1990-05-04

[Stage Direction]


[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-53, an act to amend the Criminal Code (arson), as reported (with an amendment) from a legislative committee.
Mr. Speaker:: There is one motion on the notice paper offered in amendment to the report stage of Bill C-53, an act to amend the Criminal Code (arson), standing in the name of the hon. member for Scarborough-Rouge River.

The House will now proceed with motion numbered 1. [English]


Mr. Derek Lee (Scarborough-Rouge River) moved:: That Bill C-53 be amended in Clause 1 by striking out lines 26 to 45 at page 2 and substituting the following therefor:
"436. Every person who owns, in whole or in part, or controls property is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years where
(a)	that person wilfully or recklessly disregards the life or safety of another person or the security of property by failing to comply with any law respecting the prevention of fires or explosions in the property; and
(b)	the failure to comply with a law mentioned in paragraph (a) is a cause of a fire or an explosion in the property which causes bodily harm to another person or damage to property."
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise at this time to speak to my amendment to Bill C-53, a bill providing for reform of the arson legislation.
Section 436 as it is proposed now in the government's Bill C-53 purports to create a new offence which has been generally called "arson by negligence" where fire results from a degree of negligence. The key words and thrust of the new section are that a person would be guilty of an offence under that section if the person is a cause of a fire-and that does not mean the cause but a cause, among others-and where the fire is the result of a marked departure from a standard of care that a reasonably prudent person would use.
The issue that that raises is this. What is a marked departure from that standard of care? Here we are forced to use some hypotheticals. It could be a careless or a stupid act like leaving an open can of gasoline next to a furnace burner in a basement, or it could simply be an omission.
Here I would use a hypothetical something like a senior citizen of advanced years living in his or her home who fails to correct substandard wiring in their home. That is assuming that the wiring as it exists now does not comply with existing municipal by-law standards.
The proposed Section 436 does not leave us without any help as to what a marked departure from that standard is.
Subsection (2) of the proposed section permits a court to infer a marked departure from a standard of care where there is a failure to comply with any law respecting the prevention of fires. In this case of a by-law governing an electrical wiring, I think I could reasonably infer that that was the purpose of such a by-law.
In this particular hypothetical we have a situation where this person, perhaps of advanced years, and perhaps not as mindful of things as he or she might have been in their youth, fails to comply with the municipal by-law, whether or not they knew it, because the section does not require the person who breaches the municipal by-law to know that they breached it. Nor does it require

May 4, 1990
Government Orders
a conviction. Whether or not they knew they were in breach of the by-law, it permits a court to infer that there was a marked departure.
In that hypothetical we have created a situation where a person has become criminally liable, someone who did not intend to become criminally liable and who did not know that they were criminally liable.
In our criminal law we have certain safeguards which have been with us for years-almost for centuries, I could say. We go back to the Magna Carta for that purpose.
To be guilty of a criminal act, there must be an act or an omission of some sort, and there must be an element accompanying that which manifests an intention to do the act or to fail to act, in the case of an omission.
However, in this case we have a person who, in my view, never had the intention to be a criminal and did not know an offence was committed until afterward when the Crown Attorney becomes the lightning rod for all the anger and frustration that usually accompanies a tragic fire of this sort.
That is not how our criminal law is supposed to work. How can we deter citizens from committing offences if they do not know they are committing them as they go about their lives? In this case the person really would not know they had been guilty of an offence until afterward when a charge was laid and they were convicted.
There are three problems that have been cited in connection with this section dealing with arson by negligence. The first is that it creates a fuzzy standard, one that has not been used before. The standard of a marked departure from a standard of care that a reasonably prudent person would use is a standard that is used in the civil law, but not the criminal law.
Second, the section purports to impose what lawyers and law professors call an "objective standard" relative to the mental element or intention of the criminal offence I referred to earlier. The Supreme Court has divided on a couple of occasions on the issue of whether it will permit the criminal law to use an objective standard. There is a continuing sense that we must have
a subjective standard, a subjective reference point when dealing with the intention of an alleged criminal.
Third, there is some consensus in some quarters that this provision as it is may bump up against and fail because of the Section 7 guarantees of fundamental justice in our Charter.
What this section really does is permit a Crown attorney to say to the court: "Your Honour, here are the facts. Here is the tragic result. You decide whether this person was a good guy or a bad guy, and if you want to convict him, go ahead". Meanwhile, this good guy or bad guy never knew that he or she was a good guy or a bad guy in the hypothetical I presented, and that is not right.
The amendment I propose targets those who advertently, wilfully and recklessly endanger life or safety by failing to comply with any law with respect to the prevention of fires or explosions.
The concept of criminal negligence which I would use is already incorporated in our Criminal Code. The provisions of wilfulness, recklessness and disregard for life are elements that deal with the intention or mental element I referred to earlier. The section is viable under the Charter. It has been tested and we currently use it, for example, in criminal negligence cases causing loss of life and in motor vehicle cases involving negligence.
If we pass the government's proposed Section 436, we leave open the possibility of a court challenge. The Department of Justice knows that it is breaking new ground with this section, new ground that presents risks to our civil liberties vis-a-vis the protections we have in our criminal law. If this section does not survive a court challenge, then we have succeeded in creating a new section of the Criminal Code that is just as clumsy and unworkable as those old outmoded clumsy sections we have been trying to replace through reform. That is the risk which I submit the government is taking at this time.
The Canadian Bar Association supports this amendment. In fact, it has drafted it. I will not take credit for its drafting. I am pleased to present this amendment to the House.
May 4, 1990

I challenge the government not to gamble with these uncertain standards and not to permit a court challenge dealing with validity involving the Criminal Code standards or Section 7 of the Charter.
I urge the government not to permit the Department of Justice to continue to live life in the fast lane like this and to support my amendment.


Mr. Chris Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak on this bill to amend the arson legislation. These measures will, as we know, result in tougher criminal sanctions for arson, particularly in cases resulting in bodily harm or in arson involving homes or other residences. Those tougher criminal sanctions are to be welcomed.
It is to be noted, too, that this is the first major change to the Criminal Code provisions on arson in this century since 1892. We are dealing with an area which we have not rushed into in the past, but it is an important area to which we should pay careful attention.
With regard to Section 436 and the amendment proposed by the member for Scarborough-Rouge River, we have some major concerns with the terminology used in the government's version of the section to which the hon. member has referred.
He quite rightly pointed out that a person could be charged with a criminal offence for not being the cause of a fire but for being a cause of a fire. It is not that I have so many concerns about that if one or a number of people are engaged in ensuring that arson takes place. The more important concern is with regard to the standard or to the test which will be applied as to whether or not a person will be found guilty of the offence.
At best, it is a nebulous charge. It may be, as has been pointed out, that it will be rendered unconstitutional.
I would like to read the proposed terminology in the government's bill. It states that a person would be liable "where, as a result of a marked departure from the standard of care that a reasonably prudent person would use to prevent fires or explosions, that person is a cause of a fire or explosion in that property that causes bodily harm to another person or damage to property".
Government Orders
We would, of course, always have some concerns and some uncertainties as to what is meant by a marked departure, although some statements by the Supreme Court of Canada certainly suggest that that is a reasonable guideline. I will come back to that.
There is clearly some uncertainty about what will be meant by "a marked departure". That would leave Canadians uncertain as to the behaviour expected of them, leading up to any potential criminal offence. Indeed, leading up to and after a case of arson, they would not know, nor would they be able to know, what standard of care was expected of them, what would be a marked departure from that standard of care and what would not be.
We also have difficult problems of predictability when we use a standard of care that is expected of a reasonably prudent person. It is, as has been pointed out, the standard used in assessing civil actions, for instance, whether or not in a motor vehicle accident somebody has acted in a way which would not meet the standard of care expected of a reasonably prudent driver of a motor vehicle.
We have not explored the opportunities for using those sorts of standards in the Criminal Code. I think it unwise to suggest to Canadians that they will be treated as criminals and, indeed, will be punished as criminals when the activity that they pursue is not deliberate activity but is activity which is negligent, and not of any particular level of negligence either. In the terminology of "marked departure" there is some lesser degree of negligence than, for example, there is with gross negligence.
It is not generally expected by Canadians that they will be treated as criminals unless they have the intention to be criminals. There are some exceptions, but I think in the case of arson, and in this case, we do not need to go as far as to make negligent Canadians criminals in this regard. That is not to say that we should not be tightening the rules with regard to arson. As I said, my party and I welcome that.
The amendment proposed by the hon. member for Scarborough-Rouge River is to make the provisions clearly more certain for those who might be involved, and also to ensure that those who are treated as criminals are people who have done something deliberately or sufficiently recklessly as to almost make it deliberate in the activity involved.


Hon. Kim Campbell (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, this bill, Bill C-53, has received wide support.
The only provision on which there is a difference of opinion is that contained in the definition of negligent arson. The government accepted the suggestion made by the Canadian Bar Association concerning the area covered by this offence.

However, there still remains a difference of opinion as to which definition of negligence should be adopted.
The hon. member for Scarborough-Rouge River in his Notice of Motion has advanced the definition proposed by the Canadian Bar Association. The government, having been urged by a number of persons to retain an offence of arson by negligence, in this bill has favoured the test for negligence proposed by the Law Reform Commission of Canada in its report 31.
Although, in most cases the two tests would produce the same result, they would lead to a different result where, on the evidence, it is clear that a property owner or manager neglected to maintain his or her property and the neglect was a cause of a fire or explosion in that property which caused bodily harm to another or damaged a property.
Under the formulation of the hon. member for Scarborough-Rouge River, the issue before the court would be whether the owner or manager had been reckless in that he or she had been aware of the risk of fire or explosions. Such an owner could argue that he or she was never consciously aware of a risk of fire, but just neglected the premises. In effect, the owner would be permitted to turn a blind eye to the risk of fire, and if believed would be acquitted.
I could go further and say that the amendment as proposed by the hon. member for Scarborough-Rouge River requires, as a preliminary threshold for establishing an offence under this section, that a person has failed to comply with any law because wilful or reckless regard for the life or safety of another person is defined as failing to comply with any law respecting the prevention of fires or explosions in the property. There is an initial threshold that has to be overcome to establish that there
May 4, 1990

is a law in place, whether that would be a provincial law or a municipal bylaw, that that law has been breached by the person in question and then criminal liability results from that.
I believe the formulation which the government favours is one that is a little broader and which takes into account the inherent nature of the behaviour of the person who is accused irrespective of whether that behaviour can be found to come within an existing legal framework; in other words, whether a law has been breached. The preliminary threshold of establishing the existence of a law and its breach prior to establishing the mens rea sufficient to convict under this section is not a barrier which is in the government's formulation.
I think it is very important because the whole notion of the law of negligence is that there are obligations and duties in society that may not be statutory but that are nonetheless obligations and duties that individuals can be bound by in their responsibility to their fellow man, and that is the duty of care as we discuss in the law of negligence.
Under the government's formulation, the issue before the court would be whether the accused's conduct constituted a marked departure from the standard of care that a reasonably prudent person would use. Under the government's formulation, the property owner or manager would not be allowed to turn a blind eye to the deterioration of the premises as a result of his or her neglect and would be convicted irrespective of whether a law relating to the premises had been breached.
As between the two tests, the government's formulation would place an unmistakable onus on those who own or operate multiple-unit dwellings, especially rooming houses, to not neglect their properties to the point that they become fire traps.
We have chosen to proceed with the government's formulation because we have an obligation to do all the law can to ensure the safety of those who live in these units, many of whom have no other place to go.
With respect to the comments of my colleague from Scarborough-Rouge River and further to what was indicated by the hon. member for Saskatoon-Clark's
Government Orders
Crossing, on the terminology "marked departure", that test was taken from the judgment of Mr. Justice McIntyre, as he then was in the Supreme Court of Canada in its decision in the Tutton case. The marked departure will be a question of fact in every case. In the scenario described by my colleague from Scarborough-Rouge River, I believe marked departure is a high threshold which has to be established before liability can attach. The examples the hon. member used would not likely constitute marked departure.
I would argue that the government's formulation which is taken from the recommendation of the Law Reform Commission is better in that it reduces the two-stage threshold; the need to establish the existence of a law that has not been complied with before criminal liability can be found under this act, that criminal liability relates directly to the actual behaviour of the person who is accused and whether that behaviour is a marked departure from the standard of care that a reasonably prudent person would be found to be obliged to observe.
On that basis, I wish to indicate my support for the government's formulation of this clause in the bill. I intend to speak against the amendment.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The question is on the amendment. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: In my opinion, the nays have it.
Amendment (Mr. Lee) negatived.


A. Kim Campbell: that the bill be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
A. Kim Campbell: that the bill be read the third time and passed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed.
[Stage Direction]
May 4, 1990
Government Orders

[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-59, an act to amend various acts to give effect to the reconstitution of the courts in British Columbia, as reported (without amendment) from a Legislative Committee.
A. Kim Campbell: that the bill be concurred in.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The hon. member for Mission-Coquitlam.


Ms. Langan:: Mr. Speaker, I think both the Liberal member and myself rose to speak on the bill that we were just discussing. Could you clarify what happened? Have you moved on without giving us an opportunity to speak?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Bill C-59 has been concurred in, and now we are at third reading.


A. Kim Campbell: that the bill be read a third time and passed.


Joy Langan: Mr. Speaker, I rise to say I favour there being a tightening of legislation with regard to arson.
I feel somewhat disappointed that I did not have the opportunity to speak to the amendment. What we have had in this Chamber today is presentation on all sides regarding the amendment, and the main motion put forward by people with a legal background. One of the things I would like to discuss is this motion.
The difficulty I feel we have is in putting forward legislation that is not understandable by the average Canadian. It seems to me that as legislators we have been discussing putting forward legislation in this House that is understandable, that is not cloaked in legalese, not cloaked in the kind of language that creates, if you like, a new industry of interpretation.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Bill C-53 which the hon. member is debating now has been adopted. I am afraid that what we are talking about now is C-59. We cannot go back to C-53. It has been adopted and carried.
I regret that the hon. member did not rise in order to speak on C-53.1 cannot do anything unless members rise and say they want to speak. The procedure is the mover of the motion and usually somebody from the NDP and then the minister winds up. If the hon. member had risen I would have recognized her.
Now we are on C-59. If you wish to speak on this bill I will hear you. It has to do with the reconstitution of the courts of British Columbia.
The hon. member for Mission-Coquitlam.


Joy Langan: Mr. Speaker, I had risen and that is why I asked for clarification. I would like at this time to move:
That this House do now adjourn.


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


Some Hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Negatived? All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Call in the members.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I declare the motion lost.
Resuming debate on Bill C-59, the hon. member for Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing.


Chris Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, we are debating an act to reconstitute the courts in British Columbia.
This bill is not a controversial piece of legislation, but it is important to recognize that the business of the House does not work very effectively if members are not able to present their positions on bills like this. On the bill that was of some importance today, the bill dealing with arson, there were members who wanted to speak, but unfortunately they were not given the opportunity to do so. Two speakers stood but they were not recognized, and consequently things happened then which nobody particularly wanted to happen.
We are now dealing with legislation to merge the county courts in British Columbia with the Supreme Court, a move which has been taking place across the country. The opportunity is for courts to be more as one court, rather than a range of courts, still under the jurisdiction of the federal government.
The provinces are supportive of the measure, and it certainly seems desired by the province of British Columbia. Once we have dealt with Ontario, this would leave only the Nova Scotia court system with a divided trial court jurisdiction.
We are seeing movements across the country to bring federal courts together under one aegis, if you like. We have supported this merger and will continue to support it. It should result in a more effective court system across
Government Orders
British Columbia and the other provinces where it has been adopted.
There are some matters with judges and the courts which we might want to refer to in dealing with this piece of legislation. We have, over the last while, seen comments made by judges on a range of activities which should give concern to the federal government. One matter in particular is giving concern to the members in the New Democratic Party, and that is the independence of the judiciary.
There is a case in Quebec of a family court judge speaking out against inadequate services for the protection of children. She now finds herself being accused of improper conduct for not following the normal procedures expected of judges. Surely, we do not expect our judges to close their minds to the things going on around them. We should expect them to take a leadership role in pointing out matters which they feel concerning our society, and in particular, those which they encounter as a result of the activities they pursue on a regular basis. If they do recognize that services are inadequate and they cannot do their job effectively because of, for example, inadequate social services, then it is important that they be able to speak out against them.
I think it is important for all of us to recognize and support judges who do speak out against injustices in our society. We know of other judges faced with that problem. A former leader in British Columbia, Mr. Justice Berger, was faced with some of those concerns as well. He felt that he was unable to speak out on important constitutional matters and found it no longer possible to stay on the bench as a result of those restrictions.
While discussing the proposals to put county courts and the Supreme Court of British Columbia under one organization, it is important to recognize that not all is well with the way in which our judges are treated and the way in which we, as a society, can make use of judges both on and off the bench.
We have concerns, as we have all heard, over the recent while of male judges in particular, not speaking in favourable terms towards women and indeed being insulting toward women from the bench. We know that that does not help the public view the courts with the appropriate level of respect that is needed in the circumstances.

May 4, 1990
Government Orders
We have concerns about the way in which the courts operate. We think it is important that the courts be streamlined so they will become more efficient and effective. We have to bear in mind that not everything that judges do is well regarded, especially when they attack and insult Canadians. We hope these concerns will be treated in the appropriate way. It is important that judges who do make attacks on women that have been the victims of various sorts of abuse, are chastised and not permitted to carry on in the way in which they have done in the past. It is important for all of us to speak out against that.
The NDP is in favour of this bill, and we are supporting the merger of the courts in British Columbia, the county courts with the Supreme Court.


Mr. Jim Fulton (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have an opportunity to speak on Bill C-59. I hope we have an opportunity to hear from the Minister of Justice on a couple of points that I am going to raise.
The concept of the merging of courts is something that has been going on for a long period of time, not just in Canada and British Columbia but in many areas of the world. This is in part because of the duplication of some services and the more appropriate delivery of services that one gets with a more streamlined system.
British Columbia is a case in point where we have the former Chief Justice of the British Columbia Supreme Court, now the Chief Justice of the British Columbia Court of Appeal, Mr. McEachern. At this time, rather than being seized with mostly Court of Appeal actions, Mr. Justice McEachern is seized with one of the most important matters ever to come before the Supreme Court of British Columbia, that is the Gitksan-Wet'Su-wet'en trial that is presently in its final stages in Smithers, in northwestern British Columbia.
After many years of having worked in all levels of the courts in British Columbia as an officer of the court, in many cases that might go to the Supreme Court or to the Court of Appeal, they will be better dealt with by having, what might be described as the umbrella approach in relation to cases that are on appeal. Also, this happens where various kinds of injunctive actions are being sought, such as those that have been sought in relation to many First Nations cases and so on.
We on this side would like to hear from the Minister of Justice about that part of the bill which deals with money matters, and clause 25 is obviously the part that relates to salaries of judges. One of the great problems being faced in British Columbia is having access to funds to take various matters to the court, which is something that has been raised many times in this House.
This is not only in relation to charter and constitutional matters, but to one of the most serious problems that we have in British Columbia at the moment. It is one that is continuing to accelerate on both the legal and political scale, and that is in relation to matters facing First Nations. Since the Minister of Justice has chosen to use this B.C. court amendment to deal with money matters, we on this side, following Question Period, very much look forward to hearing from the minister.
We want to know why, if some money matters were chosen to be dealt with in relation to salaries, the same kind of opportunity was not chosen to introduce into the bill, a somewhat more compassionate and realistic reflection of the needs in British Columbia for access. They need access until this bill is passed by Governor in Council, for matters that either end up in the Supreme Court of British Columbia, such as the Gitksan-Wet'Su-wet'en trial and others, or matters that end up at the B.C. Court of Appeal.
There are matters such as the Meares Island case and others, where there are groups whose rights are being abridged and violated. In a province like British Columbia there is a great need for access to funds. They need it not just for legal counsel but also to prepare cases that are becoming increasingly complex. In relation to recent rulings of the Supreme Court of Canada, we know of the need for small groups to have access to funds to protect their rights.
In a province like British Columbia, access to funds is needed so aboriginal peoples, in particular, can properly prepare themselves in relation to historic treaties and in relations with the provincial or federal legislatures. I look forward to hearing the Minister of Justice who, perhaps has plans to attach to this other financial proposals, of which I think funding access to the courts would be the most important.
At the beginning of the bill, it would be interesting to hear from the Minister of Justice-
May 4, 1990


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: It being eleven o'clock a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 35, the House will now proceed to Statements by Members pursuant to Standing Order 31.


STATEMENTS PURSUANT TO S. O. 31
Mr. Larry Schneider (Regina-Wascana):: Mr. Speaker, the goods and services tax, Canada's answer to the European Community's value added tax, is an excellent target for the opposition to hone its expertise for scaring and misinforming Canadians, a talent they developed during the last election.
People are worried, but they are slowly becoming angry. They are no longer satisfied with the hollow opposition rhetoric and are demanding information. In my office, we have responded to hundreds and hundreds of requests for information about the goods and services tax.
I have received outright support and qualified acceptance for the GST and, of course, some people remain to be convinced. I am sure time will show Canadians that this tough political decision will create a fairer tax system and a stronger country. The Liberal members of the other place know this, which is why they have already begun to stall passage of the bill. There is more concern for the welfare of the Liberal party in the other place than there is for the welfare of Canadians.

[Translation\


LINGUISTIC MINORITIES
Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Mr. Speaker, after two years of gradually losing his patience, the commissioner of Official Languages has repeated his threat to resign because of the government's failure to table its draft regulations arising from the Official Languages Act.
The Federation des francophones hors Quebec, the national organization which represents francophone minorities in Canada, has now withdrawn from consultations with Treasury Board.
Mr. Speaker, the FFHQ refuses to be a party to this government's manoeuvring to delay indefinitely the implementation of the Official Languages Act. The government's reluctance to implement a policy it has been bragging about for two years is both incomprehensible and unacceptable. The time for consultation is over. Language minorities want action. If the Prime Minister is at all serious about this matter, he will accept my invitation to appear before the committee on Official Languages and explain his government's inability to table in the House the regulations arising from this legislation.


MONEY LAUNDERING
Mr. Bill Attewell (Markham-Whitchurch-Stouff-ville):: Mr. Speaker, there is increased concern over the growth in drug trafficking in Canada and the laundering of illegal drug money into the global financial system.
Today, I want to commend Donald Fullerton, the head of the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce for his "get tough" recommendation. Mr. Fullerton said: "Banks that knowingly launder money by electronic transactions should be barred from the system that makes those transactions possible".
Money laundering involves about $85 billion U.S. a year in Europe and North America, according to a task force report. "We need to put teeth into the codes of conduct governing our members", said Mr. Fullerton, "and we need the courage to be ruthless with those who break the rules".
I call upon this government to initiate the brutal action required.


THE PRIME MINISTER
Mr. Ron MacDonald (Dartmouth):: Mr. Speaker, Canadians are well aware of the Prime Minister's fetish for Guccis and Perrier. Today, we read in La Presse newspaper that two food tasters accompanied him on his recent trip to the Atlantic provinces. This raises many interesting questions.

May 4, 1990
Are these the first food tasters to travel with him? If not, what happened to the previous ones? Have these jobs been given a high risk factor, given that the PM has broken all records for unpopularity?
We also read that the Tories are having a special caucus meeting this weekend. Rumours persist that two former caucus members from Alberta were recently spied in the cookbook section of Coles bookstore and could be masquerading as chefs at Mont Tremblant this weekend.
I would suggest to the PM that, in the event that the GST is on his political menu, perhaps he should pass on the beef cordon bleu and pears flambe this weekend, and opt instead for brown bag "baloney" sandwiches, a meat delicacy we know he must love because Canadians are constantly telling us he is full of it.


VIA RAIL
James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, VIA Rail's 1989 annual report is out and it reveals a very different picture from that given by the Conservatives.
The Tories claimed that Canadians were giving up on the trains. In fact, ridership was up and trains were more full. The Tories claimed the revenue was down and costs were up. In fact, VIA was costing less and making more. The first six months of 1989 showed a 4 per cent increase over the same period of 1988. It was only after a 10 per cent fare increase was forced on VIA by the Conservatives that the corporation's progress faltered. The crippling of VIA by the Conservatives through arbitrary cuts, uncertainty and privatization of popular routes such as the Rocky Mountaineer reveal a group of politicians determined to destroy a transportation service popular and needed among Canadians.
More cuts are now proposed and the target is the remote lines which VIA operates as a mandatory part of the network. To those who understand the environmental and the economic value of passenger trains in Canada, these cuts reveal Conservative policy as dangerously ignorant and biased against the west, biased against rural Canada, and biased against common sense.


GOODS AND SERVICES TAX
Mr. Greg Thompson (Carleton-Charlotte):: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister yesterday brought good news to Atlantic Canada by announcing that the data processing centre that will administer the goods and services tax will be established in Summerside, Prince Edward Island.
This new centre will create 400 direct full and parttime jobs for the people of Summerside, in addition to 100 indirect jobs and is further evidence of this government's commitment to generate economic growth in the regions of the country.
As Premier Ghiz so aptly stated: "This announcement is a fulfilment of the Prime Minister's personal leadership and a symbol of the kind of reconciliation and fairness that Canadian federalism is all about. I applaud the Prime Minister's initiative on behalf of the people of Summerside and look forward to more good news for Atlantic Canada".


INTEREST RATES
Mr. Lyle Vanclief (Prince Edward-Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, the current government has systematically brought Canadian businessmen to their knees with its unrelenting policy of high interest rates. With the bank prime set in excess of 14.25 per cent, which means that many businesses pay 1 to 2 per cent higher than that, small businesses are now on the brink of financial disaster.
As well, it is throwing all of the government's claims of deficit reduction and on-track budgeting of federal finances out of reach. A 1 per cent increase in the central bank's interest rate hikes the deficit by $1.7 billion. How can their claims to being fiscally responsible be considered as credible? More appropriately, I would call those claims by the government incredible.


TREE AND FOREST WEEK
Mr. Charles-Eugene Marin (Gaspe):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to draw the attention of the House to tree and forest week, from May 6 to May 12. This year's theme is: Our forests as a resource. The purpose of this theme is
May 4, 1990

to make us think about the ways in which our forest resources affect our lives.
Each one of us must do his or her share to ensure that future generations will also have the privilege of living in a country blessed with the kind of forests we have today. Our forests are without a doubt our most important resource, and they have enabled Canada to create its own identity. For centuries, our forests have inspired and influenced our literature, music and art. Our increased environmental awareness will ensure that our forests will continue to inspire and influence future generations of Canadians.
The proclamation of Bill C-29 this year gave Forestry Canada a mandate to promote the sound use and management of our forest resources, in the economic, social and environmental interests of all Canadians, today and in the years to come.


GOODS AND SERVICES TAX
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre):: Canadians are now witnessing the obvious signs of a threatened economy. Interest rates are at their highest level in eight years, bankruptcies are 30 per cent higher than they were at this time last year, and for the first time since the recession in 1982, our gross domestic product has dropped for two months in a row.
The government has told Canadians that it is maintaining its high interest rate policy to fight inflation, but indications show that this policy is not working. To add insult to injury, the implementation of the goods and services tax will add at least another 2 per cent to the inflation rate. Obviously, the goods and services tax will ensure that inflation and high interest rates will continue for at least another two or three years and Canadians will have to pay the price.
If this government is sincere in its wish to halt inflation and prevent real damage to our economy, it must put a
moratorium on its plans to proceed with the goods and services tax.



Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, those of us from Manitoba pricked up our ears at the news that Summerside, P.E.I., has been declared the future headquarters for the collection and administration of the goods and services tax. We congratulate Summerside, P.E.I. What a dubious honour.
Maybe now the people of Summerside will forgive the Prime Minister for closing down the Canadian Forces Base and bringing in the goods and services tax. Maybe they will do that, but I doubt it. They will still be out 1,300 jobs, and they will still have to pay the goods and services tax like the rest of Canadians.
Meanwhile, I can guarantee that the people of Manitoba are not going to forgive and forget. Our forces base at Portage La Prairie was closed last year and we are still waiting to see how the Conservatives are going to try and appease us. If Summerside, with an opposition member representing it, can get a GST headquarters, why has the government member for Portage-Interlake not been able to swing a deal for Portage? After all, he did not vote against the budget that closed the base, despite the fact that he told his constituents that he would.
Let me assure both the hon. member for Portage and the Prime Minister that the people of Manitoba have not forgotten. We are still watching and we are still waiting. We want to see what kind of national headquarters the Prime Minister is going to dream up for Portage La Prairie, Manitoba.


MULTIPLE SCLEROSIS SOCIETY OF CANADA
Mr. Jean-Marc Robitaille (Terrebonne):: Mr. Speaker, May is the month when we focus special attention on multiple sclerosis, a disease of the central nervous system which affects about 50,000 Canadians.
Thanks to the initiative and constant efforts of thousands of volunteers and the work of dedicated staff

May 4, 1990
Oral Questions
workers, the Multiple Sclerosis Society of Canada was able to set a record for donations received last year. One particular event was very successful. I am referring to the first 150 kilometre bicycle tour which attracted 600 cyclists and raised $433,000.
The organization, with 160 local sections, has over the years provided information, offered services to people stricken by this disease and to their families, and created a research foundation whose goal is to discover the cause of the disease and how it affects the central nervous system.
Hats off to the Multiple Sclerosis Society for its great work!


GOODS AND SERVICES TAX
Mr. Joseph Volpe (Eglinton-Lawrence):: Mr. Speaker, Canadians were once again treated to the icy hand of Tory manipulation yesterday as the Prime Minister promised a GST data processing centre in Summerside, P.E.I.
One year ago, the Tories took 1,300 jobs out of this community by summarily closing down a military air base, one that still had a legitimate and useful function. Now, in cynical response to overwhelming public condemnation in both P.E.I. and nationally, the government is offering up a poor alternative by engaging the residents in the processing of the most unpopular tax in recent history.
The GST is opposed by 80 per cent of all Canadians and must still be passed before this government will provide such a centre to Summerside. The implication is that the residents must swallow their principles and their pride and coerce Liberal members and Senators to engage them in passing this evil tax.
The Liberal Party had presented a viable self-financing alternative for peacekeeping for the area-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The hon. member for St. Catharines.


MULTIPLE SCLEROSIS SOCIETY OF CANADA
Mr. Ken Atkinson (St. Catharines):: Mr. Speaker, multiple sclerosis is the most common disease of the central nervous system which usually strikes young adults in the prime of their life.
To call attention to this disease and those who must live with it, the month of May has been designated multiple sclerosis month by the Multiple Sclerosis Society of Canada. It is devoted to the carnation fund raising and public education campaign and I therefore take this opportunity to recognize the work of the society's many volunteers.
Some volunteers provide direct services to patients and their families through 160 local chapters. Others assist in the campaign to raise much needed research funds. All contribute to making our communities compassionate and caring places to live.
Like all voluntary health organizations, the Multiple Sclerosis Society of Canada is relentless in pursuit of its goals to find the cause and cure of the disease and, in the meantime, to find even more effective ways to assist those who are affected directly.
I wish to express the gratitude of all Canadians to the members and volunteers of the Multiple Sclerosis Society of Canada.


MEECH LAKE ACCORD
Chris Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, once again the ruthlessness of this government has been revealed for all to see.
In a difficult political climate with regional and language tensions rising, the Conservative government has resorted to economic blackmail to force passage of the Meech Lake Accord. Today, the Newfoundland Minister of Social Services reports that the Minister of Employment and Immigration told him that federal help for Newfoundland's fisheries and immigration problems would be forthcoming, if they were more co-operative on the Meech Lake Accord.
This confirms the pattern of bullying by this government in an attempt to throw its weight around against all those who dare to defy its wishes. Surely the Constitution of Canada and the future prosperity and stability of our country are too important to warrant such strong-arm tactics.
I call on the Minister of Employment and Immigration to stand in her place at the first opportunity and clarify this accusation. Did she, on behalf of the federal government, issue such a threat, veiled or otherwise?
I urge the Government of Canada to maintain a reasonable and flexible process of negotiation with all provinces. Now is not the time to bring out knuckledusters.
May 4, 1990



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. John Manley (Ottawa South):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister, in the absence of the Minister of Finance.
We know that the government's economic policies have been undermining consumer and business confidence in this country. We know that bankruptcies are up 29 per cent. We have had two consecutive months of negative economic growth, house sales are down, and today we learn that domestic car sales are down by 34 per cent.
The president of Ford Motor Company (Canada) said: "It seems that the Governor of the Bank of Canada is determined to achieve zero inflation, even if the attempt to do so triggers a recession and a sharp increase in unemployment".
What has become clear is that the biggest bankrupt in this country is the Minister of Finance whose policies are bankrupt.
When is the minister going to recognize that the government's policies are killing confidence, killing jobs and killing consumers and see the light?


Hon. John McDermid (Minister of State (Privatization and Regulatory Affairs)):: Mr. Speaker, I found the statistics that the hon. member quotes rather interesting. What he forgot to say about the auto industry, as a spokesman for the industry said: "The latest figures were bound to look bad in comparison with last April when car sales peaked after a long and steady climb out of the recession years of 1982 and 1983".
It is easy to compare the figures now with the figures of last April when car sales were at their absolute peak. The statistics that the hon. member presents, although being accurate, do not reflect very fairly on what is going on in the economy.
The hon. member knows full well that there are still signs of inflationary pressures in this country. Until those are brought under control, we must maintain the current high interest rates. The Minister of Finance has made it very clear that if we can wring inflation out of the
Oral Questions
economy, then interest rates will come down and will stay down. That is the goal of this government and we are going to succeed.


John Paul Manley: Mr. Speaker, my second question is directed to the same minister. In his budget, the minister projected interest rates of up to 11.1 per cent for 1990.
Since interest rates are now over 13 per cent 13.8 per cent today and a 1 per cent increase in the interest rate adds another $1.75 billion to the deficit, what measures does the minister intend to take to meet this year's objective with respect to the deficit?


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, we are now just one month into the fiscal year. Those interest rates are the average for the entire year. We are one month into the fiscal year, so it is a little early to be adjusting anything at this particular time.
The Minister of Finance explained very clearly in the House the other day that there is a watching brief that goes on all the time and that the government can take different directions, if it is found necessary. It is far too early at this point in time to be making unnecessary adjustments.
We are attempting to get interest rates down on a permanent basis, so we do not have what we had in 1982 and 1983 where families were just walking away from homes because they had to take a 12 per cent mortgage rate under the old system and refinance at 24 per cent, which amounted to 10 per cent more than they were paying before. We do not want that to happen this time, that is why we are taking this action.


John Paul Manley: Mr. Speaker, the incompetence of this government is staggering. The minister does not even know that his interest rate projections in the budget are on a calendar year basis. We are in the fifth month of a year in which an 11.1 per cent rate of interest is projected.
Now, is the minister going to stand up in his place and promise the Canadian people that interest rates for the balance of calendar year 1990 are going to average 8.5 per cent, because that is what his budget is saying.

May 4, 1990
Oral Questions
Canadians all over Canada are having to redo their budgets because of the policies of this government. Maybe it is time they redid their budget.


John Horton McDermid: Well, I am not sure if there was a question there or not, but a sign of outrage coming from that particular party after what they put this country through in 1981 and 1982 rings hollow.


GUN CONTROL
Derek Vincent Lee: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Justice and it relates to proposals to amend the Criminal Code relative to firearm legislation.
Press reports today indicate that the focus of the government's proposed reform will be on the size of the bullet or magazine clip.
Given that we are dealing with an onslaught of military-style automatics and semi-automatics with immense killing power, will the minister not concede that simply dealing with the size of the gun clip is a flimsy and cosmetic substitute for real reform that Canadians will feel comfortable with?


A. Kim Campbell: Mr. Speaker, it is regrettable that the opposition relies for their research on newspaper reports because they are not the most helpful sources of information.
The recent newspaper articles were interesting in their imagination, because I made it clear that there were a number of issues that the government was looking at, but at no time did I state what would be in the proposal before the House because the legislation has not been deposited before the House, nor is there a firm proposal on it.
What I said to the reporter from the Montreal Gazette, whose article was picked up in the Ottawa Citizen, was that that was one of a number of areas that we were looking at. I am looking forward, before the House rises
in this session, to depositing a more comprehensive approach in legislation before this House.


Derek Vincent Lee: Mr. Speaker, perhaps we could deal with the gun clip issue then. One of the difficulties faced by Canadians in improving gun control is the ease with which semi-automatics can be converted to fully automatic weapons. In fact, there are situations where guns manufactured as automatics are intended to be modified to semi-automatic and then back to automatic by the owner.
If the minister is going to propose restricting the size of a gun clip as one of her answers to gun control, will she not admit that it is even easier for an irresponsible gun owner to throw away a small gun clip and replace it with a larger gun clip which gunsmiths will undoubtedly make available to them?


A. Kim Campbell: Mr. Speaker, that may or may not be the case, but I am not sure that the ease with which people violate the law is necessarily a reason not to have particular laws. I hope the hon. member will give due consideration to the package which is deposited in the House on this issue when it is done.


WOMEN'S CENTRES
Ms. Dawn Black (New Westminster-Burnaby):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. Yesterday, the Supreme Court of Canada recognized that the law and our society have discriminated against battered women and that attitudes about violence against women must change.
At a time when the courts and our society are realizing the importance of pro-active measures to protect battered women, this government is cutting back on services to women.
Will the Deputy Prime Minister use the occasion of this landmark Supreme Court decision to restore full funding to the women's centres and the women's organizations that have been cut back in the last two budgets?


Hon. Mary Collins (Associate Minister of National Defence and Minister responsible for Status of Women):: Mr. Speaker, I join with my colleagues in applauding the Supreme Court decision in the Lavallee case. I think it will be a landmark in the recognition of battered women.
May 4, 1990

I am also pleased to say that my colleague, the Secretary of State, and myself have met with representatives of women's centres over the past six weeks. I have visited a number of centres and have taken back those concerns to my cabinet colleagues.
Recognizing the important role that those centres play in assisting women to access federal programs, I and my colleague, the Secretary of State, will be announcing today that transitional funding will be provided for the coming year for the 74 women's centres affected. Where provincial governments are prepared to enter into agreements, we will extend that funding for a second year.


Dawn Black: Mr. Speaker, I am surprised and I am pleased that the government has recognized, finally, the importance of women's centres.
I did not hear the Minister responsible for the Status of Women indicate that core funding was going to be reinstituted. I did not hear the minister say anything about the organizations that have been cut back. The magazine Women's Health Sharing lost all its funding and other organizations lost all their funding.
Is the Minister responsible for the Status of Women indicating that all of the funding that has been cut back for the last two budgets has been reinstituted? Is that core funding, or is it project funding?


Mary Collins: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to advise my colleague that the funding that will be provided for the women's centres, based on last year's rate, will provide operational funding. It will not come from the Women's Program, but instead will be found out of other existing bases of government departments.


Dawn Black: would like to hear that this is new money and not coming from another area of Secretary of State where other people will be losing. I am sorry that the Minister responsible for the Status of Women has not been able to reinstate the funding for the past two years.
The Supreme Court has indicated what a serious problem this is. The government's own documents indicate what a severe problem this is. Will you please guarantee that you will follow the funding proposals submitted to you by the women's organizations and reinstitute full funding to address these dreadful problems in our society?


Mary Collins: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I should not be surprised by the
Oral Questions
response of my colleague. I am sure that she would want to join me in congratulating my colleagues who have taken this issue so seriously.
Recognizing the important role that women's centres play in this country, and many of my colleagues from Newfoundland and Nova Scotia have been involved, we have agreed that we will provide that funding to the women's centres so they can continue.
We will enter into a process of reviewing the funding, along with our provincial colleagues and with representatives of women's centres to ensure that the services women's centres provide can be maintained on an ongoing basis.


INDIAN AFFAIRS
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Indian Affairs and it concerns the Mohawk community of Akwesasne.
Now that a semblance of peace, at least, has been achieved at Akwesasne, some of the evacuees are proposing to return home. As a matter of fact, some of them have already returned.
Can the Minister tell this House if there will be financial assistance for the economy of Akwesasne, primarily, and also more urgently for the rebuilding of destroyed homes and other property as a result of the violence of recent days?


Hon. Thomas Siddon (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, I should tell members of the House that my colleague, the Minister of State, and I visited the elected and traditional leadership of the Mohawk community of Akwesasne until late last night to discuss this kind of issue and related questions.
We, of course, are relying upon the combined leadership of the Mohawk community to provide a list of their requirements and to be fully involved in a process of developing a long-term solution which will bring peace, permanent peace, to this community, and to end and heal all of the wounds of the events of the last several days.

Oral Questions
We will be prepared to continue the work of the task force which commenced working last December on developing forms of economic relief for the community. I have just this morning asked my officials to look at ways in which we might help on a short-term basis with some of the immediate material requirements of the community, such as those which the member has listed.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister for that response.

I would like to ask him a supplementary and possibly put a supplementary to the Minister of National Health and Welfare as well.
Although the violence seems to have calmed down in Akwesasne, at least for the time being, the emotional wounds and scars will take a long time to heal. Considering the violence which has divided families and caused fear and all kinds of problems, is the minister prepared to help provide counselling for the families who will have to cope with the situation in the days and weeks to come?


Thomas Edward Siddon: The member raises a very important question which was also discussed last evening. In visiting and meeting many of the residents who have seen families divided, it is obvious that there is going to be a need for social and emotional counselling. We talked about conflict resolution. On request from the community the Government of Canada will assist with some process of conflict resolution, presuming that request comes from the representative leadership of the community. We look forward to being helpful in that way.
It is important, at the same time, to get to the root cause of the difficulty. It is not merely a matter of promising some large economic package. We would all want to see some viable new economic options for the people of Akwesasne, but we also must remove the pressures which have led to the creation of a problem
relating to particular types of activities which have not been good for the community.


Lyle Vanclief: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Health and Welfare but in his absence I will direct it to the Deputy Prime Minister.
Canadians are growing concerned about food safety. Dr. Ian Munro from the Canadian Centre for Toxicology, a world renowned authority on the subject of food safety, is continually attempting to clarify the facts, such as the fact that synthetic pesticides and food additives are known to account for only one-half of 1 per cent of cancer risk as compared to 40 per cent caused by food preparation and 44 per cent by natural carcinogens.
What is the government doing to deliver the true story on food safety to Canadians?


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Deputy Prime Minister, President of the Privy Council and Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the hon. member's concern about this matter. He has expressed this concern before in the House and in committee. It is important to establish a balance between the very natural concern for food safety and the need to use pesticides and other chemicals in the production process.
To that end, the Departments of National Health and Welfare and Agriculture have been meeting on an ongoing basis with the retail associations and with food producer groups. As well, we have established the pesticide review process which is reviewing the registration process for all chemicals that are used for the production of food in Canada.
Recognizing the seriousness of this, I think it is fair to say that the government is taking the necessary action and I appreciate the hon. member's support and co-operation in that regard.


Lyle Vanclief: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the same minister. As I said, Canadians are expressing concern about their food safety and the regulations that are in place to ensure that safety. What is known as organic farming and organic foods are becoming veiy popular.
May 4, 1990

What steps are being taken to regulate such food production and products in order to guarantee that Canadians will see full disclosure of the production standards being used? If it is coming, when can we expect legislation to govern such growing practices?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure whether it would require legislation, although some regulations may be required. The fact of the matter is that we are actively engaged in examining this particular issue.
I can say as well that we are attempting to dispel the myth that is perpetrated in some quarters that food produced using chemicals that are safe is unfit for human consumption. There is a position taken in some quarters that only organic food is safe.
I want to assure consumers and the hon. member that food that is produced with the proper allocation of pesticides and chemicals that are determined to be safe for use by Health and Welfare Canada is certainly safe for consumption. Canada has perhaps the best food safety standards of any countiy in the world.
We co-operate very closely with our trading partners and, as a matter of fact, as the hon. member knows, this is part and parcel of the ongoing trade negotiations which are registering some very significant progress in terms of co-operation and collaboration in the whole area of food safety on an international basis.


THE ENVIRONMENT
James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, my question is also for the Deputy Prime Minister. As he is aware, on Wednesday in Washington, D.C., at the initiation of the United States Senate, parliamentary delegations from 42 countries gathered to find solutions to the increasingly severe global ecological crisis. Consensus was achieved on seven issues contained in the final legislative strategy.
Since Canada agreed at the Toronto Conference two years ago that global climate change is serious and adopted a target there, and since no serious legislative or policy action has been taken to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in Canada, will the Deputy Prime Minister commit the government today to, at minimum, the 50
Oral Questions
per cent greenhouse gas reductions adopted this week by legislators from across the globe at the meeting in Washington?


Mr. Lee Clark (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member well knows, the Minister of the Environment, both at the White House meeting in Washington a week ago and upon his return to Ottawa, has said on more than one occasion that we as a country cannot afford to wait until all the studies are completed. We are committed to action. We will ensure that there will be specific targets and schedules for those targets in place as soon as the consultations respecting the Green Plan are completed this fall.
I would also remind the hon. member that this government has already done several things with respect to reducing greenhouse gas emissions. We have agreed, Mr. Speaker, as you know, to phase out controlled CFCs by 1999. We put in place fuel efficiency guidelines. We have agreed to reduce automobile emissions of carbon dioxide by 20 per cent per vehicle by 2005 and also to reduce nitrogen oxide by 30 per cent per vehicle by 1994.
I would suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that as a result of the processes which are now taking place there will be targets, guidelines and schedules in place as of this fall. They will be targets and schedules to which Canadians will be committed. We, in co-operation with business, the private sector, environmental groups and the public at large, will have targets in place and will have a strategy to ensure that those targets, once in place, are met.


James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the Minister of Forestry. The member who just answered knows full well that that is not the message that was being delivered at the conference in Washington by people like Jacques Cousteau, Carl Sagan, Robert Watson, Steven Schneider and others. The globe is about to become toast and 42 countries, unanimously through consensus, called for action now.
The 42 nations representing all the continents in the world adopted a policy to reduce levels of deforestation by 50 per cent now in all nations across the world and to actively move to a level of aforestation, or the planting of forests, to a level of 30 million acres per year by the end of the decade. Will the Minister of Forestry this day, prior to National Forest Week, commit Canada to play its full role in this endeavour, pursuant to those two

May 4, 1990
Oral Questions
policies adopted by 42 nations in Washington earlier this week?


Hon. Frank Oberle (Minister of Forestry):: Mr. Speaker, I can indeed make a commitment to the House today that Canada will play its full role, not only in improving the custodial practices in our own country to make sure that future generations of Canadians will have their needs satisfied from out forest resource but also in recognizing the fact that our forests are, of course, directly linked with the planetary ecological systems.
Canada will plant 1.2 billion seedlings this year. We will begin the process this year of aforestation rather than deforestation. There will be no addition to any NSR lands.
Conferences such as the hon. member has just attended are very useful in drawing attention to the crisis and the imperatives that we are facing. This is important because every individual in our country and throughout the world has to understand that our cumulative activities as individuals have very, very serious dilatory effects. It is not always right to identify one industry or one activity as being the main culprit. Every citizen has to be involved in the initiatives that have to be taken to save our planet.


CANADIAN INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT AGENCY
Hon. Ralph Ferguson (Lambton-Middlesex):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Supply and Services I will direct this question to the Deputy Prime Minister.
In June of last year the Department of Supply and Services and CIDA issued a request for a proposal for six lateral trenchers and four collector trenchers for a CIDA-funded project in the delta of the Nile River in Egypt.
Supply and Services and CIDA stipulated that Canadian content premium would apply. A Canadian manufacturing company, Wolfe Equipment Limited of Melbourne, Ontario, tendered and, in fact, was the only tenderer. This company's reputation is above reproach
and their equipment is the best in the world. It is world-class.
Why were new tenders called in February, 1990, for this multimillion dollar contract? Why were the rules changed to allow foreign manufacturers to bid on a project funded with Canadian taxpayers' money?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the responsible minister, I will have to take that question as notice. I assure the hon. member that we will get back to him as soon as we possibly can.


Ralph Ferguson: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Deputy Prime Minister for his response.
On the current tender call we may have three bids, one Canadian and two foreign, one of which is not designed for drainage work and does not have the quality or the ability to obtain a licence for drainage work in Ontario.
Will the minister tell us that Canadian content is still a priority on this equipment? This will result in a loss of many Canadian jobs. Will the minister do the honest and patriotic thing and stop pandering to foreign interests on Canadian funded projects?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, without checking all the facts it is very difficult to respond to that question in detail. I certainly in no way want to accept the premise and some of the allegations which are implicit in the hon. member's question. Again, I will undertake to provide a full response at the earliest possible opportunity.


THE ENVIRONMENT
Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, my question is related to global warming and the key role of energy policies, therefore it is addressed to the Minister of Energy.
Last year, the DPA group in Toronto produced a study which concluded that if the government were to invest $74 billion in energy efficiency, it would get a return on the investment of some $150 billion to the Canadian economy. Furthermore, there would be a significant reduction in carbon dioxide pollution, increased energy efficiency and increased competitiveness on the world markets.
May 4, 1990

Why has the Minister of Energy rejected such a report?


Hon. Jake Epp (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I have rejected that report, and I will give the member the reasons why.
The DPA study was commissioned by the task force that energy ministers established after the 1988 Toronto Conference. I asked for an analysis of every one of the measures that the DPA study said should be taken in order to meet those kinds of goals. It has become public that, for example, they recommended that no more cars be allowed in any city with a population of 250,000 and that no more thermal plants be built. They also recommended that there be heat pumps in every home and dramatic increases in the prices of energy.
That study was rejected by the task force. We then studied the DPA study to see what kind of benefits we could get from it, even if we accepted everything within the DPA study. It fell well short of the 20 per cent target of Toronto and it fell well short, as well, of some of the technical possibilities that they thought could exist.
As I announced earlier, the government will be moving more into energy efficiency conservation as part of the green plan which has been announced for later this year. That is a practical way of going.
But the DPA study was rejected both by the task force and the ministers of energy because, quite bluntly, it did not come up to the numbers that they had put forward.


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, from the minister's answer I wonder whether the minister can assure this House that he has the mental capacity to understand the return of $150 billion for an investment of $74 billion.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has distinguished himself before by his inane comments, and I guess this was just another one.


WOMEN'S PROGRAMS
Dawn Black: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister responsible for the Status of Women. Earlier today in question period
Oral Questions
she said that funding had been reinstated to women's centres.
At least 10 women's centres in B.C. have had to close their doors and other women's centres have had a terrible time during this last period of indecision by the government. Will this funding be retroactive to April 1 when the funding was cut?


Mary Collins: Mr. Speaker, I can assure my colleague that this funding is in place for the current fiscal year. Women's centres, I would hope, in those circumstances will now be able to proceed to reopen and continue to provide their services.


Dawn Black: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate getting that information from the minister.
A number of women across Canada were charged when they were protesting this government action of cutbacks. Will the government commit to withdrawing those charges against those women?


Mary Collins: Mr. Speaker, I understand that the federal government, of course, cannot interfere with the course of justice and it would not be within our power or appropriate, of course, to intervene in that particular situation.


REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT
Ronald MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the minister responsible for ACOA. Last September I released a study which chronicled higher levels of unemployment, lower family incomes and significantly less economic opportunity for residents of the black communities in the Preston and Cherrybrook areas of Nova Scotia. Since that time I have made representations to the minister seeking his assistance to use the resources of ACOA to assist in reversing this very serious problem.
Can the minister inform us whether or not he and his department are pursuing this issue and if he believes that there is some reason for optimism in this particular community?

May 4, 1990
Oral Questions


Hon. Elmer M. MacKay (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question and I appreciate my colleague's sincere interest in this problem. We have had discussions about it before. As recently as yesterday I met with the President of ACOA, Mr. Peter Lesaux, and we attempted to focus on the special needs of this community.
My colleague knows it is rather difficult to have a truly affirmative action program within the context of well-defined rules for assistance. But I believe that with some care, and perhaps some co-operation from other colleagues in Employment and Immigration and FBDB, perhaps we can devise something that will focus on the special needs of this community.


Ronald MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I truly appreciated that response.
My supplementary question is for the Minister of State for Employment and it concerns the same issue. The same study indicated that unemployment among blacks in the Preston area was over 28 per cent and that on average a young black male could expect to earn in the vicinity of 42 per cent less than a non-black in the same area.
Can the minister indicate what steps her department is taking to respond to the social and human injustice, not just in economic terms but in terms of attempting to break down the barriers of race which, I think he would agree, have for much too long kept the black community from being full economic partners in our society?


Hon. Monique Vezina (Minister of State (Employment and Immigration) and Minister of State (Seniors)):: Mr. Speaker, our government has always shown its concern for workers who have to cope with such difficult circumstances. That is why we have announced and put in place certain measures to help these communities.
We considered both a short term and a long-term plan, and we found that the easiest way to help these workers would be within the framework of our Canadian Jobs Strategy. I am thinking of the Community Futures Program and our training program, and my colleague and I are both working very hard to find the right solutions for the short term, and at the same time
develop a durable plan so that these workers can find the ideal solution: a job.
I would like to take this opportunity to urge my colleagues opposite who are so concerned about the unemployment rate in these regions to talk to their colleagues in the other place, so that Bill C-21, which is part of the strategy that allows for regional and sub-regional differences, can be passed as soon as possible.


EMPLOYMENT
Mr. Ronald J. Duhamel (St. Boniface):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister responsible for small business or the minister acting in that role today. It concerns TIEM, the so-called Canadian job creation company.
Has the government ordered an investigation of this particular so-called job creation company? Its own evaluation indicated that over a period of three years in five Canadian cities it only produced 31 full-time jobs at an approximate cost in loans and grants of $15 million. Is this investigation going on now?


Hon. William C. Winegard (Minister for Science):: Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that such an investigation is going on at the present time.


Ron J. Duhamel: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is directed to the same minister. Why didn't the government react sooner? Besides the fact that only 31 jobs were created over a period of three years, in five centres, at a cost of about $15 million, local people had already said there was a problem almost a year ago. My colleague from Notre-Dame-de-Grace mentioned this as well. I identified this as a problem on December 15, January 4 and March 5. Why didn't the government react earlier?


William C. Winegard: Mr. Speaker, my understanding is that there has been an investigation going on for some time and I think we should be careful about what we say at the moment. Let us let that investigation go on and have the results before we make any charges or semi-charges about individuals or organizations.
May 4, 1990


HOUSING
Mr. Jim Karpoff (Surrey North):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Etousing. The minister will be aware that the high interest rate policy of this government has taken a crisis in housing and turned it into an utter disaster. Elome sales are down dramatically, construction in all areas including residential construction in the first quarter is off, and now applications for building permits, which show what is going to happen in the next six months, are dramatically down.
Will the minister indicate to this House whether he has brought to the attention of the Minister of Finance and Mr. Crow the devastating effect of high interest rates? Has he requested them to abandon their high interest rate policy now and reduce interest rates?


Hon. Alan Redway (Minister of State (Housing)):: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member is well aware, until very recently all indicators showed that building starts for new homes in this country were increasing quite dramatically. As a matter of fact, current figures show that building starts in the country will be in excess of 200,000 this year, dramatically up from what they were a few years ago.
It is quite true that there appears to be a slowing down in both new home construction and sales of real estate at the moment. We seem to be at a stage where some changes of that sort are taking place in the economy. I can assure you that I, the government and the Minister of Finance are watching the situation very carefully.


James Capsey (Jim) Karpoff: Mr. Speaker, the minister reluctantly admits that there are indications of a slowdown. The indications are that the housing industry is coming to a grinding halt, and it is mainly because of the high interest rate policy.
Has the minister or his government got programs in place that will help home owners offset the increased payments that they will have to make because of a continued high interest rate policy?


Alan Redway: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member will know, housing prices in very overheated markets such as Toronto and Vancouver, and more recently in the Calgary and Edmonton area, were causing very considerable problems. Although there has been a slowdown in sales there has also been a
Oral Questions
slowdown in escalation of housing prices. I think that is a benefit.
I am sure the hon. member is aware, and I know that all Canadians are aware, that the government has now and has had for some time a mortgage rate protection program whereby Canadians can in fact protect themselves against high interest rates by purchasing insurance against that through Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation under the National Housing Act. The program will pay three-quarters of any increase in monthly payments resulting from a rise of more than 2 percentage points in mortgage interest rates. I hope that all Canadians will take advantage of that.


AUTO INDUSTRY
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Deputy Prime Minister. In view of the fact that the auto industry in Canada provides 20 per cent of all Canadian manufacturing and more than 150,000 direct jobs, why is the government not taking more seriously the sizeable drop in sales in April of 34 per cent by the big three automotive manufacturers? After all, April is supposed to be the start of the peak selling season for cars in this country.
Why will the government not listen to people like Jack Clissold, vice-president of sales at Ford who said that the drop in sales again illustrates how "rising interest rates tend to put the brakes on car and truck sales." Why does this government want to put the brakes on car and truck sales in this country?


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, the same individual whom the hon. member quoted said the following:
We know there remains inherently strong demand for new
vehicles. With new financing assistance plans-we believe we can
offset the interest rate obstacle.
The hon. member did not quote him quite fully.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, why does this government want to force the industry to take steps which could cause difficulties for it, in view of the fact that the industry itself says that this government's high interest rate policy is an obstacle? Why does this government insist on creating an obstacle for the key manufacturing industry in this country? This

May 4, 1990
Oral Questions
government is not supposed to be creating obstacles, it is supposed to be providing a basis for growth and jobs. It is doing the opposite.


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, I find that interesting because when I take a look at the statistics today I see that domestic sales are down and foreign sales are up. That is because our auto dealers in this country are placed at an unfair competitive position because of the federal sales tax. We are removing the federal sales tax. We are bringing in a GST which will lower domestic car prices by as much as $800 on a $20,000 unit. We are working for that industry. Why do you not get behind the GST?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. minister thinks that the manufacturer's sales tax is so bad for the car industry in this country, why did his government raise it more than four times since it has been in office? The government's words are one thing, its actions are another. Its action has been to raise this tax. Why did it do that?


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, that tax was raised because the government needed the revenue to pay the interest on the debt that the Liberals left us. That is why it was raised. That is exactly why it was raised. And also to pay the bills for health care, to pay the bills for post-secondary education and to pay for the social safety nets that we have in this country. There are a myriad of reasons why it was raised.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Steven W. Langdon (Essex-Windsor):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture. I would like to follow up on the question which I raised yesterday about meat imports into this country which were found to be defective despite the fact that they
were approved by the United States Department of Agriculture.
Could the minister now confirm that the tests which have been carried out on these products show high levels of staphylococcus bacteria which are involved in the spoilage of this meat?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I can advise the hon. member that the test results on the product indicated that no bacteria harmful to humans were present.


Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, the minister has avoided the question. The question was: were staphylococcus bacteria found in this meat which led to spoilage of the product? That is the report which I have received directly from the Department of Agriculture labs which did the testing.
I would suggest to the minister it is best to respond positively to that and to suggest to this House what is going to be done by this government to take into account incidents like this in trying to sort out the future of our relationship with the United States on meat imports.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I thought I had responded positively. It is unfortunate that the hon. member does not like the answer that I gave him. I am informed, as I indicated yesterday with regard to the question, that the reason it was inspected was the fact that there was defective meat product packaging.
Yesterday I indicated that I did not have the results of the test. Today I am informed that the results of the products indicated that no bacteria harmful to humans were present. There was spoilage however, presumably because of the defective packages and the fact that they were exposed.


POINT OF ORDER
James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, my point of order is in relation to remarks made by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources during Question Period.
May 4, 1990

The analysis that has been done by his department in relation to the DPA report is extremely important. The report points out that for a $74 billion investment there is $150 billion in net benefits to Canadians. Even if the figures were out by 50 per cent there is still $75 billion net-


Mr. Speaker:: I am having trouble finding the point of order.


James Ross Fulton: My point of order to the minister of energy is due to the importance of the report he referred to. Will he table it so that all members of this House and the Canadian public can have a look at it?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, I find the point that the hon. member makes interesting because the study was analysed by the task force. The task force report to the energy minister was in Kananaskis on April 2 and we made that public.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps the hon. member would let the Chair look carefully at exactly what the exchange was. If it was a document that was read or referred to in any kind of detail, it may well have to be tabled. I will go back and check it. I am not entirely sure if the minister did read from it, although he did mention it. I will look at it.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Chris Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I think if you test the House you will find there is an understanding among the parties that once the House has dispensed with Bill C-59, Bill C-60 and Bill C-61 this afternoon, there will be no other business called. I wonder if the government House leader or his parliamentary assistant would confirm that.


Mr. Andre:: Mr. Speaker, I would be pleased to confirm that. If that were to occur, we would be prepared to adjourn the House at that point in time without any further business being called.


Mr. Speaker:: Agreed and so ordered.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
Mr. Albert Cooper (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons) Mr. Routine Proceedings
Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table in both official languages the government's response to 98 petitions.
[.Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.] POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION
Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, as you know, this is Education Week. I would like to table several petitions signed by students of Ottawa University and other area residents of the riding of Ottawa-Vanier concerning the quality and accessibility of our universities, colleges and post-secondary education.
These petitions were gathered by the Canadian Federation of Students and support the contention that over-crowded classrooms, obsolete laboratory equipment, poor library resources, high student-professor ratios, elimination of programs of study, deteriorating buildings and physical plants are now a fact of Canadian higher education.
The petition is quite lengthy, but I think it makes a good case for a joint effort of all levels of government, especially the provincial and federal governments, to commit to arrange a federal-provincial conference of the highest political representatives to establish obligation to the two levels of government in the financing of Canadian post-secondary education and to ensure an end to the shameful neglect of higher education in Canada.


Ron J. Duhamel: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition on behalf of my constituents with respect to their deep felt concerns on abortion.
The petitioners would like human life to be protected from conception to natural death.


Mrs. Sheila Finestone (Mount Royal):: Mr. Speaker, I rise pursuant to Standing Order 36. I have received hundreds of signatures on petitions from my riding with respect to the Conservative federal government's imposition of the goods and services tax on many health care services, such as occupational therapy, physiotherapy, social services, speech language pathology and audiology which are performed outside of public institutions.

May 4, 1990
Routine Proceedings
The undersigned call upon Parliament not to impose the goods and services tax on any health care services whether delivered in public institutions or in the community.
I hope this will be taken under consideration, Mr. Speaker.


Chris Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition signed by students from Alberta, British Columbia, New Brunswick and Saskatchewan.
The petitioners call upon the government to respond to over-crowded classrooms, problems of poor library resources, increasingly high student-professor ratios, the elimination of programs at universities, the deterioration of buildings and physical plants at universities and other institutions of higher education across Canada, and call upon the government to commit itself to arrange a federal-provincial conference of the highest political representatives to establish obligations of the two levels of government to adequately finance Canadian post-secondary education and to ensure an end to the shameful neglect of higher education in Canada.


Chris Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition signed by over 6,000 people residing in Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing, which represents almost 20 per cent of the people who voted in the last election. The petitioners criticize the government's goods and services tax and call upon the government to make sure it is rejected as, of course, 80 per cent of Canadians would ask.


Mr. Steve Butland (Sault Ste. Marie):: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to table some petitions pursuant to Standing Order 36. There are not a great number of names, only 55 to be exact. They are particularly noteworthy because just about every person on Hocking, Raymond, Farwell, Terrace and Connaught Avenues in Sault Ste. Marie, and rather than 80 per cent of the population being against the GST, I think 100 per cent of the people on those four streets are against the GST and they encourage the government to listen to the people of Canada.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. Albert Cooper (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons):: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 245 and 257.


Mr. Wilbee: 1.	Is government funding being made available to the Association of French Cadre Parents and the Federation of Franco-Columbians or to parents involved in legal action against the Minister of Education of British Columbia, the Vancouver School Board and the Delta School Board, to assist in a request for a francophone school facility with management of program and facility to be held by francophone parents?
2.	Has there, in the past, been any funding provided to the Association of French Cadre Parents and the Federation of Franco-Columbians, through any government department or agency?


Albert Glen Cooper: I am
informed by the Secretary of State of Canada and the Department of Employment and Immigration as follows:
1. The Court Challenges Program which is administered by an independent organization, the Canadian Council on Social Development, has approved an amount of $75,000 for litigation, at the first level of court, involving the Association of French Cadre Parents and the Federation of Franco Columbians.
2. Funding has been provided to the Association of French Cadre Parents and the Federation of Franco Columbians under the Official Languages Promotion
Program of the Secretary of State:	
Association of French Cadre Parents	
1987-88	$ 75,930
1988-89	$156,700
1989-90	$187,405
Federation of Franco Colombians	
1987-88	$531,035
1988-89	$645,475
1989-90	$571,120
May 4, 1990

The Department of Employment and Immigration has no record of funding any projects for the Association of French Cadre Parents.
It has, however, provided funding to the Federation of Franco-Columbians under the Canadian Jobs Strategy as follows:
Business of the House
1981	39.0 %	61.0 %1982	35.3 %	64.7 %1983	33.7 %	66.3 %1984	34.7 %	65.3 %1985	31.4 %	68.6 %1986	32.4 %	67.6 %1987-	881988-	891989-	90
Program
Job Development Section 25
Challenge '89
Contribution


[Stage Direction]
$8,136 - U.I. funds $3,408 - CRF*
[Stage Direction]
* Consolidated Revenue Funds
Mr. Rodriguez: Is the government aware of the percentage of (a) foreign ownership (b) Canadian ownership of mines extracting industrial metals (other than gold) in Canada, from 1975 to 1987 and, if so, what is it?
The data show a continuing decrease in foreign control for industrial metals during the period 1975 to 1986; the level of foreign participation dropped by 28 per cent. The concomitant increase in Canadian control is particularly evident between 1979 and 1985 as the degree of Canadian participation increased by 25 per cent.
In determining the level of foreign/Canadian participation in a sector, Statistics Canada does not measure ownership per se, but instead measures control. This is done by identifying the country of residence of the shareholder(s) exercising effective control over each company included in the sample. Companies are included in the sample if their annual revenues exceed $15 million. In measuring control levels within a sector, individual companies are weighed according to then-annual revenues. For more details on methodology, please refer to Statistics Canada's Annual Report pursuant to the Corporations and Labour Unions Returns Act, Part I-Corporations.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: The Department of Energy, Mines and Resources reports as follows:
(a) & (b) The requested information is not readily available. However, Statistics Canada has provided the following data:
FOREIGN	CANADIAN
CONTROL	CONTROL
Industrial Metals (other than gold)
YEAR 1975	44.9 %	55.1 %1976	45.4 %	54.6 %1977	47.0 %	53.0 %1978	44.4 %	55.6 %1979	45.2 %	54.8 %1980	41.5 %	58.5 %
\ English]


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The questions as enumerated by the hon. parliamentary secretary have been answered.


Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Shall the remaining questions be allowed to stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, as you are aware, because of one of the anomalies in our rules that we have not yet corrected, we have problems on Mondays if we do not

May 4, 1990
Government Orders
have the regularly scheduled business for Private Members' Business.
I have not had a chance to consult with my other colleagues on this motion, but I think there may be unanimous consent for it. Therefore, I move:
That, notwithstanding any Standing Order, on Monday, May 7, 1990, the House meet at 1 o'clock p.m. and proceed to the consideration of Government Orders from 1 o'clock p.m. to 2 o'clock p.m.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I regret to tell the parliamentary secretary that I cannot concur in that proposal. I think we have to come to grips with the solution to the problem which is to have this House pass that motion. It is on the Order Paper, giving private members of this House a chance to get their motions and bills before the House. I regret to give notice that until I have satisfactory knowledge that the motion will be adopted, I am going to have to resist giving the government extra time.
In the interests of getting movement on the motion to settle this problem of the draw that gives all of us a chance to have motions and private bills before the House, I cannot concur in this proposal.


Chris Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, for slightly different reasons I am not prepared to concur either.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I do not believe there is unanimous consent.


Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, it is obvious we do not have unanimous consent. I think I have no choice but to put the other motion which is that the House would then meet at two o'clock. I move:
That notwithstanding any Standing Order on Monday, May 7, 1990, the House meet at 2 o'clock p.m. for Statements by Members, followed by Oral Questions and the remaining order of business as provided for Mondays.
Mr. Speaker, of course the point of that is that we simply do not meet at one o'clock and have to suspend and come back at two o'clock. This just makes provision to come back at two.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Is it agreed?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: So ordered.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Ms. Campbell (Vancouver Centre) that Bill C-59, an act to amend various acts to give effect to the reconstitution of the courts in British Columbia, be read the third time and passed.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Is the House ready for the question?


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-60, an act to amend various acts to give effect to the reconstitution of the courts in Ontario and to provide for other related matters, as reported (with an amendment) from a legislative committee.
A. Kim Campbell: that the bill be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
A. Kim Campbell: that the bill be read the third time and passed.


Derek Vincent Lee: Mr. Speaker, Bill C-60 is similar in concept to Bill C-59 which governed the B.C. courts. I did not speak on behalf of my party in connection with Bill C-59 and deferred my remarks to Bill C-60.
Although it is technical in nature, this federal statute governing the Ontario courts like the B.C. courts permits unification of the courts at the Supreme Court level in the province and at the District Court level. In our view, it is fair to say that these courts are now finally
May 4, 1990

entering the 20th century-just in time; we have another 10 years to go.
Previously our provincial courts were divided into separate jurisdictions, usually based on monetary jurisdiction, with disputes involving larger dollar amounts being decided by the Superior Court and with lower dollar amounts being decided by the County or District Courts. It is a little bit like being a referee in the NHL and being a referee in the AHL. You are dealing with the same rules of the hockey game, but you have a slightly different environment and different players. I recall, as a lawyer, having to gown for one court but not for another. It was a little artificial.
The concept was based on life as it was in the last century. It has become counterproductive and inefficient. We have two sets of courts, two sets of judges, two sets of staff and two sets of courtrooms. With a united court in our provinces, we will be better able to manage and maximize the resources that we have in the court system on behalf of the taxpayers.
Although it is very easy for us at the federal level to pass this statute, we could not fail to acknowledge the work of many judges, court administrators and lawyers in the court systems in Ontario and in British Columbia in bringing these reforms into being. This will definitely benefit the taxpayer and improve the administration of justice. My party supports this bill.


A. Kim Campbell: Mr. Speaker, with respect to Bills C-59 and C-60, I would like to express my appreciation to the government, to members of the legislative committee and to witnesses who have done such an excellent job. I would like also to thank the opposition parties for their co-operation in assisting the passage of this legislation.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-61, an act to amend the Divorce Act (barriers to
Government Orders
religious remarriage), as reported (with amendments) from a legislative committee.
A. Kim Campbell: that the bill be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
A. Kim Campbell: that the bill be read the third time and passed.


Sheila Finestone: Mr. Speaker, I am particularly delighted to speak to the third reading of this bill. I hope it has quick passage through this House.
I would like to look at the process, something that is extremely exciting and dynamic. It comes at a particularly important time in the history of this House. If one looks at it in terms of time, this is Volunteer Week, or just a couple of days after.
This kirid of bill demonstrates in the most forceful, practical and important ways the role that volunteers play in society. When there is a group of like-minded people-in this instance, women-who have a serious concern about what an inequality or a gender biased situation within the laws of Canada, it prevents the forward movement of women to make enlightened choices and then to move forward with their lives.
I recall that in 1984-85 and early in 1986-1 see a nod from a brand new colleague from across the floor, along with my colleagues from York Centre and Burnaby. In particular, I remember the member for Saint John-that we sat and pondered what to do about this new dilemma, the Jewish get, as we were in the process of amending the divorce bill. It required a new look, and certainly an update. I was particularly appreciative of the sensitivity shown by the Minister of Justice of the day, followed by the new Minister of Justice of the day at that time, who is now the Governor General of this country, and followed by the third Minister of Justice of the day, who is now the Minister of Transport, and now we have our first woman in this very important role. You can see how key it was from 1985-86 to today, to have understanding on the part of all members of the House, as they looked at the application of fairness, justice and equality, under the law.
As a member of the small task force, section 15, on equality for all, I can remember even looking at it as far back as that time, in the history of my place in this House. The measure means a very great deal to me as a

May 4, 1990
Government Orders
Jewish woman, to the Jewish community and, in particular to those who have had to have a sense of discomfort, discrimination and bias, and also that very unpleasant sense that you are placed in a position of extortion in order to receive what is your due and what is your right under Canadian law. That is the key, it is under Canadian law. We are facilitating a divorce procedure which, in the Jewish traditional law, can only be undertaken as an act between the man and woman themselves in the presence of a rabbinical court of three members.
In a sense this traditional Jewish law, this Halachahic law, allowed for goodwill and the exchange of a document between a man and a woman, a man offers and the woman accepts this document. Where there was malicious intent or wilful desire to make life very difficult and to use this as a means of getting ends other than the right to proceed with one's life either as a man or a woman, more often than not it was a woman, this instrument or document was used in a manner that was not foreseen and there was no rabbinical court to which this could be taken.
I would like to say that in the interest of these women who got together, and in the interest of Volunteer Week, they forced an enlightened view to bring about the passage of a bill eliminating the unfairness which sometimes prevents Jewish persons from remarrying within their faith. We now have, thanks to the coalition of Jewish women for the get, Norma Joseph who was their driving force and John Surtash who was legal counsel, the first steps in the province of Ontario. I would like to bring to the attention of the minister, although she may may be well aware of it, that passage of this bill which is a landmark act internationally, never mind nationally, will certainly be used effectively by the women volunteers and the rabbis. In the province of Quebec rabbis found some very creative ways to enable this Jewish get or Jewish divorce, the rabbinical kind of approach which was outside of the civil process, to take place. They will use this bill to enable other governments in other countries to bring about justice for women in our society. In that light, as well, I want to express the very deepest appreciation of all of us, and particularly Jewish women, at this time.
On behalf of the Liberal Party, I take great pleasure in supporting this bill at third reading. I want to make very sure that the minister understands that her help ensures the integrity of this act which prevents in any way a
bargaining tool based on a monetary support problem, a pension rights problem or a child access or child custody case because it is much more important that the best interests of the child be served. The minister and her parliamentary secretary may well remember how hard we tried to look at the mandatory conditions for access to and support for children who are the main concerns in a divorce issue of this kind.
I appreciate that we have now a tool whereby no one would be able to to use the get in order to obtain concessions in a civil divorce proceeding in this land.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Is the House ready for the question? The hon. member for Burnaby- Kingsway.


Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, I will be very brief because certainly we in the New Democratic Party have strongly supported this legislation and, indeed, have urged the government to move expeditiously for its passage.
I just wanted to join on this important occasion of third reading of the bill in commending all of those groups across this land who have worked so very hard with such tremendous dedication and energy to right an historical wrong. I am not going to name all of the groups because inevitably some would be left out, but I do want to take this opportunity to pay tribute particularly to those women who have been responsible for pushing to the point where now this bill will be a reality.
Too many women have in particular suffered the pain and injustice of the current provisions in this area. I would hope that this legislation could serve as a model to provinces which have not yet moved in this important area. I know that some have, but there are others which have not yet taken this step. I would hope that they would move forward in this important area.
Finally, I want to urge the government to proclaim this legislation in the very near future. I had some concern because in questioning government representatives it was suggested that there would be a series of prolonged consultations with provincial jurisdictions. I hope the minister in responding to this might make it very clear that she intends to proclaim this legislation in the very near future.
Injustice has been done and every day that this legislation is delayed, further injustice will continue to be done. I commend those involved.
May 4, 1990

On behalf of the New Democratic Party, we welcome this legislation and we urge the minister to proclaim it as quickly as possible.


Hon. Bob Kaplan (York Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my colleague, the member for Mount Royal who has been intimately involved with this bill and all of its stages, has spoken for the Liberal Party for the Opposition.
I am very happy to have the opportunity to come to the House from the Meech Lake committee which has adjourned for lunch and put on the record my own satisfaction about the achievement of this very important piece of legislation.
It was the present Minister of Transport who finally decided for the government that this was a worthwhile measure, a measure which advances Canada's sympathetic understanding of the pluralistic nature of our society, showing a willingness to accommodate, within the laws of Canada, the legitimate interests of multicultural groups.
I hope that this law will not only be of value, as I know it will, to the community concerned, but that it will be the model for ways in which Parliament can respond across Canadian society to various groups when it is possible to do so; to assist them not in the establishment, as there is in some countries, of systems of laws that apply to minorities that live separately within the country but to the kind of pluralistic, proud and integrated society which we are in which this type of legislation permits the accommodation of the particular interests of one minority group.
I have had the pleasure and honour of being supported in all of this, as have other members, by a great many individuals and organizations across the country who have been committed to this cause and who have seen it come forward.
I think it is important to pay tribute on a particular historic day, for the reason I will mention in a moment, to the Attorney General of the province of Ontario, Ian Scott, whose legislature was the first to provide a legislative framework for recognizing the situation of the get, the problem of the traditional Jewish divorce against the Canadian laws and provincial laws that relate to divorce, family law, and child custody. That was the first province to accommodate this problem. As it happens, the Attorney General is in Ottawa today, along with the
Government Orders
Premier of Ontario, to testify on the Meech Lake Accord. We are very happy, on a day that they are here, to be able to see legislative follow-up to an initiative which began in their chamber.
In closing, I express again my deep satisfaction with the work of the now Minister of Transport and with the early commitment made by his successor, the present Minister of Justice, whom I thank as well and to her parliamentary secretary for his own efforts and support of the work of the committee. I would like to see the law proclaimed as soon as possible. No law has been better understood in advance than this one and I hope that we will soon see the good effects of it when following consideration of it by the Senate.


A. Kim Campbell: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise on the occasion of third reading of Bill C-61, an Act to amend the Divorce Act (barriers to religious remarriage), which I have the honour of tabling.
I would like to echo the comments that have been made about the fine work of my predecessor, the now Minister of Transport. I did have the pleasure of sitting on the cabinet committee to which this proposal came and was interested at that time to see the extent of the consultations which had taken place on the bill and more importantly, the extent of consensus, not only among Jewish leaders in Canada but among all religious leaders in Canada. This was a very important measure to bring forward.
I would like to say a few words for the record about the nature of the bill. The amendment to the Divorce Act, which is inherent in Bill C-61, would provide a court with discretionary power to preclude a spouse from obtaining relief or proceeding under the Divorce Act: first, where that spouse refuses to remove a barrier to religious remarriage; and second, where the power to remove the barrier to religious remarriage is within the control of that person.
The purpose of this bill is to assist Jewish citizens whose spouses are withholding a religious divorce, which is called a get, in order to obtain concessions in a civil divorce. The government did consult every other known religious group in Canada and satisfied itself that they would not be affected by this amendment.

May 4, 1990

During the past 15 years, the divorce rate in the Jewish community has reached the same level as in the rest of the population. Cases of abusing the get have increased at the same rate.
In 1987, the B'Nai Brith Association in Canada did a study of 311 cases that occurred during the four previous years.
According to the study, Jewish women were twice as likely to suffer negative repercussions, and those repercussions were worse than those to which men were exposed in the same situation.

A 1987 study conducted by B'nai B'rith Canada documented 311 cases within the previous four-year period. In the same study, as I said in French, women were found to be twice as likely to be the victims of discrimination and when victimized, they faced greater adverse consequences than men.
The consequences to women deprived of a get and loyal to their faith are severe. They may not remarry within their faith, even though civilly divorced. If they do remarry, children from a second civil marriage are considered illegitimate and restricted from practising their religion. Such consequences to a religious person leave them open to blackmail from the spouse withholding the get. For example, the spouse could say, "Give up your claim for support or custody of the children and I will offer the get." Even those not contemplating a second marriage find it uncomfortable to be considered married within their religion to someone they have divorced civilly.
The vast majority of adherents to the Jewish faith condemn as unfair this practice of bargaining with the get. Yet they are powerless to amend the situation. Persuasion by rabbis has often proved ineffective. Since the dispersion of the Jews there is no central Jewish authority to amend the Jewish legal code, the Halachah-ic, which governs the get. Nor is there any modern-day authority within rabbinical courts to enforce the offer and receipt of gets. Full support for Bill C-61 was expressed by major Jewish organizations who attended the hearings before the legislative committee. Representatives of the three Parties praised the bill and quickly passed two minor technical amendments.
The first amendment dealt with an inconsistency between the English and French versions.
The second amendment removed the word "exclusive" from the term "religious barriers within the exclusive control" of a person in order to more accurately reflect that the get procedure requires the co-operation of a three or five man rabbinical court.
Presidents of both major Jewish organizations, B'Nai Brith Canada and the Canadian Jewish Congress, spoke on behalf of the bill.
As well, the Toronto Board of Orthodox Rabbis and the Coalition of Women on the get endorsed the legislation and the two amendments.
All four organizations view Bill C-61 as an example of the government's commitment to multiculturalism.

Bill C-61 will enable Canada's Jewish community to preserve its traditions without destabilizing models of family life. It also ensures that the principles of the Divorce Act with respect to alimony and custody are applied equally to all Canadians.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to express appreciation to the other parties for their support and their desire to see the bill passed expeditiously. I believe there will be no delays to the proclamation of this bill.
This bill represents the finest traditions of Parliament in dealing with a sensitive situation in the very, very best interest of all Canadians. Since it is a Friday, I would like to say to all of those who will gain from the bill, Shabbot Shalom.


Sheila Finestone: Mazel Tov, Madam Minister.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I hope that this will not be a precedent. The hon. minister should really speak on second reading or on the concurrence motion, because there is no place for a reply in regard to third reading.
I thought the minister rose on a point of order and an acknowledgement. I will allow the minister that this time, but it is not a precedent, please.
May 4, 1990

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed.
Government Orders
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: It being 12.37 the House stands adjourned until Monday next at two o'clock pursuant to order made earlier this day.


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 12.37 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Monday, May 7, 1990