30 p.m.
[Stage Direction]

Tuesday, December 1, 1987
[Stage Direction]
Prayers