1990-02-15

Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to lay upon the table the report of the Parliamentary Librarian for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1989.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Hon. Doug Lewis (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to table, in both official languages, a copy of the government's proposals to correct certain anomalies, inconsistencies, certain archaisms and errors, and to deal with other matters of a non-controversial and uncomplicated nature in the Statutes of Canada.
There have been consultations among the parties and I think you will find, Mr. Speaker, that there is the traditional unanimous consent to refer this draft bill to the Standing Committee on Justice and the Solicitor General.


Hon. Bob Kaplan (York Centre):: Mr. Speaker, in giving the unanimous consent of the opposition to this matter, I would like to make one brief point, if I may.
A number of the amendments contained within the bill are amendments which have come to the House from the Joint Standing Committee on Scrutiny of Regulations. I was a former chairman of that committee, and it is my hope that the government will consider enlarging the criteria that are used in agglomerating amendments inside that bill.
I consider it a very useful device for achieving necessary changes in the laws of Canada of a non-controversial nature and also reflecting legal advice and second thoughts about certain clauses of the legislation. I have always regretted that the miscellaneous amending process is not used more openly and more generously than it is.
I am offering my consent to seeing this bill referred. I think it is a very useful decision. I am looking forward to the work of the committee.
I hope that the government will review, and I regret not seeing the minister nodding, but I hope he will at least think about a process to be developed whereby more advice can be taken more directly from this all-party committee, which is usually unanimous and which makes recommendations for amendments which sometimes take years instead of months to find their way into miscellaneous amending packages.


Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, I rise just briefly to indicate that certainly we agree with this process. This is the traditional method of proceeding with these amendments.
I wish to urge the government to continue a process which it started in this miscellaneous statutes amendments process, that is, to ensure that all statutes in Canada use non-sexist language. This is an area in which the government has been moving, but there are certainly far too many statutes which reflect sexist language. Hopefully, this process of statutory amendment is one of the means that can be used to make those important changes.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the proposition of the Minister of Justice. There seems to be consent. Is there consent?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Routine Proceedings PETITIONS
[Stage Direction]
February 15, 1990

Mr. Albert Cooper (Parliamentary Secretary to Government House Leader):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table in both official languages the government responses to 43 petitions.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]


Mr. Speaker:: Statements by Ministers.


THE FLAG
Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops):: Mr. Speaker, under Statements by Ministers, I want to ask the government House Leader a question.
This is the twenty-fifth anniversary of our flag, a flag of which we are all proud, a flag which represents the compassionate tolerance, political, social, religious and economic freedoms that we have come to enjoy in our country.
I would assume that someone from the government would want to speak on this today, recognizing that during the flag debate itself there were 180 speeches against the flag given by Conservative members over a seven-month period. After 180 speeches, most of which were 40 minutes in duration, the government of the day brought in closure to end what was obviously months and months of debate against the flag.
I assume with that interest in the flag, some minister would want to say something about that final vote, particularly in light of the fact that it took seven months of debate before we got to that point.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I would tell my hon. friend that he is probably well aware of the fact that the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State have arranged a celebration on the front lawn which will enable all Canadians to participate in the twenty-fifth anniversaiy of the flag.
I note my hon. friend's comments in the spirit of national unity in respect of the flag. I tell him that we did
want to do that, but we did not want to do it before the hon. member for Chambly had a chance to give his comments.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, on the same point, I have had the pleasure of examining the exhibition in the Hall of Honour dedicated to the celebration of this important anniversary of our flag. I feel, as does my friend from the New Democratic Party, that we are witnessing something of a rewrite of history when we consider the enthusiasm with which the entire House greeted the flag 25 years ago in a way which does not correspond with today's reality.
However, no one is more proud of the flag today than the Conservative party and its members, and no one is more proud than the Liberals and the New Democrats. I think those of us who track the Conservative party should recognize that they eventually bring themselves on to the right side of history.


Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a recommendation to the House dealing with this issue of the twenty-fifth anniversary of our flag.
I think it would be appropriate at three o'clock that we revert back to Statements by Ministers for a statement in the House. We would agree to give unanimous consent to do that if the government feels that this is appropriate today.


Mr. Speaker:: It is not the place of the Speaker very often to express a view, except to say this. There is going to be a very significant celebration of the twenty-fifth anniversary of the flag of our country which is going to commence in just a few minutes.
Hon. members will know that I have been invited to take part in that event. I will be speaking along with others. I will have to leave the Chamber, I am sure with your agreement and your encouragement, to take part in that celebration.
Second, those of us who have memories will also understand the necessity, in the interest of that unity which the flag symbolizes, to bear gently in remarks with respect to the long and tumultuous debates that took place. I am sure that all hon. members would want me to keep in mind the sensitivities, the history and also the hopes that were brought about by the acceptance of the distinctive Canadian flag, which I think has been supported over the decades now by the vast majority of
February 15, 1990

Canadians. That is what I am going to be saying in a few minutes on behalf of all hon. members.
A suggestion has been put forward by the hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier.

-to revert to Statements by Ministers at three o'clock this afternoon. I would also like to give other members a chance to speak.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I will take the matter under consideration and give it every thought. However, I think it would be more appropriate if we did not have too much of this spur of the moment comment on the floor of the House.
Today we have a very important debate that we want to go forward with on the motion of the Prime Minister. We think it will be a good debate.
I certainly will take the request under advisement and get back to the House.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I like the idea my hon. friend from Ottawa-Vanier has put forward.
When I think through the rest of the day and consider the very important motion and debate which will occur, it seems to me to make perfect sense that at three o'clock we have an opportunity to make comments about the unity that has been created in our country as a result of our flag and all that it symbolizes.
I would say on behalf of the New Democratic Party that we would certainly give our consent to the notion that we might have a minister making a statement and equal responses by representatives of each of the opposition parties.


Mr. Speaker:: I listened carefully to what was being said by hon. members, but I think the comment made by the Minister of Justice is well taken.

I am going to leave it to hon. members to discuss this among themselves. If members have a direction for the Speaker at three o'clock, of course I will accept that direction, keeping in mind the rules that there must be unanimous consent.
Routine Proceedings


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS AND INTERNATIONAL TRADE
Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, this may be the most appropriate time to inform the House that a motion was passed earlier this week vis-a-vis televising the Standing Committee on External Affairs and International Trade.
Some difficulties arose as to providing appropriate television coverage. I asked the New Democratic Party and the Liberal party to attend with me at the committee prior to the meeting starting.
We discussed the matter with the media and the chairman of the committee. The three parties agreed that the proceedings of the external affairs committee today which will hear from Mr. Shevardnadze of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics is so important that it get proper television coverage.
We discussed it with the media. There was an agreement among all three parties that what are called conference rules would be used rather than the perhaps more restrictive rules of the House for televising committees. It was agreed that for this particular event that would be done.


Mr. Speaker:: I will hear the hon. members in just a moment on this matter.
In view of the fact that your Speaker has been asked to preside over what I think is a significant ceremony in just a few minutes, I would ask your indulgence to excuse me for the ceremony with respect to the twenty-fifth anniversary of our flag. I will ask my colleague to take the Chair.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I have a very brief comment to make on the Standing Committee on External Affairs and International Trade being authorized by all parties to televise its proceedings today.
I just want to ask this. Perhaps the House of Commons facilities for televising our proceedings could be equipped in the future to televise committees rather than depend upon ad hoc arrangements on the day that it happens. I think it would be appropriate that we look into this to make sure that we do have the equipment, the necessary logistics and the technical requirements to

February 15, 1990
Routine Proceedings
cope with the increasing need to televise committee proceedings.
This morning I have to agree that, indeed, if we had proceeded as agreed it would have been very restrictive. I am one who believes that we should expand and I would like the government to consider some of the possibilities available to our staff here on the Hill to broadcast these proceedings.
I am just making the point that I do not want this morning to be a precedent, that is that every time we decide to broadcast a committee the House leader and a representative of every party have to go to make sure that everything is in order. I want to make sure that we broadcast in an appropriate manner and in the usual and correct manner.


Mr. Iain Angus (Thunder Bay-Atikokan):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to confirm the decision by my caucus to allow for the use of conference rules vis-a-vis the televising of the very important occasion in Room 200 of West Block today.
In response to the hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier, I wish to point out that there is a committee report which has yet to be considered by this House which concerns this very point. I refer to the very important report of the Standing Committee on Elections, Privileges, Procedure and Private Members' Business vis-a-vis televising and the rules of televising not just this House but the hearings of committees.
I think it would be appropriate in the very near future for the House to be seized of this report in order to give consideration to it. I would encourage the approval of it.
In the meantime, the decision that we took today and the fact that we are ensuring that there is a record of it is not to be seen as a precedent for future coverage on future occasions.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I would like to add that it would be a good topic for the internal economy committee to discuss further.


PETITIONS
Mr. Ross Harvey (Edmonton East):: Mr. Speaker, to return to a subject not yet entirely forgotten, at least not by the people of Canada, I would like to present three petitions featuring the signatures of a total of 332 people.
These people are calling on the government to maintain VIA Rail, Canada's present national network-I should point out that when these petitions were signed the national network was somewhat larger than it is now-to upgrade VIA Rail with new equipment and to give VIA Rail a sufficient budget to maintain its national mandate for passenger service.
A good 200 of these signatures were collected from passengers on one of the supercontinental trains last fall.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to present petitions against the goods and services tax primarily from students from Clearwater High School, Barrier High School, Logan Lake High School, Kamloops High School, North Kamloops High School, Westside High School and Chase High School who point out the unfair nature of the goods and services tax as is presented. They point out that there will be a tax on reading material for the first time in our history, as well as taxes on a variety of other areas of interest to students, namely, the renting of videos, buying records, concert tickets and the like.
The petitioners ask that the government reconsider its decision to proceed and that it go back to the drawing-board and attempt real fair tax reform as opposed to proceeding with the 7 per cent goods and services tax.


Mr. Guy Saint-Julien (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I wish to table a petition that rejects the recommendations of the Task Force on Tax Benefits for Northern and Isolated Areas.
Your petitioners, who represent the isolated community of Lebel-sur-Quevillon in the Abitibi region, believe
February 15, 1990

that although isolation is mainly a psychological factor, it can nevertheless be expressed in dollars and cents. No library, no movie theatre, no exhibition hall, no swimming pool, no art gallery, no velodrome, no subway, and so forth.
Mr. Speaker, the residents of Lebel-sur-Quevillon believe that the task force failed to allow for the realities of life in the North and the near North in Abitibi.


Mr. Joe Comuzzi (Thunder Bay-Nipigon):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour today to present a petition pursuant to Standing Order 36 from the citizens of Red Rock, Ontario, a small community in my riding, about 50 miles east of the city of Thunder Bay. They to a person oppose this government's imposition of a goods and services tax upon this community. They pray that this government reconsider its position and do away with the goods and services tax.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition signed by hundreds of residents of my constituency of Burnaby-Kingsway expressing their concern about the proposed goods and services tax.
They point out that it is an unfair form of taxation because of its lack of regard for a taxpayer's ability to pay. They call upon the government to bring in tax reform that would ensure that those who are in a position to pay, including the corporate sector and upper-income earners, pay their fair share. They point out that the government is now trying to tax reading, haircuts, diapers, coffins and home heating fuels.
Therefore they strongly urge the government to cease the current proposal for a goods and services tax which would in fact shift the tax burden on to ordinary Canadians through a regressive consumption tax instead of through real tax reform.
I might note that this particular petition is signed by hundreds of bowlers from my constituency who have expressed serious concern about the impact of the goods and services tax on bowling in Canada.


Mr. Lyle Kristiansen (Kootenay West-Revelstoke):: Mr. Speaker, I rise pursuant to the provisions of Stand-
Routine Proceedings
ing Order 36 to present two petitions signed by some 200 residents of Ontario, particularly the communities of St. Thomas and Mississauga, Ontario, which I am sure will cheer the heart of the chairman of the finance committee.
The petitioners point out that the proposed goods and services tax is an unfair form of taxation because of its lack of regard for a taxpayer's ability to pay and urge that the Elouse of Commons reject the current proposal for a goods and services tax.


Mr. Rex Crawford (Kent):: Mr. Speaker, once again I rise in the House to present a petition under Standing Order 36 on behalf of the people of the city of Windsor who are appalled by the arrogance of this government and humbly pray and call upon Parliament to reject the proposed goods and services tax.


Mr. Peter Milliken (Kingston and the Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to present a petition signed by many Canadians who are appalled at the government's proposal to introduce a goods and services tax and who call upon Parliament to reject this proposed goods and services tax which is unfair and discriminatory.


Hon. Ralph Ferguson (Lambton-Middlesex):: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present a petition on behalf of people in Windsor and London, Ontario who are concerned about the impact of the goods and services tax which will create a burden on themselves and the people in their communities. In particular, Mr. Speaker, I am sure as a former athlete you will realize the impact this measure will have on minor sports, minor hockey, minor football, minor soccer and so on. They reject this tax on that basis.


Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition signed by a large number of constituents from the great riding of Windsor West so ably represented in this House by my very distinguished colleague.
The petitioners are very upset with the GST, the grief and suffering tax of the Government of Canada. They are asking for the intervention of the House of Commons to ensure that this tax does not proceed.
Given that I have now tabled a large number of petitions, I hope I have convinced the government to withdraw the tax immediately.
February 15, 1990

Routine Proceedings


Mr. Maurice A. Dionne (Miramichi):: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition to present on behalf of Canadians who wish to express their opposition to the goods and services tax that the federal government wants to impose on Canadians.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to present a petition on behalf of constituents of Burnaby-Kingsway as well as from a number of communities in British Columbia. The petitioners point out that the railway passenger service as carried on by VIA Rail is essential for many-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I would request that the next time the hon. member presents petitions, he present both petitions at the same time.
I regret the hon. member's petition has been interrupted. He will have to present it tomorrow or the next time petitions are called.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicted by an asterisk.)
Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, Question No. 162 will be answered today.


Mr. Boudria: 1.	Did the Prime Minister visit Malaysia and Costa Rica in October 1989 and, if so, (a) what was the total cost of the trip (b) total cost for travel (c) what type of airplane was utilized (d) how many people accompanied the Prime Minister (e) what were their names and specific functions?
2.	Were any automobiles flown to Costa Rica and, if so, (a) how many (b) what were the makes and models (c) were these automobiles utilized (d) how much gasoline was utilized by each automobile (e) what was the approximate number of kilometres travelled by each automobile?
3.	What was the total number of pieces of luggage brought on the trip by the Prime Minister and each accompanying person?


Albert Glen Cooper: I am
informed by the Prime Minister's and the Privy Council Offices, the Departments of External Affairs, National Defence and the Solicitor General as follows:
1. Yes, the Prime Minister travelled to Kuala Lampur, Malaysia to attend the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting and to San Jose, Costa Rica for the Meeting of Hemispheric Leaders.
a)	b) and c) Boeing 707 and Hercules operating $191,850 costs (based on per flying hours less fares recovered from the media accompanying the delegation)
Crew expenses and ground handling $106,000
Security expenses (Provided by $110,000 RCMP Members)
Travel expenses of accompanying $136,415* officials (see attached)
*As all expense travel claims have not yet been submitted, a firm cost figure cannot be provided at this time. However, based on the claims filed (80%), it is estimated that the total travel expenses of accompanying officials will be approximately that amount.
These expenses include lodging, meals and in some cases airfare by commercial carriers.
d) and e) See attached. 2. Yes.
a)	Tvo.
b)	Oldsomobile '98.
c)	Yes.
d)	135 litres.
e)	300 kilometres.
3. The number of pieces of luggage is unknown. According to practice, the luggage brought on the trip was manifested by weight, not the number of pieces.


[Stage Direction]
The Right Honourable Brian Mulroney Mrs. Mila Mulroney
[Stage Direction]
PMO/Stanley H. Hartt, Chief of Staff
PMO/Paul Heinbecker, Special Advisor
PMO/Luc Lavoie, Director of Ibur and Special Events
PMO/Gilbert Lavoie, Press Secretary
PMO/Richard Morgan, Excutive Assistant
February 15, 1990
[Stage Direction]
PMO/Bonnie Brownlee, Executive Assistant to Mrs. Mulroney PMO/Robert Chant, Tour Manager PMO/Sunni Locatelli, Deputy Press Secretary PMO/Lisette Boucher, Executive Secretary PMO/Bill McCarthy, Chief Photographer PMO/Jacques Labrie, Coordinator, Media Advance PMO/Helene Chalifoux, Advance for Mrs. Mulroney PMO/Robby McRobb, Special Assistant PMO/Lorraine Matte, Tour Secretary PMO/Nicole Leboeuf, Assistant, Translation PMO/Linda Beauchamp, Media Secretary PMO/Gilbert Dupuis, Media Advance PCO/Anne-Marie Doyle, Assistant Secretary to the Cabinet -Foreign and Defence Policy PCO/Mario Faubert, Technician PCO/THsh Wilson, Ifechnician PCO/Lonnie Robillard, Ifechnician PCO/Ted Prusakowski, Ifechnician PCO/Guylain Legros, Ifechnician
DEA/The Right Honourable Joe Clark, Secretary of State for External Affairs
DEA/Raymond Chretien, Associate Under-Secretary of State for External Affairs
DEA/John Schioler, Chairman South Africa Task Force DEA/Jean McCloskey, Assistant Deputy Minister, Asia and Pacific DEA/Adrian de Hoog, Director, Energy and Environment Division DEA/Ross Francis, Director, Commonwealth Division DEA/Jim Judd, Senior Departmental Assistant DEA/Abbie Dann, Spokesperson for the Secretary of State for External Affairs
DEA/Roseline MacAngus, Private Secretary to the Secretary of State for External Affairs
[Stage Direction]
The Right Honourable Brian Mulroney Mrs. Mila Mulroney
[Stage Direction]
PMO/Stanley H. Hartt, Chief of Staff PMO/Luc Lavoie, Director of Tour and Special Events PMO/Gilbert Lavoie, Press Secretary PMO/Richard Morgan, Excutive Assistant PMO/Jacques Labrie, Coordinator, Media Advance
Routine Proceedings
PMO/Jean Maurice Duplessis, Advance PMO/Sunni Locatelli, Deputy Press Secretary PMO/Lisette Boucher, Executive Secretary PMO/Lorraine Matte, Tour Secretary PMO/Nicole Leboeuf, Assistant, Translation PMO/Linda Beauchamp, Media Secretary PMO/Bill McCarthy, Chief Photographer PMO/Robby McRobb, Special Assistant PCO/Anne-Marie Doyle, Assistant Secretary to the Cabinet -Foreign and Defence Policy PCO/Mario Faubert, Technician PCO/THsh Wilson, Ifechnician PCO/Lonnie Robillard, Technician PCO/Ifed Prusakowski, Ifechnician
DEA/The Right Honourable Joe Clark, Secretary of State for External Affairs
DEA/Raymond Chretien, Associate Under-Secretary of State for External Affairs
DEA/Roseline MacAngus, Private Secretary to the Secretary of State fort External Affairs DEA/Jim Judd, Senior Departmental Assistant DEA/Louise Frechette, Assistant Deputy Minister, Latin America and Caribbean Branch
[Stage Direction]
I want to draw your attention to Question No. 225 standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Kingston and the Islands, because I would like to give a verbal answer to that question.
The question is:
During the period since January 1, 1989, has the government or any agency thereof retained the services of Mr. Lee Milteer or of Lee Milteer Inc. and, if so (a) at what rate-
The answer is I do not know.
-(b) for what purpose-
The answer is I do not know.
-(c) what departments or agencies retained the services?
The answer is I do not know.
I believe this particular question to be a fishing expedition. The hon. member tabled it earlier with the name of Mr. Peter Milteer. When we did investigate a certain amount, we found out that no one knew anything about this individual. The hon. member then changed the name to Mr. Lee Milteer.
The bottom line is that we have to go through some 230 boards, agencies and Crown corporations to tiy to get this information. If the hon. member would like to be more specific, I can give him more specific answers, but I cannot go on a fishing expedition like this and be expected to complete that plus all the other questions on
[Stage Direction]
Routine Proceedings
the Order Paper within the 45-day time limit that has been requested.
Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Mr. Speaker, the Parliamentary Secretary might want to know that the question was put because of information I received that this individual or this corporation had been retained.
The fact that it stated Mr. Peter Milteer on the first occasion it was printed on the Order Paper was an error made by someone in the Journals Branch. I submitted the question with Lee in the name and I think the person who transcribed it for the Order Paper read my signature underneath and mixed up the Lee and the Peter and put it in incorrectly.
It was not my fault. I had nothing to do with it, and the Table is well aware of that fact. As soon as I saw the error on the day it was printed, I went to the Table and indicated it was an error. It was not the question I had submitted. I do not want the hon. member to suggest that I changed it in an effort to go on a fishing expedition. My question was very specific. I am sorry he is unable to answer it. I will endeavour to get more information and file another question on the Order Paper.


Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, I accept that explanation. I certainly was not aware of it. I want to apologize to the hon. member for the implication in my statement. However, my answers do stand for the same reasons as I described. To go after 230 departments and agencies at this point, I think would be a little much.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell on a point of order.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I have been complaining as of late because of the fact that two questions on the Order Paper standing in my name have not been answered when both of them are well beyond the 45-day period.
I note that the Parliamentary Secretary, I am sure through his very special efforts, did succeed in getting the answer to one of the questions. However, my complaint is still there.
The other question which is dated December 6, as you will obviously recognize since today is February 15, is well beyond the 45 day deadline set by the rules of this House under our Standing Orders. Considering the fact that the question was tabled with the Clerk of the House
on December 6, perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary could give us some indication as when the government will attempt to follow the Standing Orders of this House in relation to Question No. 197.


Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to respond to the hon. member's concerns, and that is precisely why I have answered Question No. 225 in the manner that I have.
In Question No. 162, which I answered a few moments ago, we were asking officials in several government departments to spend several hours of their time and, therefore, our tax money, to collect and provide critically important information, such as the number of pieces of luggage of each person on this trip, or how much gas was used by the Prime Minister's car. Getting that kind of information from a delegation that involves several people, obviously takes time.
If members insist on asking those kinds of questions and putting them on 45 day time limits, I am going to have difficulty answering them and I will have to revert to the type of answer I have just given to Question No. 225. However, I can assure the Speaker that I will continue to do my best.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: On the same point of order, the hon. member for Glengarry-Prescott- Russell.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to start an argument with the hon. member. However, in the case of Question No. 197, which has not yet been answered, I am asking for the names of the notaries and legal agents acting on behalf of the Federal Business Development Bank, the date of their appointments, and how much money they have received from the federal government.
Except for the current year, that information should be available by the government just reviewing the reports of previous years that it tables in the House. The only portion that has to be researched is the present year. The rest should already be available to the government without doing any research.
I will agree that the questions be allowed to stand. But the House should understand that these are rules, they are not merely suggestions for the government to observe if and when it feels like it.


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.
February 15, 1990


QUESTION OF PRIVILEGE
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I have received a request for a point of privilege from the hon. member for Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca. Does it arise out of what has happened here this morning?


Mr. David Barrett (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca):: No,
Mr. Speaker, I need your guidance on a question of privilege relating to a threat to a member. I know that matters of committee cannot come to this House, but a member was threatened with bodily removal from the committee this morning, without access to being able to put a motion to the committee, or access to deal with it in committee. I find it necessary to get your guidance to deal with this matter because there is no recourse within the committee.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I think the hon. member should put in a written order of privilege so that he can be heard at 3 o'clock.


David Barrett: Mr. Speaker, thank you for you guidance. I wanted to raise it at the earliest possible opportunity.


POINT OF ORDER
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The hon. member for Kamloops on a point of order.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I have a short point of order I would like to make. I have circulated some information to my friends in the government party as well as to the Official Opposition and the Chair, which I would like to comment on at this point.
I rise to ask you to review the rules governing the presentation of the budget and consider whether or not those rules provide for a 10-minute question and comment period to follow the delivery of the budget in the House by the Minister of Finance.
I would like to bring to the attention of the House, a few brief rulings done on previous occasions regarding the questions and comments, in hopes that you would find it is the clear intention of the House that such a
Routine Proceedings
question and comment period be held when the relevant Standing Orders were adopted.
Standing Order 84(7), governs time limits and comments on speeches during the budget debate. It states:
No Member, except the Minister of Finance, the Member speaking first on behalf of the Opposition, the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition, shall speak for more than twenty minutes at a time in the Budget debate. Following the speech of each Member a period not exceeding ten minutes shall be made available, if required, to allow Members to ask questions and comment briefly on matters relevant to the speech and to allow responses thereto.
The wording of this Standing Order is virtually identical to that of Standing Order 50(2), which governs another special debate in the House, the Address in Response to the Speech from the Throne.
In considering then whether there can be questions and comments following the Budget speech, it is quite pertinent to look to rulings regarding the nearly identically worded provisions for the Address and Reply.
For example, on December 9,1983, the then Leader of the Opposition, who is currently the Prime Minister, replied to the Throne Speech. Following his comments, my colleague, who is currently the member for Transco-na, rose and attempted to direct a question. The then government House leader interjected and asked the Speaker whether a question period was in order.
As reported at page 45 of Hansard for December 9, 1983, we find:
As the Leader of the Opposition and the Right Hon. Prime Minister may speak for an unlimited time I should like you to make your position clear on this issue, that we may know where we stand in the future.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I regret to interrupt the hon. member in his presentation, but I think that his presentation should come up when the budget debate is in progress. He should either discuss it with the House leaders before we get into the Chamber, or make the presentation to the Speaker. However, I do not think that this is the time for him to make the presentation. Therefore, we should get into Orders of the Day.
Another point of order. The hon. member for Kamloops.

February 15, 1990
Government Orders


Nelson Andrew Riis: Just to seek clarification, Mr. Speaker. I certainly accept your ruling on this. It is something that I do not think we can resolve by discussions between the House leaders because it really requires a decision of the Chair.
Are you suggesting, Mr. Speaker, that I raise this point of order just prior to the Minister of Finance presenting his budget, or just following it? I seek some guidance.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I will take it under advisement and I will get back to the hon. member, but I think that what he wants to change is Standing Order 84(7), which relates to the debate and the 10-minute questions and comments after the three speakers.
However, we will discuss it later. We will take it under advisement and we will get back to the hon. member.
The Hon. Member for Kingston and the Islands.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Mr. Speaker, I just want to make it clear that before any ruling is handed down on this subject, some of us might want to intervene on the submissions made by the hon. member for Kamloops.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: No ruling will be made until we have submissions from everybody on all sides of the House.
Orders of the Day.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-38, an Act to amend the Federal Court Act, the Crown Liability Act, the Supreme Court Act and other Acts in consequence thereof, as reported (with amendments) from a legislative committee.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Before we go into debate, there are three motions on the Notice Paper for the report stage of Bill C-38, an Act to amend the
Federal Court Act, the Crown Liability Act, the Supreme Court Act and other Acts in consequence thereof.
Motions Nos. 1 and 2 standing in the name of the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands are in order. They will be debated together but voted upon as follows:
An affirmative vote on Motion No. 1 obviates the need for a vote on Motion No. 2. A negative vote on Motion No. 1 necessitates a vote on Motion No. 2. Motion No. 3 is admissible and will be debated and voted upon separately.


MEASURE TO AMEND
Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Motion No. 1
That Bill C-38 be amended in Clause 23
(a)	by striking out line 22 at page 16 and substituting the following therefor:
"within thirty days after the claim arose,"
(b)	by striking out lines 33 to 35 at page 16 and substituting the following therefor:
"opinion that to bar the proceed-"
Motion No. 2
That Bill C-38 be amended by deleting Clause 23.
He said, Mr. Speaker, perhaps I could start out by saying that I was a member of the legislative committee that studied this bill. I want to say that I thought the committee was conducted by the government members on it, as well as the chairman, in a way that was very fair. In moving this amendment, I am not seeking to do so in a particularly partisan way because I recognize the government agreed to many worth while amendments to this bill. I felt that all the members of the committee co-operated very well to do the best they could to make this bill a better bill than it was when it left this House at second reading, and I think there have been some significant improvements.
However, one of the improvements that did not get made was the one to Section 23 of the bill which is a relatively minor but still an important item in the bill. Perhaps it would be clearer for Your Honour if I read Section 23 which amends Section 12 of the Crown Liability Act. The section states:
"12. (1) No proceedings lie against the Crown by virtue of Paragraph 3(b) unless, within seven days after the claim arose, notice in writing of the claim and of the injury complained of has been served on a responsible official of the department or agency administering the
February 15, 1990

property or the employee of the department or agency who is in control or charge of the property.
My objection to the current wording is the requirement that seven days' notice of claim be given. Part of the purpose of the act was to treat the Crown more as an ordinary person. No other individual or corporation in Canada, and I am using the word "person" here in its legal sense, is subject to this kind of protection.
For example, if a person is driving along a road owned by the federal Crown in the Northwest Territories and his car falls into a large hole caused by excavation by the federal Crown employees maintaining the road, that person would have to give notice within seven days after the claim arose of the injury complained of, or he might find that his claim is out of time, in other words, that there was a bar to his proceeding on that claim.
In my view, no other "person", no other corporation has such protection. If CPR happened to own a road somewhere in Canada and somebody drove into a hole on its road, no seven day notice requirement is there. The lawsuit could commence in the usual course of things within six years after the claim arose. Therefore, there is a a six-year limitation period that applies to CP, that applies to me, any member in this House, or any individual in Canada where the Crown has this special deal of seven days.
The parliamentary secretary, who I presume will be answering for the Minister of Justice in this matter, will say: "Well yes, but you must read subsection 2," which states:
(2) Failure to give, or insufficiency of, the notice required by subsection (1) is not a bar to the proceedings if the court in which the proceedings are taken is of the opinion that the Crown in its defence was not prejudiced by the want or insufficiency of the notice and that to bar the proceedings would be an injustice, notwithstanding that reasonable excuse for the want or insufficiency of the notice is not established.
There are two proposed amendments, as Your Honour has indicated.
The first one is to change the seven day period to thirty, which is not much of a concession but it is some. I invite the parliamentary secretary to consider that.
The second amendment would be to take out the provision in subsection (2) that would require the plaintiff in an action to show that the Crown was not prejudiced by the want or insufficiency of the notice. In
Government Orders
other words, the question of prejudice to the Crown is not the issue. The question really is would it be an injustice to prevent the plaintiff from proceeding with his claim, and only that issue, not the question of whether the Crown was prejudiced by the notice. Because if the Crown states that it has nobody around who can say whether or not there was a hole in that road on that day, the Crown is going to say it is prejudiced because its witness is dead, its people have left the area, or there is no one who worked in that area left in its employ and it cannot find them.
It seems to me that that ought not to be the test, because that defence is not available to anyone else. Although in the case of individuals, it maybe possible for an individual to remember a hole in his driveway on a particular day, it will not be for a large corporation and why should the Crown be placed in a better position than a large corporation?
I have put that amendment as one of my amendments. The second amendment is to get rid of the clause entirely. I invite the minister to consider that possibility. If he really wanted to treat the Crown as an ordinary citizen in this instance, and I invite him to do so, he could simply delete the entire clause. If that is unacceptable, then I would request that he consider the other amendments I have proposed which would extend the notice period by 30 days and take away the requirement that prejudice to the Crown or non-prejudice to the Crown be shown by a plaintiff before he is allowed to proceed if he has missed the time period specified in the section.
I hope that the parliamentary secretary will consider my remarks in the spirit in which they are intended. They are not intended as a criticism of the bill as drafted. I recognize that this is a relatively standard type of limitation clause protecting Crowns. But I do think in this day and age the Crown in right of Canada, and certainly in right of the provinces, does not need this kind of protection, in my submission.
The answer given in committee when this issue was raised there was that this was exactly what was done in Ontario under the Municipal Act, for example, so why should we not follow the same procedure. What I am saying to the parliamentary secretary is let the House be a leader in this regard and let us start changing some of these archaic rules that, while protecting the Crown,

Government Orders
harm our citizens. They lessen the rights of the citizens of the country. Surely the Crown as a representative of the citizens, as it is coming increasingly to be, and after all Parliament is its representative, ought not to be looking at itself to be protecting itself from its citizens but in fact to help the citizenry. If it is going to give rights to citizens to sue one another or other corporations without a 7,10 or 30-day notice period, surely it does not need to insist on such notice for itself as against its own citizens, which is exactly what Section 23 is doing.
I ask the parliamentary secretary and the minister to consider removing this particular section from the bill altogether and, if that is not acceptable, to agree with my other amendment.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, in speaking on Motion No. 1, and indirectly on Motion No. 2,1 would like to echo the comments of the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands about the spirit with which the legislative committee approached this bill. Certainly, there were significant improvements to the legislation in a number of areas. The hon. member for Kingston and the Islands played a very distinguished role in the Chair. He was certainly veiy vigorous in that role on a number of occasions. I think that we came out with a better bill as a result of that process.
There were a number of areas in which I sought improvements to the legislation by amending the bill, in some cases successfully and in other cases the government defeated those amendments. Clause 23 was one of those clauses in which I did seek an amendment very similar to that which is proposed by the member for Kingston and the Islands. There is absolutely no reason to maintain this seven-day notice provision. I fully support Motion No. 1 which would extend that period to 30 days and which would also make certain changes in the second part of it.
I must say that I am astonished at the suggestion of the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands that if that fails that we should repeal Clause 23. What the Liberal member is suggesting is that we move backward to the status quo and that the current provisions of Clause 23, although limited, would in fact remove the requirement in the existing subsection 12(1) that a copy of the notice
of claim be sent to the Deputy Attorney General of Canada. In addition, the new Clause 23 would remove the exception in subsection 12(2) concerning the failure or insufficiency of notice.
Clause 23 is a step in the right direction. It does remove a couple of barriers that now exist for the citizen seeking justice before the Federal Court. I am very disappointed at the suggestion of the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands that he wants to go back to the status quo. That is exactly what he would be doing by repealing Clause 23 in its entirety. He would be going back to the existing provisions of the Code.
I do not know whether it is the position of the Liberal Party that these barriers, which now exist in Clause 12 with respect to the notice, and the exceptions remain.
I would call upon the member for Kingston and the Islands to reconsider Motion No. 2 and to recognize that certainly there are improvements that can and should be made to this clause, but in the event that Motion No. 1 is not successful, I would suggest, with respect, to the member for Kingston and the Islands that proceeding with Motion No. 2 would be a step backwards. I am not at all sure that he would want to take that step which would in fact weaken the rights of the citizen in litigation against the Crown.


Mr. Rob Nicholson (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to echo the comments of my colleagues that this bill is a step in the right direction and that there were significant improvements that were made at the legislative committee. The member for Burnaby-Kingsway pointed out the role the member for Kingston and the Islands played in this. I am very pleased to have beside me the member for Red Deer who also was a very significant and helpful individual part of that legislative committee.
I have, as have the members of the government, considered very carefully the motions proposed by the member for Kingston and the Islands. While I always strive, if possible, to agree with a fellow alumni from Queen's University it is not always possible. I notice he is wearing his Queen's crest today on his jacket. I do not know if that was a coincidence, but nonetheless I think
February 15, 1990

that we are going to have to agree to disagree on the two motions that he has proposed to the House on Bill C-38.
I would suggest to the House that a seven-day notice for a proceeding against the Crown is not an unreasonable notice. I wanted to correct an impression that may have been left by the member proposing this, that we were doing so on the basis or our justification was the limitation period within the Ontario Municipal Act. I do remember making the comment and I said I thought it was a 48 hour notice, but regardless I think there is far more to this than the fact that the provinces or the municipalities across this countiy may have a shorter notice period of time.
The member talked about the Crown and the prejudice to individuals. I agree that this bill has gone a long way to putting the Crown on a more equitable footing with those who seek to bring an action against the Crown. But the Crown is not exactly like another individual in this country. The Crown should be equated with the public interest in Canada. The public interest in proceedings against the Crown is, of course, the Canadian taxpayer. I do not think it is unreasonable to ask those who have an action to be brought against the Crown to bring that within seven days.
I can tell the hon. member that, yes, I had a look at that. I had some of the same concerns that he did, that that is a very short limitation period. He anticipated the argument that I would make. There is a saving provision in the second part of that that gives relief to those who bring an action or who give notice to the Crown outside of the seven-day period. The wording is "the relief can be granted if there is no prejudice to the Crown." I think that is reasonable and I have to disagree with him that the only basis for relief is if there is an injustice to the plaintiff. These are proceedings against the Crown, they bind the Canadian taxpayer to pay if there is a successful lawsuit. So I cannot agree that we should remove the clause that protects the Crown nor should we remove the clause that is the saving provision on this.
The hon. member pointed out that if we abolish the clause altogether, and it was quite correctly pointed out by the member for Burnaby-Kingsway, that that would be an intolerable position. The member said that there would be a six-year limitation period under tort law. That is too long for a number of reasons. As you know
Government Orders
Mr. Speaker, the Crown controls and owns millions of acres across this country. If there is an accident on Crown land that gives rise to an action, we should be notified immediately for a number of reasons.
First, it allows the Crown to decide whether an action should go forward. Nobody wants to prolong litigation. Everyone wants to settle litigation as quickly as possible. With a seven-day notice period, the Crown is able to assess what it is that has gone wrong on Crown land and then make a determination as to whether a settlement should be made. That is in the interests of all parties.
As well, and I think the hon. member should have brought this to our attention, if there is something on Crown land that is a danger to the public, the Crown should be notified. That is in the public interest because the Crown wants to correct that situation. To let a hazardous situation continue indefinitely-


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: That is a bit unctuous.


Rob Nicholson: I did not quite catch what it was the member said, but he seemed to disagree with what I was saying.
If there is a problem on Crown land, the Crown should be notified of it immediately so that steps can be taken to protect other members of the public.


Mr. Fee:: More sensible.


Rob Nicholson: The member for Red Deer says that is sensible, and I believe it is. We have considered it veiy carefully and I think, in the best interests of the public, that these two motions should be defeated.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to answer two points. First, the hon. member for Burnaby-Kingsway in his very kind remarks suggested that by moving my second amendment I was seeking to destroy citizens' rights. I think he knows that that is not quite accurate.
I think he knows that I was trying to take this clause out of the bill entirely so that the Crown would be in the same position as any other defendant in such an action. If I have misunderstood the situation and that is not so, for he may have sought advice from legal minds and in places that I would not even dream of finding advice, he may know better than I do. I bow to his superior judgment, if I am wrong in that, but my intention was to do that. I think he knows that that was my intention.

February 15, 1990
Government Orders
Frankly, I think he was being a little naughty in suggesting that I was trying to take away citizens' rights.
Second, while the parliamentary secretary's arguments all make great sense, the same arguments can apply to any of the very large corporations of Canada that own millions of acres in Canada.
I chose the Canadian Pacific Railway very specifically as an example because CP owns millions of acres all over Canada. It faces exactly the same difficulties that the Crown does. It wants to correct problems on its property if it hears about them. It wants to settle litigation as well, because it is the shareholders of CP that end up paying, and many of them are citizens of Canada. For the parliamentary secretary to suggest that he is protecting the Canadian taxpayer by this amendment, I agree that is a worthy and laudable-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I have given the hon. member an opportunity to speak a second time, but really this is not possible at this stage. I thought it was a point of order.
Is the House ready for the question.


Some hon. members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The question is on Motion No. 1.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: 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.
I declare the motion lost.
Motion negatived.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The next question is on Motion No. 2, standing in the name of the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: 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.
I declare the motion lost.
Motion negatived.


Hon. Otto Jelinek (for the Minister of Justice) moved:: Motion No. 3.
That Bill C-38 be amended in clause 31 in the French version by
striking out line 32 at page 21 and substituting the following therefor:
"ments rendus contre l'Etat dans les cas oh un fait".


Rob Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, this is a technical amendment to make sure the versions in both official languages are as identical as possible. It would more accurately reflect what we are trying to do to use the term contre I'Etat as opposed to visant I'Etat.
The use of contre I'Etat would make it correspond with other references to the interests of the Crown.


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.
Douglas Grinslade Lewis: moved that the bill, as amended, be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Douglas Grinslade Lewis: that the bill be read the third time and passed.
February 15, 1990


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

Douglas Grinslade Lewis: moved 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 second time and referred to a legislative committee.


Rob Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Hon. Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada I have the honour to speak at second reading of Bill C-59, the British Columbia Courts Amendment Act. This act would amend the Judges Act as well as a number of ancillary clauses resulting from the changes in court structures in the province of British Columbia.
The Government of Canada is committed to making the judicial system in Canada more efficient. To that end the federal government is co-operating with the provinces to improve the administration of justice throughout the country.
One example of that is the government's policy of responding positively to the initiatives of provincial governments to reorganize the Provincial Superior District and County Courts to better suit and improve the administration of justice in the provinces.
The amendments contained in Bill C-59 will give effect to the decision of the province of British Columbia to merge its county courts into the British Columbia Supreme Court. Legislation to effect the merger of the County Courts with the Supreme Court of British Columbia was adopted by the province of B.C. in June, 1989, to come into force July 1, 1990 or such earlier date as might be fixed by proclamation.
Bill C-59 would enact the complementary amendments to federal legislation in consequence upon the merger of the courts.
In addition to changing the name of the court where it appears in federal statutes, this legislation will make the changes in the Judges Act necessary to reflect the new
Government Orders
organization of British Columbia's courts, including their creation of a new position of Associate Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of British Columbia.
This bill is neither major nor complex. All of its provisions might be described as technical, yet it contributes substantially to the more effective functioning of the legal system in British Columbia by making the necessary amendments to federal statutes to permit the court merger in that province.
In addition, this bill represents another example of this government's commitment to co-operating with the provinces and territories to the benefit of all Canadians. I would ask the support of all members in ensuring speedy passing of this bill.


Mr. George S. Rideout (Moncton):: Mr. Speaker, our party supports the position of the government. We see this legislation as something that should probably happen in B.C., but in part it is up to the people of B.C. to make this decision. I believe there are about seven or eight provinces across the country that now have a unified court system. Obviously for B.C. to move in this direction is a positive statement.
We in New Brunswick went through this process about eight or nine years ago, and there is always some hesitation and concern, particularly among conservative barristers who are reluctant to change and reluctant to go through that process.
If the New Brunswick experience is any indication, the process works well and was an improvement. One is not faced with trying to decide in which court to proceed because there is only one court. We think this is a move in the right direction.
We would urge all those people in British Columbia who have concerns to come before the committee studying the legislation to make sure that their views are heard. We agree with the parliamentary secretary that it is more technical in nature than substantive, but the effects can be substantive. That is why these groups, organizations and individuals should come forward.
Perhaps, once all the courts are unified under one system, we should be considering specialization as far as judges are concerned. That is a choice we may want to look at some time in the future, where you have family law judges, criminal law judges and judges of civil matters.

February 15, 1990
Government Orders
We on this side of the House are supportive of the general direction of this bill and look with interest to the submissions that will be made.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, I rise to support this legislation. As a member of Parliament from the province of British Columbia, I am particularly pleased to note that in effect this proposal of the government would implement legislation that was adopted and supported by all parties in the British Columbia House in June of last year to effect the merger of the county courts with the Supreme Court.
I believe this leaves only one province with split jurisdiction. I believe Nova Scotia retains the split jurisdiction. Hopefully, it too will move under Premier McDonough in the very near future to achieve that important advance.
It has been indicated that the legislation is largely technical in nature, and that is quite accurate. I do want to take this opportunity though, since the subject of this bill is the courts and the merger of the courts, to take a couple of minutes to talk about the important question of access to these courts.
While it is important that we move forward in ensuring the courts are efficient in the administration of justice- and this bill will certainly be a small step in that direction-there are still serious concerns with respect to access to justice in British Columbia in particular but also in other parts of the country.
One of the important elements of justice and access to justice in this land is the ability of those without resources to have access to the courts, whether it be district courts, county courts, the Supreme Court or higher courts. For that reason I want to take this opportunity to express my deep concern and that of my colleagues about the cut-backs in legal aid.
I have the most recent annual report of the Legal Services Society of British Columbia, which is the body responsible for ensuring access to the courts and the provision of legal aid in British Columbia.
In this most recent annual report the chairperson of the board of directors of the Legal Services Society states:
In B.C., legal rights are empty rights. Rights conferred by the
Charter of Rights are rights without remedies because the province
is not providing adequate funding for legal aid services.
Mr. Henderson points out that this is an essential element of a system of justice which is accessible to all citizens. He goes on to point out that some of the particular areas of concern are the low level of tariff paid to lawyers who take on legal aid cases, the absence of adequate resources to provide assistance to people involved in debt litigation, hearings before administrative tribunals in workers' compensation matters, welfare appeals, and refugee claims.
As well, on the question of access the board points out that it is essential that steps be taken to ensure the justice system is responsive to the needs of native people. We have seen a number of inquiries, whether it be the Marshall inquiry in Nova Scotia, the inquiry currently under way in Manitoba or in other jurisdictions which have pointed out serious problems with the accessibility of the justice system to native people in Canada.
The justice reform committee report in British Columbia stated:
Our legal system falls short of providing equal access to all citizens.
I would hope the federal government would accept its responsibility for far more adequate resources to legal aid across this country. I recognize that the federal government does make a significant contribution to legal aid through cost sharing agreements. There is still far more that can be done, and I hope that the government will move in that direction.
On the question of access to justice, particularly under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the minority languages provisions of the Constitution, I want to ask that the Minister of Justice move very quickly to implement the unanimous recommendations of the Standing Committee on Human Rights to fund the Court Challenges Program fully.
This legislation before the House now deals with the efficiency of the courts and an important element of that whole question is the question of access, whether that be through legal aid or through funding under the Court Challenges Program, to make the rights which are on paper a reality to all Canadians.
The unanimous report of the standing committee on the Court Challenges Program pointed out that access to the courts is integral to the effective implementation of constitutional rights. As the Minister of Justice is well aware, this program is struggling. At this point the executive director of the Canadian Council on Social
February 15, 1990

Development has given lay-off notices to the staff of the program. I hope the Minister of Justice in his concern for access to the courts would move veiy quickly to ensure that steps are taken to fund this important program fully.
Finally, I want to take this opportunity to raise concerns on legislation which is largely technical in nature but deals with access to the courts and the efficiency of the court system. Concerns have been raised recently by a number of my colleagues dealing with the whole question of sexism in the courts. This particular legislation deals with courts in British Columbia, but it is not restricted to British Columbia. I regret to say it was a judge in my province who referred to a three year old child as being sexually aggressive.
[ Translation]
Recently, Mr. Speaker, we had a judge in the province of Quebec, Judge Denys Dionne of the Quebec Court in Longueuil, who said in one of his judgments: "As they say, rules are like women: they were made to be violated."
That belies the grim reality of violence directed against women in the country: the fact that a women is raped every 17 minutes in Canada; the fact that one woman in four will be raped some time in her life, most often by someone that she knows; the fact that one in eight girls is sexually assaulted before the age of 18, usually by a male family member; the fact that 54 per cent of women living with men will be struck at some time during the relationship; the fact that 60 per cent of rapes reported and most battering and child sexual assault take place in the home; and, finally, the fact that some 90 per cent of women are sexually harassed on the job at some time in their work life.
I would hope that the minister, in moving forward in this area of improving the efficiency of the courts, would also take steps to ensure that our judges are educated as to the reality of violence against women.
We recall the comments of Madam Justice Bertha Wilson recently and too many other judges: the Quebec judge to whom I have just referred and the Northwest
Government Orders
Territories judge who said sexual assaults are less serious there because most occur when the woman is drunk and passed out and, to quote the judge, "The man comes along, sees a pair of hips and helps himself". There is also the Nova Scotia judge who told women that they should obey their husbands and go back to them.
I would join in the call by many women across Canada and all those concerned about equitable justice for a national task force to examine sex discrimination in the Canadian legal system. I take this opportunity to urge the Minister of Justice to strike a national task force to look into this very serious problem of sexism on the bench.
I just might add that I know there is a recently founded Canadian judicial centre, and I would hope that this centre would play a leading role in helping to educate our judiciary.
There have been more women appointed to the bench recently and certainly the minister is quite accurate in noting that. It is a welcome change from former Conservative governments. Up until 1979 no Conservative government had ever appointed a woman to the bench at any level in the country. We certainly welcome this change as an important step forward.
In conclusion, I support the legislation which is before the House and hope that the government will take note of the concerns I have raised with respect to access to justice in the area of legal aid, the renewal of the Court Challenges Program, and, particularly, the importance of educating our judges about the reality of violence against women in Canadian society.


Mr. Howard Crosby (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the TVeasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Burnaby-Kingsway in his remarks on Bill C-59 made reference to the fact that Nova Scotia does not have a unified court system. He indicated his wish that that would occur in the near future.
I join him in seeking that end, but I do take exception to the fact that he referred to Premier McDonough. I am afraid that if we wait for McDonough to be elected Premier of Nova Scotia it will probably be a grandchild or great-grandchild of the current leader of the New

February 15, 1990
Government Orders
Democratic Party and well into the next century, perhaps the year 3000.


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, bill read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.

Douglas Grinslade Lewis: that 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, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.


Rob Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, I have the honour of speaking at second reading of Bill C-60, the Ontario Courts Amendment Act.
This bill will provide the complementary amendments to the Judges Act and other federal statutes necessary for the implementation of court reform in Ontario.
That province recently enacted legislation to merge the District Court of Ontario with the Superior Trial Court, the High Court of Justice.
The merged court will become the General Division of the Ontario Court of Justice, a comprehensive name to be given to courts of trial jurisdiction in that province. In addition the Court of Appeal, as is the High Court of Justice, a branch of the Supreme Court of Ontario will be constituted as a separate court. The Ontario legislation therefore marks a significant departure from the traditional court structure in that province, virtually untouched since 1881.
The new Ontario Court General Division will be organized on a regional basis. A regional senior judge
will be appointed to administer the court in each of the eight regions under the over-all direction of the chief justice and the associate chief justice of the court.
When the Attorney General of Ontario announced his proposals on May 1, 1989 they were met with varying degrees of acceptance by the legal profession and the public at large. Over the past several months several aspects of these proposals have generated representations to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada from groups and individuals concerned with their effects upon the independence of the judiciary in Ontario.
The hon. minister has therefore been required to take a much closer interest in these proposals than a federal minister would ordinarily accord a province's plans for court structure. On a number of occasions the Minister of Justice has discussed the legislation directly with Mr. Scott. The hon. minister agreed to make a number of changes since incorporated at the committee stage and in an amending bill enacted in December. I think you will find, Mr. Speaker, that these amendments fully meet the concerns which have been expressed.
Bill C-60 itself is largely technical in nature and is designed to reflect in federal statutes changes to the names and structures of Ontario courts. Upon its passage the judges of the existing High Court of Justice and District Court of Ontario will be reappointed to the Ontario Court of Justice General Division, while courts of the present appellate branch of the Supreme Court of Ontario will be reappointed to the separate Court of Appeal.
A number of transitional provisions have been included in this bill. One which I would bring to the attention of hon. members affects the chief judge and the associate chief judge of the District Court of Ontario. On the merger of the High Court of Justice and the District Court, the positions of chief judge and associate chief judge of the District Court will lapse. For reasons of fairness Section 46 of the bill will continue the salary of the chief judge and the associate chief judge at their present level until such time as the salary annexed to the offices they will hold on the new court equals or surpasses it.
Both Chief Judge Lyon and Associate Chief Judge LeSage have occupied their present positions with great distinction for a period of years that would, were it not
February 15, 1990

for the abolition of their court, permit them to take the benefits of Section 32 of the Judges Act.
This section allows a chief justice or chief judge who has served in that capacity for a minimum of five years to step down to a temporary puisne position on the court. By virtue of Subsection 43(2) of the Judges Act, a pension to which a judge would thereafter become entitled will be calculated on the basis of the salary annexed to the office of chief justice or chief judge at the time he or she finally retires or leaves the bench.
In the interest of fairness, subclause 46(2) of this bill will extend the same right to the chief judge and the associate chief judge of the District Court who have held their respective offices for seven years, and in the case of Chief Judge Lyon, for an additional five years as associate chief judge of the court, by deeming them to have made an election under Section 32 of the Judges Act effective upon the merger of the court.
I will note here that it is intended to introduce a number of amendments to this bill in committee to take account of additional purely technical changes required to federal laws. They do not however affect the salient points of Bill C-60.
Mr. Speaker, in accordance with the principle of shared jurisdiction as provided under the Constitution, the provinces and the federal government are bound to work together to ensure the proper administration of justice in this country.
An Act of Parliament and decision by the executive authority are necessary to give full effect to the measures being considered by the province with respect to the Constitution of the courts as provided under Section 96 of the Constitution.

Bill C-60, the Ontario Courts Amendment Act, will allow the province of Ontario to institute reforms designed to improve the administration of justice in that province to make the courts more accessible and more responsive to the imperatives of contemporary litigation.
I hope that the spirit motivating these reforms will be accorded the approval of all hon. members.
Government Orders


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the official opposition I want to welcome the reform of the Ontario system of courts to Parliament.
The relatively modest effort which is before us is really part of a very large parcel of major reform of the court system of the province of Ontario. The province of Ontario is under the leadership of the Attorney General, Ian Scott. This is phase 1 of a two phase project. Phase 1 is already described, discussed and settled. Phase 2 is in the process now of being described. I am looking forward to seeing Parliament play its part in carrying this reform forward.
It should not be surprising, as the earlier discussion revealed, that Nova Scotia, British Columbia and Ontario are the last provinces of our country to be looking to reorganization with a view to greater efficiency of their court system.
I recall from my days of reading history the difficulties that the Fathers of Confederation faced in trying to bring this country together. We have talked in this House very often, and will be talking again this afternoon, about the problems that relate to our language issue, the English and the French.
The resolution of those problems by the Fathers of Confederation was relatively easy compared to the problems that they faced in trying to bring together the original colonies that formed Canada as each had, for long periods of time, an already mature system of justice and courts somewhat similar, but none of them wanting to yield anything to the establishment of the new country of Canada which emerged from the work of the Fathers of Confederation in 1867.
The pressure to maintain the prerogatives of the then existing system were a heavier burden on the Fathers of Confederation than the problems of accommodating English and French within the new country. We see that even today the challenge of modernizing the court systems with a view to greater efficiency and greater comprehensibility by the people of the province is still a task that causes a lot of concern.
I am looking forward to seeing the bill go to committee following second reading. I hope there will be briefs put forward by the various interest groups that are affected, which groups I want to talk about in a moment. I hope we will have some hearings because I do not agree with the government that, as was indicated by the parliamentary secretary, our role is derivative or-he did not use the words "rubber stamp", but he gave the clear impression

February 15, 1990
Government Orders
that our responsibility in this place is to rubber stamp what the provinces have decided to do.
I think we should try to be true to the vision of the Fathers of Confederation in 1867 who wanted to see something of a national system of justice emerge from their work. We must make sure that we do our job and that here in the Parliament of Canada we make a contribution to the work.
In saying that, I think we have also to recognize that a tremendous amount has been done and that the problems and the conflicting and competing interests within the justice system have been addressed by the attorney general. He had numerous meetings with all concerned.
I ought also to pay tribute to Mr. Justice Zuber and to the enormous effort that went into his report which forced the entire community involved in the justice system in the province of Ontario to think again about the system they were living with and about the improvements that could be possible.
Certainly efficiency and comprehensibility were not objectives of the Fathers of Confederation when the system was put together. In those days it was just a matter of trying to get approval and support for Confederation. We began with a system of justice, if one can call it that, which really has no central management. It depends on the working together of four systems, each of which has by tradition, by law, by our Constitution, certain prerogatives and a certain independence.
We are all very aware of the independence of the judiciary, an independence which the system of justice, before its reorganization and when we are finished with its reorganization, must continue. Otherwise, the democracy of Canada will have lost something.
Second, the Crown attorneys have by tradition, by law, certain recognized prerogatives which also have to be accommodated within this so-called system. There is the bar which represents the public, the litigants who come to court to defend themselves, to make claims against fellow citizens, against the government and so on. The whole prerogative that the bar has enjoyed for decades and is a hallmark of our system needs also to be
accommodated within the system which is before us to revise.
Finally, and by no means least important, there is the court system of Ontario which administers the system; the officials, the people who build and manage the court houses with their timetables, the process servers and the paper handlers within the system, all of whom have a responsibility to represent the taxpayers of the province with a system that is efficient and modem and in which things happen and are understood.
Those competing interests, all of which need to be accommodated by the new system, have been broadly involved and are very aware of the implications of the system before us which we are being asked to consider, to look at in committee and to validate by the legislation that the minister has introduced.
I am looking forward very much to our work. The court system faces challenges today that could not even have been dreamed of back in 1867. The fact that the four independent systems have been able to work together and make a system, even though it needs the changes we are considering, is one that we are very proud of. It is a tribute not so much to the structure as to the people who have worked within it, who have recognized each other's role, each other's need for independence, and have done their best to accommodate that. I think it is appropriate to pay tribute to them.
It is taking nothing away from any of them or the role they have played in making the system work so far, to recognize, as seven other provinces have done, including Quebec which has done so from Confederation, that a unified system has considerable advantages.
When I was discussing this bill with some of my colleagues in my caucus who are not members of the bar, they were all delighted to hear, for themselves and on behalf of constituents, that there was going to be a system which would be more comprehensible to them. When the Supreme Court has done something, they will understand more clearly what that means.
At this time we have a Charter, which we did not have, we have a legal aid system, which we did not have, and we have complicated family relations which, more often than they should and certainly more often than in the past, bring members of families to court. We have had a tremendous population growth and one which is very
February 15, 1990

uneven. Some parts of our province have huge populations, others have grown much more slowly, and all of that has had to be accommodated within a system designed in 1867 and revised in a very significant and important way in 1881 and 1882, but really not in any significant way since then.
So I congratulate my colleagues and counterparts in the province of Ontario for the work they have done. I congratulate the Attorney General, Ian Scott, for bringing forward this major initiative, and the Minister of Justice across the floor and his parliamentary secretary for giving us the opportunity now to deal with this bill and to see it carried to committee.
I noted in reading the papers from the process at Queen's Park that it was the hope of the Attorney General that this reform and unification might be in effect by January 1990. That would have been okay with us in the Official Opposition, but it was not presented for second reading until today, which is already after January 1, 1990. I regret that, for whatever reason, the package did not reach us in time to meet the Attorney General's desired target of January 1, 1990, but I hope that we can still make this happen very soon, certainly before the end of 1990, if not months and months before that.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, I would like to rise very briefly to indicate that we in the New Democratic Party do indeed support this legislation. Many of the arguments that I made with respect to the preceding bill, the bill that would effect the merger of courts in British Columbia, apply of course to this legislation as well. They include the comments I made with respect to access to the justice system, the funding of legal aid programs and the concerns about the importance of educating the judiciary with respect to sexism in our society and, unfortunately, on the bench.

Mr. Speaker, I also mentioned that extending the Court Challenges Program was important in order to promote access to justice across Canada.
In fact, extending the program is important, not only for equality rights but also and above all for the purpose of promoting and defending the rights of language minorities in this country.
Mr. Speaker, the Court Challenges Program has been in existence since 1978 for cases involving official languages. The fund for this program was established because the government at the time, and in fact all members of Parliament, thought it was important to obtain a court ruling that would specify to what extent the Constitution protects official language minorities.
Government Orders
Mr. Speaker, in 1982, when the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms came into force, the federal government decided to provide for a renewed and expanded program that would finance court challenges by Canada's language minorities.
Mr. Speaker, this program is an important tool for promoting official languages and language rights in this country.
Mr. Speaker, since 1978, the program has funded a number of challenges in our major courts. For instance, the right to be educated in the minority language, as stated in section 23 of the Charter, was the subject of most of the challenges funded by the program.
Last December, the Standing Committee on Human Rights unanimously recommended that the government renew and even expand the Court Challenges Program, both with respect to equality rights and language rights.
I therefore want to ask the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lewis), since we are talking about the courts in Ontario and especially, Mr. Speaker, in recognition of the fact that there are more than one million Francophones in the province of Ontario, to respond-


Don Boudria: There are 426,000!


Svend Johannes Robinson: One million! -to respond positively to this very important recommendation that is supported unanimously by the Human Rights Committee.
Mr. Speaker, without funding for court challenges, language minorities will be deprived of their rights.
Mr. Speaker, we support the bill before the House today. However, I want to take this opportunity once again to ask the government to respond positively and very quickly to the recommendations made by the Standing Committee on Human Rights.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I want to speak for only a few minutes on this bill. I want to do so from the perspective of a non-lawyer to express to you and to other members of this House just how hopelessly complicated the existing system was and is.
Perhaps to people who are learned in the law it is simple to understand that in the Supreme Court of Ontario there is a Court of Appeal, a High Court of Justice, a District Court, a Surrogate Court, a Unified Family Court, the court Masters and the family law commissioners. Maybe that makes a whole lot of sense to the people in the legal profession, but to the rest of us this is very complicated. For our constituents, those whom we are charged to represent in this House and those whom our colleagues represent in the legislative

February 15, 1990
Government Orders
assembly of our province, it is certainly high time that we make this system a little bit easier to understand.
The bill proposes to do so in two steps. This is not the first attempt at simplifying the court system. It seemed that for the three and a half years that I sat in the Ontario legislature every time we talked about the courts of justice in the Ontario House, it was always for the purpose of making it simpler to understand. It never did get much simpler.
To add to the existing structures I talked about only a moment ago, in the provincial court of Ontario, as opposed to the Supreme Court of Ontario which should be distinguished from the Supreme Court of Canada which we have not talked about, there is the family division, the criminal division and the civil division. Imagine the average Canadian trying to figure out how all of this is supposed to work.
We know that the ultimate objective is to have only two structures, the Court of Appeal and the Ontario Court of Justice. It would seem to me that that would be so much easier to understand and to explain to those we are representing. The old adage that justice delayed is justice denied is not only true. Using the same analogy, you could debate whether justice that is not understandable to the average person is justice at all when it is beyond reach and comprehension of so many people because it is so hopelessly complicated.
To add to this very complicated structure, we have all the tribunals and quasi-judicial organizations that exist both provincially and federally. I think, for instance, at the federal level of such organizations as the Immigration Appeal Board, which is very structured. The justices, if that is what they call themselves, or panel members, walk into the room and everyone is expected to rise as if you were appearing before the Supreme Court. There are other organizations which are a lot less formal. However, as far as I am concerned, those boards and tribunals act in a way which is far too formal.
I know that some people would say that some of them should be changed into courts. I happen to disagree with that proposition. I think there is a need for these quasi-judicial bodies to operate in a less formal manner so that the average constituent can go there with his friend or neighbour and express his point of view.
I do not want to take much more time. I recognize that we want this bill to proceed today. I think you will hear in a few moments of the co-operation that our party is willing to provide in order to enable that to proceed.

I therefore want to congratulate the Attorney General of Ontario on this excellent initiative. It was high time something was done in this respect, and I am very pleased to see this kind of co-operation between the federal government and the province. I think the Liberal minister from Ontario is to be commended for his progressive attitude and his desire to make the justice system more accessible to Canadians.

Of course I want to offer as well my good wishes to the minister across who has co-operated with the provincial Liberal minister who has all the foresight. I am glad that the federal Minister of Justice took heed of the foresight of his provincial Liberal counterpart.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The hon. member for York Centre on a point of order.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, there has been some consultation. When this bill has been disposed of I think you would find agreement to deal with the next two bills on the Order Paper in order to see them referred to committee this week, namely the arson bill and the divorce bill dealing with Get.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, in view of the importance of the two items of legislation, particularly the latter one on which we have been urging government action for some time, I am pleased that the member for York Centre accepted my earlier suggestion that we sit past the hour of adjournment on this legislation.
February 15, 1990


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Yes, Mr. Speaker, naturally the government would be prepared to not see the clock.
I might also suggest, in the interest of our colleagues who perhaps have other engagements, that we could agree not to call quorum. Therefore, just the members who are interested in the bill would be required to stay in the House, if that suits everybody else's position.


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I declare the motion carried.
Bill read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.


CRIMINAL CODE
Douglas Grinslade Lewis: that Bill C-53, an act to amend the Criminal Code (arson), be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak on a subject of concern to many Canadians. I think all of us know what a terrible destructive force fire can be when it occurs. Fires cause death, injury and property damage every day in this country. Most are the result of accident or carelessness, but some are deliberately, recklessly or negligently caused by someone. This was the case in over 10,500 fires in 1988. This was a 17 per cent increase over 1987.
Arson is a major crime in Canada and statistics illustrate its seriousness. Arson accounts directly for at least 13 per cent of all reported fires. In 1988 arson was the cause of 42 deaths and injuries to 456 civilians and fire-fighters, many of the latter being volunteers. In the same year the value of insurable losses caused by arson and other set fires was more than $198 million. The
Government Orders
actual economic loss is estimated to be four to five times that amount.
In Canada many of the original arson provisions of the Criminal Code have not been amended substantially since the Code was implemented in 1892. The present provisions are contained in Part 11 of the Code which deals with criminal acts with respect to certain property. Sections 433 to 436 provide for several offences of arson including setting a fire by negligence. As well, they contain a presumption of fraudulent intent on the part of a beneficiary of an insurance policy.
The present law on arson focuses on property. A distinction is drawn as to the types of property that are covered by the crime of arson. However, Bill C-53 focuses on the danger that fire poses to the life, health, safety and property of all Canadians, and particularly to fire-fighters.

Since 1975, the Canadian Association of Fire Chiefs, the Association of Canadian Fire Marshals and Fire Commissioners, and the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police have repeatedly called for amendments to the Criminal Code provisions respecting arson.
The resolutions adopted at their annual meetings recommend that the scope of the crime of arson be extended to cover all property, that explosion be included as means to commit arson and that possession of an incendiary material in suspicious circumstances be made a crime.
In 1975, the Uniform Law Conference passed similar resolutions and recommended that the Department of Justice review the sections of the Criminal Code dealing with arson.

In 1984 the Law Reform Commission of Canada published its Working Paper 36 on arson. It stated that the law is both archaic and inadequate. It made five recommendations which called for significant simplification of the law. Following publication of that working paper the Department of Justice studied the Law Reform Commission's recommendations as well as the proposals of various concerned groups. Consultations were also carried out with representatives of the prosecution and defence bars, law professors, the police, fire

February 15, 1990
Government Orders
chiefs, fire marshals and the fire insurance industry. The present bill incorporates many of the recommendations which were voiced in these consultations.
I am not going to go into a great amount of detail but there are some points that I want to make with respect to the bill. First, there is the modernization of the definition of the crime; second, the reformulation of the crime of negligent arson; third, the reformulation of the present presumption in Sections 435 and 436; and fourth, the creation of a new offence of possession of incendiary materials.
At present arson is defined as wilfully setting fire to specific types of property. The Law Reform Commission proposed to redefine arson as any conduct which causes an explosion or a fire which results in the destruction of or damage to property. We have adopted virtually all of these elements in the definition of the offence of arson. First, explosion as well as a fire is a means of committing the offence. Second, damage to property is a necessary element of the defence. Third, the distinctions which exist in the present law as to types of property which may be the subject of an arson are eliminated.
I want to address these changes.
It is increasingly common in the investigation of arson cases to find that a deliberately set explosion was used to start a fire or that a fire was deliberately accelerated by an explosion.
In investigations, it is often difficult to determine which occurred first-the fire or the explosion.
This difficulty poses a problem for the prosecution when laying a charge in such cases for, at the moment, there are two separate sets of offences in the Code: those relating to causing an explosion (Ss. 79 to 82) and those relating to setting a fire (Ss 433 to 436).
There is always a risk that if the prosecution alleges that the fire was the initial event and the explosion followed and the evidence is to the contrary, the accused will be acquitted.
By providing that the offence is committed by either causing an explosion or setting a fire, this risk is eliminated.

The courts have interpreted the phrase "set fire to" in the present Section 436 somewhat narrowly. Case law has determined that the phrase requires that there be actual combustion to commit arson. Mere scorching, for instance, is not enough even though it may constitute significant damage. Accordingly, to date some individuals who have set fire wilfully have been acquitted owing to the fact that the damage to the property had not reached the degree of combustion required by the case law. To rectify this the definition of the offence has been amended so that any damage to property caused by fire or explosion would constitute arson. This change will ensure that whether or not combustion actually occurs, arsonists will be called upon to account for the damage they cause.
The Law Reform Commission has recommended that arson cover the destruction or damage to all property or real property without distinction. Under the current legislation, setting fire to a vegetable stack is arson while setting fire to someone's car is not. The proposed definition eliminates anomalies such as these by making no distinction among the types of property capable of being damaged.
I also point out the effect of the present Section 436 of the Criminal Code is to deem it to be arson committed by negligence where a loss of life, bodily harm or property damage results from a failure to comply with fire prevention laws by an owner, an occupant of property or person who has control of the property.
The Law Reform Commission recommended that no offence of negligence be retained in the Criminal Code in which the harm caused can only be damage to, or in relation to property. However, many of those consulted argued forcefully that too many owners are lax or negligent in maintaining residential rental units, particularly in disadvantaged areas. Given the destructive nature of fire once it started, it was important to emphasize the fundamental duty of care with regard to fire by clearly warning those who might be inclined to be
February 15, 1990

negligent that they may be charged and convicted before a criminal court.
Even though it is important to retain an offence of negligent arson in the Code, it was important to reformulate it and the presumptions which underpin it so as to minimize any possibility that the offence might be found contrary to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. We have done that in Section 436.
The present provisions on arson contain two presumptions. Under Section 435 the fact that a person holds a fire insurance policy relating to property wilfully set on fire is, in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, proof of intent to defraud. Section 436 provides that a person is deemed wilfully to have caused a fire if it is established the fire would not have occurred if the fire prevention by-law had been complied with. We believe that both presumptions are open to challenge under the Charter.
Bill C-53 will amend the present mandatory presumptions to permit permissible inferences. That is, the trier of fact may, not must, infer an intent to defraud from the fact that an owner intentionally caused an explosion or fire to property that was insured. In practice, the proposed permissible inferences should be as effective as the present mandatory presumptions in helping to convict the fraudulent arsonist without, at the same time, infringing on the charter of rights of the accused.
The present Criminal Code does not contain any provisions covering cases where someone is caught with accelerants, gasoline or other similar substances in circumstances indicating that they have these items in order to set a fire. Because mere possession of such materials is itself not a crime, the police must wait until a suspect has taken some substantial step toward setting a fire before making an arrest. By that time it may be too late as the fire may have already begun to bum. To deal with this omission the bill creates a new offence of possession of incendiary materials for the purpose of committing an offence.
In conclusion, a number of representatives of the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police and the Canadian Association of Fire Chiefs have already endorsed these amendments, including the North York City Council, which my hon. friend represents.
The fire chief in my constituency in Orillia has been urging action on this issue for many years. I am pleased to advise Chief Shropshire and all fire chiefs and
Government Orders
fire-fighters in Canada that the government has taken action. We want to send a very clear message that arson is a very serious crime. Canadians, especially fire-fighters and innocent bystanders must be given the fullest possible protection from today's sophisticated arsonists.
I ask that the House support these amendments.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, I want to speak veiy briefly on this matter. I had no idea that a learned discourse had been prepared on the subject by the minister.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I believe the hon. member for Scarborough-Rouge River does have a short discourse. We will listen to him on debate.


Mr. Derek Lee (Scarborough-Rouge River):: Mr. Speaker, this is not really a legal discourse. I did look forward to addressing the introduction of this bill and its second reading.
What the legislation does signal, of course, is an incredibly large need for reform, not just of this section of the Criminal Code, but many parts of the Criminal Code.
What we have in the old arson sections of the Criminal Code are some very outdated terms. We can see by looking at them just how far the Criminal Code and these provisions have drifted out of date with reality. The old section refers to setting fire to military or public stores. Well, I do not know what public stores really are. In Nova Scotia where I was bom, I think a public store was a liquor store. It refers to timber for fitting out a ship. I have not seen that concept in quite a while. It also refers to stacks of vegetable produce. This is not just a question of cosmetics or the law looking dumb and inexact. It is actually much worse than that. The terms the way they are expressed now provide pitfalls, booby-traps and ambiguities for police and Crown prosecutors right across the country.
For example, with reference to stacks of vegetables, I wonder whether burning a stack of tomatoes would constitute an offence. I suggest that it may well not because tomatoes are not vegetables, they are fruit. The way the old section reads: "Everyone who wilfully sets fire to a stack of vegetable produce, is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment". That is all it says. I question whether or not the simple lighting of a cigarette or several cigarettes is a stack of vegetable produce. These are examples of the difficulties with the old legislation. All of this has implications for cost-effec-

February 15, 1990
Government Orders
tiveness and efficiency in law enforcement and judicial procedures.
We would probably embarrass ourselves if we looked at the costs of mistrials and dismissals as a result of unnecessary loopholes and technical deficiencies in our laws. That is why I am pleased to address these today.
I would add one caution. That is the adoption in the new statutes of the crime of arson by negligence. It is something that the Law Reform Commission has referred to in its previous studies. I am not so sure that we should be creating an offence that is fuzzy or ambiguous in terms of definition and one where society is capable of off-loading its anger or revenge for a destructive fire, a fire that may have caused the loss of life, to someone who may have inadvertently failed to live up to some aspect of a municipal by-law. I think in terms of criminal law for all of our benefit we look for precision and the removal of ambiguity. I hope that the legislative committee will address this issue at the legislative committee stage.
Therefore I would signal our support in principle for adoption of these reforms. I ask the legislative committee to exercise some caution in its meticulous review of Section 436.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, in view of the hour I will abandon my lengthy learned discourse on this bill and merely take a couple of minutes to indicate that certainly we support in principle the changes which are being proposed to the Criminal Code in the area of arson.
As the minister indicated, there have been no substantive changes to this section of the Criminal Code since 1892 when the Code was enacted. The statistics are clear. In 1988 approximately 10,500 cases of arson or suspected arson took the lives of 42 people and caused more than $198 million in insurable losses. Of course the actual economic loss is well beyond that. One of the areas I would hope we could look at is the extent to which arson laws in fact are being effectively and vigorously enforced.
This causes particular difficulty to firefighters, many of whom are volunteers and at special risk. I would note that in 1987, for example, some 257 firefighters were
injured on the job. I would like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to firefighters across the country who have done such an outstanding job on behalf of the communities in which they work.
Canadians have lost homes, schools and workplaces to arson. For example, in 1987 in my own province of British Columbia, an elementary school in New Westminster was damaged to the tune of nearly $2 million. There have been losses of that nature across the country.
The minister indicated that there had been extensive consultations on this legislation. One of the groups that does not appear to have been consulted, at least there is no reference to it, is firefighters themselves. Sometimes we forget the people who are on the front lines. I am not talking about the fire chiefs but the International Association of Firefighters. They are the men and women who are in the front lines and I think they deserve to be heard in this area. If they are interested I hope that we could hear from them in the committee. It is not a lengthy process I am talking about but let us give an opportunity to those who are in the front lines. In some cases they have been injured or given their lives.
I would like to make one other comment with respect to this legislation in the context of criminal law reform. This is a rather piecemeal approach to criminal law reform and I would hope that there could be a more comprehensive approach. The Law Reform Commission of Canada has in fact done some important and, indeed, pioneering work in recommending changes to the Code. They have adopted a report on the general part and I know the minister recently indicated in a speech that he is prepared to move forward in this area. Let us hope that at last that movement does come about. The Criminal Code was first adopted in 1892 and it would be appropriate as we near the one hundredth anniversary of the adoption of the first Code to make a commitment on all sides of the House to try to work toward comprehensive reform instead of reform in bits and pieces.
Certainly there are a number of areas that have to be dealt with on an urgent basis. The report of the Marshall inquiry on native justice pointed to a number of areas of concern in terms of criminal law reform and practice. The practice of full disclosure by the Crown is strongly recommended by the Marshall inquiry as a means of
February 15, 1990

helping to avoid the kind the injustice that took place there.
I hope that the Minister of Justice will look very seriously at the necessary amendments in order to achieve full disclosure in the criminal justice process.
Finally, I want to come back to the question of a comprehensive approach to the criminal law and to note in examining the criminal law that the minister should pay careful attention to a study commissioned by the Secretary of State, the minister responsible for the status of women in 1986.
The working group came up with a study entitled "A Feminist Review of Criminal Law". It made a number of excellent recommendations and in the context of comprehensive criminal law reform I hope the government will look at them very seriously.
We have heard from Madam Justice Bertha Wilson on this important question of changes, particularly in the area of criminal law. She said, and I quote, "Some aspects of the criminal law in particular cry out for change since they are based on presuppositions about the nature of women and women's sexuality that in this day and age are a little short of ludicrous".
As well, she pointed out that in some areas of the law a distinctly male perspective is clearly discernible and has resulted in legal principles that are not fundamentally sound and should be revisited as and when the opportunity presents itself. This is a clear invitation to the government to move forward in this important area of criminal law reform and to deal with sexism in the criminal law and in our society.
I hope the minister will move in one particular area, the whole area of sexual assault and the honest belief defence which is clearly susceptible to abuse.
On behalf of my party, I support in principle the legislation we are now dealing with to bring up to date the law on arson in Canada. I want to pay tribute to those groups across the country who have been responsible for bringing this important legislation forward and certainly, as always, to commend the Minister of Justice for bringing forward this legislation in response to the Orillia fire chief as well as fire chiefs and men and women across this country who do such an outstanding job for our communities.
Government Orders


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, bill read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.

Douglas Grinslade Lewis: that Bill C-61, an act to amend the Divorce Act (barriers to religious remarriage), be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I have another short learned discourse that I want to make. I think it is important to say that I do appreciate the spirit of co-operation this afternoon. One might be tempted to shorten one's speeches-and I have somewhat anyway-but it is important that in the future when somebody says, "Well, why did the government move and why was there not much debate?" I think we could be held accountable for not at least putting on the record why we are going things. So, if I may, I would just like to set out a few thoughts.
The bill before us today is an amendment to the Divorce Act which would provide a court with discretionary powers to preclude a spouse from obtaining relief or proceeding under the Divorce Act where that spouse refuses to remove a barrier to religious remarriage and where the power to remove the barrier to religious remarriage lies solely with that person. Where the court is satisfied that the spouse who refuses to remove the barrier has genuine grounds of a religious or conscientious nature for doing so, it need not exercise its discretion to grant the remedy provided for in this legislation.
Two reasons have prompted the government to present the amendment. First, the Jewish community led by B'nai Brith and the Canadian Jewish Congress, supported by major Jewish organizations, has requested such an amendment to remedy a situation it considers to be unfair. A spouse should not be able to refuse to participate in a Jewish religious divorce-called a Get-in order to obtain concessions in a civil divorce. The Get should not be used as a bargaining tool for child custody and access or monetary support.

February 15, 1990
Government Orders
Second, I am concerned about protecting the integrity of the Divorce Act and preventing persons from avoiding the application of the principles contained in the act. For example, a wife may feel compelled to agree to custody arrangements which are not truly in the best interests of a couple's child in order to obtain a Get.
I want to take a few minutes to describe briefly the dilemma certain Jewish persons face because of their religious divorce procedures. In the Jewish religion divorce is accomplished by the delivery of a Get from the husband and its acceptance by the wife in the presence of a Rabbinical Court. According to the Jewish religious traditions, the procedure cannot be changed. Without a Get, a Jewish woman cannot remarry in her own faith. Children of a subsequent civil marriage suffer religious disabilities. While difficult remarriage within the Jewish faith for a man in the same circumstances is not impossible.
In a study conducted by B'nai Brith, husbands were twice as likely as wives to refuse to participate in the Get procedure in order to obtain concessions in a civil divorce. The Jewish community has attempted to solve this problem, but unfortunately they have not been successful.
I just want to say in response to earlier comments by my honourable friend-and I appreciate his comments and compliments-that the government is moving where it can and where it is brought to the government's attention to eliminate sexism and gender bias in the law. I think we have to do it not only in the stated law but in the way the law is applied. It is not perfect.
I say to you as the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada that I think the attention focused on the bias when found in the application of the law is important. That helps us to bring forward changes not only in laws but in people's attitudes, and that is important. While it may be difficult to get the questions in the House, I think it is helpful in that it focuses attention on the issue. I welcome the assistance of all members in dealing with that very important problem.
In preparing for Bill C-611 had two major concerns to resolve. First, the impact on other religious groups and,
second, the consistency of the amendment with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

I did not wish this Bill to affect unintentionally the rules pertaining to religious remarriage of other remarriage of other religious groups in Canada.
Thus, I consulted the leaders of fifty religious groups in Canada, described the elements of the proposed amendment and solicited their comments on the impact of the bill on their respective religious practices. Of the fifty religious groups consulted, nineteen responded with substantive comments.
Mr. Speaker, this consultation process was extremely valuable. It provided us with the opportunity to carefully consider and discuss a number of the important issues this proposed legislation raised.
You will be interested to know the Roman Catholic, Presbyterian and Anglican churches agree with the purpose of this legislation.

I believe that Bill C-61 is consistent with the guarantees of freedom of religion and equality contained in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms for three reasons.
First, pursuant to the case law developed by the Supreme Court of Canada, subsection 2(a) of the Charter respecting freedom of religion is not necessarily infringed by a law that has a religious dimension, if that law does not interfere with the freedom of individuals affected by it to act on conscientious or religious grounds. The proposed amendment will apply only to the situation where a Get is being refused in order to give the party to a divorce an additional bargaining tool for the civil divorce, not because the person is refusing on religious or conscientious grounds. In Judaism there are no religious grounds to refuse the Get.
Second, Section 15 guaranteeing equality of persons does not require that all members of society be treated identically if their needs require otherwise. In the present circumstances, although the Jewish community is the group primarily affected by the proposed amendment, this is because of the particular problems that it has experienced. Specifically, it has no recourse to a
February 15, 1990

religious tribunal as do all other religious groups canvassed that have religious divorce proceedings.
Third, even if a prima facie case were made for a breach of the freedom of religion, I believe the proposal is still defensible under Section 1 of the Charter as a reasonable limit. Such a limit would ensure, for example, that custody decisions were made according to the child's best interest as required under the Divorce Act and not as a result of concessions in exchange for a Get. While impact on other religions and Charter implications were major concerns, I would also like to address two other considerations.
[Translation}
First, I have encountered on occasion the view that this amendment may set a precedent regarding other difficulties of other religions. No one, however, has actually been able to point to any situation similar to that of the Get.
It is the case that in some religions, the Roman Catholic, Greek Orthodox and Islam, annulment or divorce may proceed more easily and faster if the couple agree.
However, in all these cases, the authority to grant the annulment or divorce rests with the religious tribunal, not the couple.
An un-co-operative spouse may delay a decision, but ultimately he or she cannot prevent the religious tribunal from rendering its decision.
In these religions, the spouse initiating the action can ask the religious authorities to deal with this problem.
The Jewish spouse does not have that recourse. [English]
Second, the current provisions of the Divorce Act were examined thoroughly to determine if they provided a remedy. The conclusion was that they did not.
I say in conclusion that Bill C-61 can accomplish three objectives. First, it answers the request from the Jewish community for legislative support to rectify a situation it considers unfair. Jewish persons who wish to remarry within their faith will have a greater opportunity to do so.
Second, it protects the integrity of the government's own legislation, the Divorce Act, by ensuring that con-
Govemment Orders
cessions are not made on support, custody or access in exchange for religious divorce.
Third, the amendment does not appear to have an impact upon other religious groups. National Jewish groups have already indicated their support for the proposed amendments. The B'nai Brith made this comment in a communique on the day we introduced it: "Canadians should be proud that their government is prepared to make its multiculturalism policy a living reality by undertaking actions as this." The Canadian Jewish Congress commended the federal government for introducing the legislation.
I would ask all members of the House to support this bill.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, I also welcome this important amendment to the Divorce Act and I want to commend the minister for bringing it forward.
It is a bill that means a great deal in the Jewish community of which I am a member. I have been part of the process over the years of looking for solutions to a situation in Halachic law, which is the Jewish traditional law that puts women at a very considerable disadvantage when civil divorces are granted. I am happy that the minister has brought it forward today. I was very glad that we were able to sit through the lunch hour in order to get this bill through, together with some other justice bills.
I must confess to be dazzled at the display of learning about Jewish traditional law that the minister has just shown, and I am look forward to the bill going to committee. I do not think this is a controversial bill. I know it is a bill with all-partisan support.
I want also to express some appreciation for the consideration which this bill was given and for the positive support which it received from the other religious and ethnic communities of our country that were approached for comment about this bill. None of them, as we anticipated, would find that this bill made life more difficult for them, nor does this bill entrench in any way on civil or religious freedom in Canada. However, it would not have been difficult to imagine obstacles being put forward just for the sake of making life difficult. I think it is a tribute to the good state of relations among

February 15, 1990
Government Orders
the various groups which proudly make up the fabric of Canada that no such obstacles emerged.
We are faced with a situation in which we can look forward to an accommodation. In a country which is pluralistic, bilingual and multicultural, a measure like this, the result that it has achieved and the support that it has received so far is a good sign of the accommodations that Canadians are prepared to make to reinforce and strengthen the national fabric.
Many people, as do I, visualize lots of possible and potential tensions among the various groups within Canada. Multiculturalism and pluralism is a new kind of national experience. Canada is not a country that has the benefit of a monolithic, racial, religious, cultural group which views the nation as an expression of its identity. Most countries are like that. By contrast, our country is a country whose most basic identity comes from the accommodation of minority groups, from the tolerance of differences and from respect for differences, something which is even better than mere tolerance.
We are making our country work when we accommodate legislation like this. We are helping to set an example for others in the country. I want to express the pleasure that I feel at seeing this important step, demonstrating again the openness of this great country of ours.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that the Elouse was able to agree unanimously to extend the hours to deal with this important legislation. I want to pay tribute to all members of the House who co-operated in this regard, particularly the member for York Centre who was instrumental in achieving this.
This legislation is legislation for which on behalf of the New Democratic Party I have called for some time. I welcome the government's decision to move forward on it at this moment.
I recall, as I am sure my colleague from York Centre will recall, and indeed I believe my colleague from Niagara Falls was in the House and the committee at that time as well, that during debates on the Divorce Act
in 1985 and 1986 there were discussions on this subject. At that point I made it clear that certainly in principle we supported this amendment.
On January 23, 1986, the then Minister of Justice, the member for St. John's West, said this: "I have instructed my officials to establish an expeditious process of consultation with representatives of all the various interests in order to resolve these outstanding issues".
Four years later that expeditious process has resulted in this legislation. I think it is not a minute too soon. I am going to give a couple of examples of the practical effect of the absence of this legislation on women in this country who have suffered as a result.
I want to pay tribute to the many groups and individuals across Canada who have played such an important role in this historic legislation. Those groups include B'nai Brith, the Canadian Jewish Congress, the Coalition of Jewish Women for the Get, and a broad range of others.
I want to single out in particular the contribution of a lawyer, John Syrtash, who has done an extraordinary job on behalf of the coalition that has been seeking changes in this law and, in many ways, who was instrumental as well in achieving changes to provincial legislation in the province of Ontario in 1986.
Following the decision of the Minister of Justice to look into this matter, B'nai Brith Canada conducted a comprehensive study on the use of the Get as a bargaining tool in Jewish divorce proceedings. That study pointed out, and it has already been noted, that Jews who are loyal to the teachings and practices of their faith are not free to enter into a second marriage unless the prior marriage has been terminated either by the death of the spouse or by the execution of the divorce procedure recognized by Halacha, which is Jewish law.
This study documented that in some 311 cases the refusal to issue a Get resulted in very substantial pain and difficulty to one of the spouses. The vast majority of those spouses affected-in some 202 of the cases-are in fact women who were affected by their husband's refusal to grant the Get. There were certainly as well some instances of women who refused to consent to the Get. The reality is that it is primarily Jewish women who have been hurt by this requirement.
February 15, 1990

I want to spend just a couple of minutes in terms of the background of this. I think it is important that we recognize what has led to this legislation because I believe it is the first in the world at the national level.
One of the commentators on the subject, a woman named Norma Joseph who participated in a forum in Montreal in October, 1988, gave some of the background. She pointed out that mutual consent constitutes sufficient grounds for a Jewish divorce; and that if both parties agree they appear before three rabbis who constitute a Beth Din, or Jewish court.
The fact is that the process in the Beth Din was supposed to set both parties free, but in fact in some cases there are partners, particularly women, who are unfree, who are chained, Agunot, Jews who are divorced who cannot obtain the Get. The definition of Agunah or Agun is someone who is tied, chained or anchored to an absent spouse.
I mentioned that this can theoretically affect both men and women, but because of the structure of Jewish law the victim in fact is most frequently a woman. Since a man must give the Get she is left dependent upon his action.
Rabbinical law was amended to include her acceptance of the document but in fact the Beth Din or the rabbinical court can act in a way to release the man without her co-operation but never the other way around.
I mentioned that I wanted to give some practical examples. I think it is important to do that so Canadians who are not familiar with the implications of the Get, as certainly I was not before this was brought to my attention, will realize the significance of what Parliament is doing. I want to thank Norma Joseph for the work she has done in bringing this matter to the attention of parliamentarians and the public.
These are some examples. The first involves an elderly woman, divorced 35 years in Quebec. Finally, she falls in love. She finds someone to take care of her, to share with her, to live with her but she has no Get. She raised her children alone. She did not ask for money and she did not in any way bother her first husband. All she wanted was to be free, to end her days in companionship and love. But without the Get she cannot remarry.
Government Orders
Another example involves a young woman who had no children but who had a business. Her ex-husband said: "Okay, I will give you the Get but you renounce your share of our business".
There is the case of a professional, a social worker, who would not give the Get out of revenge because, he said, his wife did not deserve it.
One of the most frequent abuses of this Get procedure is the husband who says: "Sure, I will give you the Get. You just give me $35,000, or $50,000, or $75,000". That is extortion, and that is exactly what this legislation is attempting to deal with.
What about the young woman whose husband has disappeared? She cannot obtain the Get.
One other example involves a woman who married an immigrant. She was to sponsor him in Canada. Things went sour. She instituted divorce proceedings and he said: "No. I will refuse to co-operate with the Get". The social worker who was called in to help advised that she be co-operative and not vindictive: "Sign his immigrant papers. Show him how nice you can be". It was bad advice. He is now a landed immigrant and she is an Agunah, chained, denied that divorce.
It is precisely because of that abuse, the potential for extortion, that this legislation is so important.
I recognize the argument that has been made that we have to very jealously guard the division between church and state. I strongly support that.
As well, I recognize there are some who suggest, including some within the Jewish community, that this is not a matter that should be dealt with by means of legislation. They believe that it is something that should be worked out within the Jewish community; that it should be worked out by the rabbis. Some people say: "If Parliament acts, then that removes the pressure on rabbinic leaders to amend religious law to give women equal status in Jewish divorce proceedings".
Certainly, I fully agree that Jewish lay and rabbinic leaders should be taking steps to reconcile the fact that Jewish women outside Canada will remain disenfranchised with their support for this legislation. I hope that that will happen.

February 15, 1990
In fact, one of the suggestions that has been made is that an international panel of rabbinic authorities confront this religious law which is so clearly in need of change. That would help to ensure that Jewish women everywhere, not just in Canada, would be treated with dignity and respect as they are entitled to be.
The Halachic solution, the solution within the Jewish community, is an important solution. I note that steps have been taken in that regard already.
I want to pay tribute to the Rabbinic Council of Canada, Quebec Region which, with the approval of the Vaad Harabonim, have instituted a pre-nuptical agreement. Hopefully, these will not be necessary any more. But they did show leadership and I want to pay tribute to them for doing that. I hope now the community will move to deal with this injustice, hopefully on an international scale.
In conclusion, we in the New Democratic Party support this important legislation. We have urged its adoption for some time. I know my colleague for Vancouver East in her capacity as the spokesperson on the status of women has dealt with this important question. My colleague for Thunder Bay-Atikokan, who in particular wanted to be here for this debate but because of the scheduling was unable to, wanted to speak to his support for this bill. Indeed, he, along with the hon. member for Mission-Coquitlam and my other colleagues have worked hard with me to bring this legislation about.
This legislation is legislation that is overdue. It will help to ease the pain and the anguish of people who have been denied the Get. We welcome it. We pay tribute to those organizations and individuals who are responsible for bringing it about, for making us the first country in the world to adopt this legislation.
I hope that the legislative committee will move expeditiously to ensure that this becomes law so that no other woman or man will be denied the Get.


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I declare the motion carried.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: It being 1.45 p.m., I do now leave the chair until two o'clock this day.
At 1.45 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.

Mr. Dave Dingwall (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, the report released by the Canadian Institute of Child Health is a voice for Canadian children. It is a documented cry for help and the government of Canada must react, and react immediately.
The health care of our nation's children is being neglected. The situation is not going to change until some very progressive moves are made in the areas of social and economic development and, just as importantly, social and economic equality.
We have the best hospitals in the world, the best doctors in the world, but until social and economic concerns are addressed, the health of Canadian children will remain as shameful as reported by the Canadian Institute of Child Health.
We need some answers to some very important questions. For example, why do we have so little data on mental health? Why are so many young people committing suicide? We have to look at why our young people are feeling so lost, what is happening out there that is destroying all of their dreams and their aspirations.
In 1986, the death rate for poor children was 56 per cent higher than those of higher income children. The mortality rates for our native infants are twice the rate of the total population. Health care does not just mean medicine. Health care is integrally linked to social and economic conditions.
Children are our guarantee of a future. We are relying on them for tomorrow, just as much as they are relying on us today.
February 15, 1990


THE FLAG
Mr.   J.W. Bud Bird@Fredericton-York-Sunbury: Mr. Speaker, today is a proud one for Canada as we celebrate the twenty-fifth anniversary of our flag.
However, last Tuesday our country's image was disrespected by a motion placed before this House about racism and bigotry, the very wording of which was mean-spirited, intolerant and insensitive.
It is constructive to make objective criticisms and to propose effective new initiatives to combat racism and bigotry in Canada. It is quite a different matter, and it is destructive, to use these sensitive and critical issues, as that motion did, in sweeping generalities about the character of our country for purposes of political gain.
The political unity and social integrity of our nation are goals which transcend partisan considerations, and every member of this House should feel a sense of partnership in our common effort to make this country whole.
Certainly, we must all do better and we must all do more. But let us recognize that much has already been done to build a unique and enriched society in Canada of which all Canadians should be justly proud.
Let us not in this House be found to be found to be the cause of racial and linguistic division in Canada. Rather, let us always strive to represent together the true course toward complete Canadian unity.


FUR INDUSTRY
Mr. John A. MacDougall (Timiskaming):: Mr. Speaker, I was most disturbed to learn yesterday that Harrod's of London, after 15 years of selling Canadian fur products, is closing its fur salon because of declining demand.
This comes on the heels of the Hudson Bay Company moving its European auction house to Helsinki, ending a century old presence in Britain.
These events should concern all Canadians. The Canadian fur trade contributes over $1 billion to the national economy and well over $300 million is brought into the country through fur exports.
As staunch supporters of the Canadian fur industry, this government recognizes that our fur exports to the United States and to Europe are significant to the health
of the industry. The announcement of Harrod's is not good news for Canadian fur exporters.
I call upon my colleagues in the House to work closely with the fur industry, the fur association, and hundreds of northern communities where fur is the economic lifeline to overcome this temporary situation in the market-place. Our continued support for Canadian quality fur products will ensure that there will be no further unwelcome news from Europe and abroad.


THE BUDGET
Mr. Steve Butland (Sault Ste. Marie):: Mr. Speaker, once again Canadians are being subjected to Conservative warnings to "prepare for a tough budget" consisting, no doubt, of even deeper cuts to once sacred social programs and more unfair tax hikes.
This year something new has been added to a tired script: an obsession with secrecy. The Minister of Finance says he is too busy and he is refusing to hold his usual pre-budget consultations and delaying the distribution of the budget until after it has been tabled. This flies in the face of the opinion of his Prime Minister regarding budgetary reform. In his book, Where I Stand, it states: "In an age when we know that government works best when it builds a consensus of public understanding"-I repeat, Mr. Speaker, a consensus of public understanding-"the budget is dropped out of nowhere one night with virtually no effort having been made to achieve agreement or even understanding of its principal goals." The Prime Minister continues: "No process in the world will prevent bad decision-making, but the present budget-making process itself contributes to bad decisionmaking and therefore to bad government."
New Democrats could not agree more.


NATIONAL UNITY
Mr. Gilles Bernier (Beauce):: Mr. Speaker, the constitutional debate and language issues are now attracting a lot of national attention. I would like to draw heavily on an editorial in this morning's La Presse by Pierre Gravel to urge Canadians to be calm and moderate in their statements and discussions. Relations between anglophones and francophones are becoming increasingly vexed these days. The slightest initiative looks like a

February 15, 1990
declaration of war, bad faith sets in and barriers go up between different groups in our population.
Many in our country are on edge at a time when it is more important than ever for cool heads, the editorialist reminds us. I therefore suggest that Canadians try to deepen the language debate and make an effort to better understand the whole philosophy behind the Meech Lake Agreement. We will really understand each other, Mr. Speaker, when we each put good will in our contacts, dealings and discussions. It is certainly possible to discuss and express opinions with as much dignity, respect and equanimity as possible.


TRIBUTE TO GEORGES FOREST
Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, we were very sorry to learn this morning of the death of Georges Forest, a great Canadian and great Manitoban. As you may recall, Georges Forest became known for his tireless efforts to defend the rights of linguistic minorities in Manitoba.
In a spirit of openness and tolerance, Georges Forest relentlessly pursued his cause to the Supreme Court of Canada, which ruled in his favour. By this historic act, he corrected 100 years of injustice to Manitoba's francophones. Mr. Forest was not a vengeful man. Mr. Forest was a great Canadian who believed in the principle of linguistic duality and respect for minority rights.
Mr. Speaker, I wish to pay tribute to him today and I ask this Flouse to join me in extending our sincerest condolences to his family. This great patriot has made his mark.
* *


GOODS AND SERVICES TAX
Douglas Fee: Mr. Speaker, we all know that across Canada there are very strong feelings and loud opinions being expressed about the proposed GST. I am concerned that there are some irresponsible people
advising others to protest the tax by not submitting their applications for the GST credit included with the 1989 income tax form.
Next year, a family with two children and $20,000 net income who would have received a $10 FST credit in 1988, will be eligible for a GST credit of $580. A senior with a net income of $20,000 is eligible for a GST credit of $290 in 1991.
This credit is designed to assist low-income earners. Most of the irresponsible advice to boycott the rebate form is coming from those who, by virtue of high income, would not be eligible for it. I would urge those who are eligible, whether they support the tax or not, to complete the form and take advantage of the credit.


THE BUDGET
Ms. Joy Langan (Mission-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Minister of National Health and Welfare responded to my question about the muzzling of government advisoiy groups with the threat of budget cuts, by saying that if I had bothered to listen to the radio, his deputy minister had made it abundantly dear that no such suggestion was made.
I suggest that the Minister might want to read today's Citizen where his deputy minister is directly quoted as saying:
It's like having the heads of one of my departments, or indeed me,
saying this is a crummy piece of government policy-
I remind the minister that the National Council on Welfare is a citizens' advisoiy body and has included, among its members, not only welfare recipients, public housing tenants and low-income citizens, but lawyers, professionals and social workers. The executive director is accountable to the council, not to the minister, and the council has a mandate to advise this government on poverty and social issues.
Ministers muzzling advisory bodies who tell it like it is does not make crummy policy good, it makes crummy policy crummy law.
February 15, 1990


THE ENVIRONMENT
Mrs. Suzanne Duplessis (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State (Science and Technology)):: Mr. Speaker, the fire now raging in a stockpile of discarded tires in Hagersville, Ontario, has revived fears about the hazard posed by these sites.
I think it is absolutely essential and urgent that measures to get rid of these stockpiles be taken as soon as possible. That is why we would like to bring the following to the attention of the House. Dr. Christian Roy, an engineer at Laval University, has been working for several years, with the support of the federal Department of Energy, Mines and Resources, on a technique called pyrolysis under vacuum, which can be used to recycle old tires.
The tires are burned in lead tanks equipped with a vacuum pump to draw off the gaseous products, thus preventing contaminants from entering the atmosphere.
With this process, practically the whole tire can be recycled, 65 per cent as oil and 25 per cent in the form of carbon black, which products can then be sold back to the industry.
Every year 25 million tires are produced in Canada. Clearly, we must stop stockpiling these discarded tires and start using other methods to get rid of them.
Personally, I think the vacuum pyrolysis technique developed by Dr. Roy might be the answer. That is why the government should make this new technology one of its priorities.


GOODS AND SERVICES TAX
Mr. Guy H. Arseneault (Restigouche - Chaleur):: Mr. Speaker, after having incurred the wrath of nearly every Canadian taxpayer through his proposed goods and services tax, the Minister of Finance has sunk to a new low.
Indeed, 20 years after the proclamation of the Official Languages Act, that minister has the temerity to insult
my constituents by providing them with brochures in only one of the official languages, extolling the dubious virtues of his infamous GST.
Need I remind the minister that the riding of Restigouche-Chaleur is composed of a bilingual population and that New Brunswick is the only officially bilingual province in Canada.
My constituents expect to receive bilingual services and the government has the obligation to provide them.

The people of St-Quentin are upset because of this brochure, and rightly so. They asked me why, in 1990, Francophones still have to ask to get information in French, even when it comes from the seat of government of a bilingual country. They also wonder whether the GST is something only Anglophones have to understand.
At a time when there is a real language crisis in this country, the minister should have avoided aggravating the problem and made sure that information on the GST was distributed in both official languages.


TWENTY-FIFTH ANNIVERSARY OF THE CANADIAN FLAG
Mr. Maurice Tremblay (Lotbiniere):: Mr. Speaker, Sir Wilfrid Laurier said that this century would be Canada's. We are now in the century's last decade, and I think can say that our country did in fact, reach maturity during the second half of the twentieth century.
Our flag, whose 25th anniversary it is today, testifies better than any other emblem to the maturity of our country. Drawing from the traditions of people from all over the world, as well as from our own experience, we have become mature as a nation worthy of the name.
Our flag is a precious part of our heritage. Its symbolism goes deep into our collective soul and has hepled to promote our identity as a people.
Mr. Speaker, in concluding, I would like to quote what was said by the hon. Maurice Bourget, Speaker of the Senate, on February 15, 1965: "The flag is a symbol of the unity of our country, since there can be no doubt that it represents all citizens of Canada, regardless of race, language, creed or opinion".

February 15, 1990
Oral Questions


THE FLAG
Mr. Jim Jordan (Leeds -Grenville):: Mr. Speaker, today marks the twenty-fifth anniversary of the Canadian flag.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear!


Jim Jordan: It was 25 years ago that our distinctive red maple leaf flag was raised over this building for the very first time.
John Matheson, a former MP from Leeds was credited at that time by Prime Minister Pearson as "the one man who had more to do with having a Canadian flag than any other.''
Today, we salute John Matheson and all proud Canadians as we celebrate the silver anniversary of Canada's very own distinctive red maple leaf flag.


MEMBER FOR CHAMBLY
Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, I have in my hand an incredible article which begins with the headline: "Edmonston does flip-flop: Now he's opposing Meech". I want to quote from the article which states:
During the Party's leadership convention in December, Edmonston reacted bitterly to a compromise resolution seeking changes to Meech.
Delegates accepted it in an effort to reconcile supporters of the accord and members who wanted major changes.
"You can't have your cake and eat it, too. I'm not saying that to be menacing or to blackmail you," Edmonston warned the convention, saying the resolution was a vote against Meech and Quebec.
The article further states:
During the by-election campaign Edmondston simply pretended the NDP's position didn't exist, campaigning on a platform of total acceptance of the deal without amendments.
The article further states:
He turned his back yesterday on the no-compromise, pro-Meech position that helped him win a stunning landslide victory in Monday's Chambly, Quebec, by-election.
He says: "I support the party (position) entirely". Cynical? You bet. I will bet you the poor people of Chambly are scratching their heads today.


CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, a few years ago I fought to save The Friendly Giant from budget cuts at the CBC. Well, last week was like a replay of a bad dream. It started with the cancellation of Switchback, a wonderful regionally produced youth services on CBC television. It ended with the news that Conservative policies, including the GST and cuts to postal subsidies may kill off Owl and Chickadee magazines, this at a time when we want to encourage reading and environmental awareness among our children.
This governing is slamming the Polka Dot Door on children's entertainment. What is next? Contracting out Casey and Finnegan's jobs to a pair of non-union Smurfs?
The issue is more than just entertainment. The shaping of young minds will happen whether we act or not. All we can influence is who does the shaping and how.
It can be done by Nintendo, Rambo and G.I. Joe, or it can be done with a view to the future, with intelligent media programming and rich, valuable reading. The choice is ours.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. Douglas Young (Gloucester):: Mr. Speaker, the pigeons have come home to roost. The Bank of Canada interest rate is at 13.32 per cent, an all-time high since the recession of the early 1980s.
My question is for the Minister of Finance. Will he acknowledge that his prediction in the budget last year that we would be enjoying rates around 10 per cent at this stage of the game, was a total and unmitigated failure? The Minister of Finance has to tell Canadians and the money markets, investors and business people what is the policy of this government on interest rates in Canada.


Hon. Michael Wilson (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I have made it abundantly clear what the policy is, not just yesterday, not just the day before, but for many months now.
With the instability and the volatility in the markets today, our first objective is to gain stability in those markets, and second, on an ongoing basis, to reduce the level of inflation so that we can get interest rates down.
I acknowledge what my hon. friend has said. Interest rates have stayed up longer than we had anticipated last April. The reason is that inflationary pressures have been stronger and the economy has been stronger than we had anticipated in April. I might add that they are stronger than many other economic forecasters had anticipated last April.
Once we get inflation under control, we will be able to see some easing in interest rates. But until we see some real progress in getting inflation under control, we will not be able to see any meaningful reduction in interest rates.


M. Douglas Young: Mr. Speaker, is the minister prepared to at least admit that the contradictory statements made by the Prime Minister, the Minister of Finance, Conservative backbenchers and the Governor of the Bank of Canada contribute to the uncertainty among Canadians and investors here and abroad? My question for the Finance Minister is: Do Canadians not deserve a coherent, comprehensible policy from this government after five years in power? Is he prepared to articulate such a coherent policy in order to reassure investors that the Government of Canada knows where it is going?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, above all, what investors, whether they are Canadian or foreign, have received over the last five years is a coherent economic policy. This coherent policy was first set out in November 8, 1984 in the Agenda for Economic Renewal where we stated clearly the two prongs of our economic strategy: first, to get our financial house in order, and second, to deal with some of the structural problems that were causing inefficiencies in our economy. We have followed what we set out to do in
Oral Questions
November 8, 1984 in a very careful, consistent and coherent way.
The results have been very clear. In Canada, we have had economic growth only a small margin behind that of Japan. We have had the best job-creation record of any of the major industrialized countries through that period, and precisely because Canadians and foreign investors could understand exactly where we were going as a country because it was all set out in that document of November 8, 1984.


M. Douglas Young: Mr. Speaker, interest rates are going up, the dollar is going down, the government is going where even angels fear to tred.
The question that the finance minister has to address and that I put to him today is that just last Friday the Prime Minister was saying after the budget is introduced next week, the interest rates are going to go down. Interest rates today are up to an unparalleled height since the Minister of Finance came into office. The rates are going up this week. Are they going to go down next week? Does the minister have a policy, and how is he going to explain to Canadians that he is saying one thing and the Prime Minister is saying another?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is absolutely wrong and he knows that he is wrong. If he had taken the time to read the transcript of what the Prime Minister said, he would have seen that it was exactly what I have been saying over the past number of weeks. I say to him, read it before trying to sow this uncertainty in the minds of Canadians.
I have made it very clear that if people want to see lower interest rates then we have to see lower inflation. Until we get lower inflation, we are not going to see lower interest rates. It is as simple as that. That is what we have been striving to do with our interest rate policy, and that is what we have been striving to do in our fiscal policy.
Every time this government has tried to do something to get our expenses down, to get the deficit down and to get the debt problem under control, every time we have put something on the table that party, as well as the New Democratic Party, have fought tooth and nail to try to stop us doing these things. These are the things that we are committed to do. We are going to do them because

February 15, 1990
Oral Questions
they are right for the country and they are going to result in a much healthier economic environment.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Jim Peterson (Willowdale):: Mr. Speaker, this government's high interest rate policies are hammering Canadian exporters. It means that they have to pay more to modernize and be competitive. It means that the artificially high dollar created by this government is a far greater burden on our Canadian exporters than the U.S. interest rates were that this free trade deal purported to eliminate.
Let us look at the results of this government's coherent economic policies for the last five and one-half years. When this government took office the government's current account surplus with other nations was $3.1 billion. Today, we have a record deficit of $20 billion. When will this government realize that its high interest rates have straitjacketed Canadian producers, that they are costing us exports and that they are costing us jobs?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member fails to point out that one of the reasons for that current account deficit is that companies have been investing in the future because they have confidence in the future. When they invest in the future they buy that machinery and equipment in large part from other countries. That is one of the major reasons why our current account deficit has increased over the past few years because we have had record investment in Canada reflecting the confidence that people have had in the future of this country and in the policies that this government has been following.
I understand some of the concerns that the hon. member has mentioned about high interest rates and about the level of the Canadian dollar. I understand the impact that this can have on Canadians, but I ask him to consider the alternative.
If we let interest rates go down in an unnatural way and fire that over-heating inflation, what is going to happen to the inflation rate in this country? What is going to happen to the permanent, competitive position of the very people for whom he purports to be speaking? It will be damaged on a permanent basis and we will have interest rates that are permanently too high. That is what
we had in the seventies and early eighties. That brought the most serious recession this country has seen since the thirties and that is what we are going to avoid.


James Scott (Jim) Peterson: Mr. Speaker, our producers cannot compete when their interest rates are over 14 per cent and the Japanese producers are paying less than 5 per cent.
My second question involves our second deficit, the budget deficit. By increasing interest rates in Canada last year, in one year alone the government added $6 billion to our national debt. With our twin deficits, a record current account deficit now, and our record national debt, these are a direct result of this government's economic mismanagement.
When will the government stop sacrificing Canada's economic future on the altar of high interest rates?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I do not know who the hon. member is trying to impress, but I can tell him one group of people he would not impress is international investors. If he were standing in my position making those same comments, he can be sure that the dollar would be falling through the floor and we would see interest rates go up further. That is what we are trying to avoid.
The hon. member talks about deficits. Let me remind him that the operating account of the government, that is revenues less program spending, was in a deficit position when we were elected in 1984. In other words, we were spending $16 billion more on government programs than we were taking in. That has now reversed itself. It is a $9 billion surplus. We are making good progress and one of the reasons why we have made good progress is we have controlled government spending.
I say to the hon. member, has he or has his party given us one place where we could reduce program spending in the last five and a half years? I do not remember one.


Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, I also have a question for the Minister of Finance.
The Bank of Canada has just raised the interest rate to 13.32 per cent, an increase of 53 basis points, Mr. Speaker. That is incredible!
February 15, 1990

I think that we are almost on the verge of a monetary crisis in this country. For that reason, I would like to ask the Finance Minister this question. Yesterday, he told the House that there would be cuts in social programs such as education, health and transfers to the provinces because of the Canadian deficit which is too high.
Mr. Speaker, given the rise in interest rates this afternoon, I would like to know whether the Minister of Finance can now explain exactly how much will be cut from social programs next week in Canada.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I think there is a very substantial distortion by the hon. member of what I said in the House yesterday, but I guess that is not surprising. That usually comes from that hon. member almost every time he asks a question.
He has asked me to say to him what would be in the budget next week. He knows that it is not possible for me to comment. What I would say to him is if he has some ideas on how we can cut government program spending in a sensible, sensitive way, as we know we must in this country, then I would welcome his suggestions. But again, I have not received any suggestions from him or his colleagues on that score for the last five and half years.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, we have told the Minister of Finance a number of times he can cut out some of the grants to his corporate friends in this country and save billions of dollars.
I do not know if the Minister of Finance realizes that we are almost in a very serious economic crisis in this country. The bank rate has jumped .5 per cent today, by 53 basis points.
The Prime Minister predicted just last week that the bank rate in this country would be down before Christmas. I want the Minister of Finance to tell the House today how he is going to bring down the bank rate in this country without cutting back on social programs, programs for the poor, or health, education and transfers to seven provinces of this country. How is he going to do that without hurting the ordinary people?
Oral Questions


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member suggests that we should cut subsidies to business, grants to business. I would like to draw to his attention that those grants, those subsidies involve subsidies for agriculture, social housing, regional development, research and development. That amounts to the vast majority of what he would classify in the government expenditures as subsidies to business.
Which ones of those subsidies is he saying we should cut, because they are not easy to cut? Each one of those is important. They are important objectives of the Government of Canada, and I believe of his party as well. So come clean, let us know which one of those subsidies you would like to see us cut.


Mr. Vic Althouse (Mackenzie):: The Minister must recognize that his high interest rate policy has created the problem in agriculture. If you compare the government's intervention to hold up the value of the Canadian dollar through the Bank of Canada's high interest rates with that same government's instructions to farmers via FCC, to "Face up to the market realities in assessing their viability", I have to ask the Minister of Finance to explain why he has not faced up to the same market realities he espouses, permitting the Canadian dollar to fall, thus reflecting its true unmanipulated market value and allowing farm prices to rise?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, these are all very worthy objectives that the hon. member would like to see happen. We would all like to see lower interest rates. But we on this side know that you cannot just snap your fingers and make it happen.
The only way it can happen is if the fundamentals of the economy will support a lower level of interest rates. The extent of inflationary pressures that are in the economy today simply do not support that.
The hon. member is telling us to bring down interest rates in an unnatural way, stoke up the fires of inflation, go right back to what we had in 1982. If he is saying that his farm friends in Saskatchewan are saying they want to have the 20 per cent plus interest rates that we had in 1981-82,1 think he is wrong. We do not support that. We are doing everything we can to get inflation down so we can get interest rates down in a permanent way, not the "pie in the sky way" that the hon. member would like to see us have.

February 15, 1990
Oral Questions


GOODS AND SERVICES TAX
Mr. Alfonso Gagliano (Saint-Leonard):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. On page 2 of its pre-budgetary brief to the Minister of Finance concerning the GST, the Canadian Federation of Independent Business states that the small grocery stores will be especially affected and will experience tremendous enforcement problems which will compell a great many of them to close.
How could the minister claim in his Information for Convenience Stores bulletin that the necessary paperwork will be kept at a minimum, when in his brief John Bullock says it will not? Who knows small business better, John Bullock or the Minister of Finance?
[English)


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I think that the hon. member is distorting what was said in that brochure. We have said right from the start that we are happy and are working with members of the small business community to address this concern. We understand the concern. We understand that they do not want to have any unnecessary complexities as a result of the GST.
We have said that there are two ways of simplified accounting, and that there are more ways of developing simplified accounting systems. We are quite happy to consider those ways to help those grocers and the retailers he talks about.
Over the course of this year we will have representatives from National Revenue, as my colleague, the Minister of National of Revenue has said, to meet on a one-on-one basis to help the members of the small business community understand what is required of them and how the GST will affect their purchasing and pricing so that they can have an easy transition into the new system and avoid the problems that we know they are concerned about. That is why we are going to this extent to solve those problems.


Alfonso Gagliano: Mr. Speaker, the minister talks about a simplified accounting system. How can he simplify an accounting system when, if you sell yogurt or pudding on an individual basis, it is taxable? If you sell the same products in a group or package, where there is more than one, then it is taxable. What kind of an accounting system does he believe a small comerstore will need to meet his proposal? Why will the minister not withdraw the measure and make it simple for everybody?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I acknowledge that that is one of the difficult borderlines between what is basic groceries and what is taxable foods.
I do not think the hon. member would like to see us tax basic groceries, so we have to draw the borderline somewhere.
One of the objectives of the simplified accounting system is to allow the retailer to account for those without having to calculate each item on an individual basis as they go by his cash register. The purpose of the simplified accounting is so that he can step back and look at the over-all books of accounts and, in that way, have a much simpler way of calculating what tax is owing.


Mr. John Harvard (Winnipeg-St. James):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. Dozens of protesters gathered in sub-zero temperatures in Brandon, Manitoba, yesterday to tell the Prime Minister exactly how they feel about the GST. Apparently the Prime Minister was not in any mood to listen. He and his entourage just sped by.
One protester was heard to say, "It is a crime that we elect these people, then we have to have demos like this to get our message across". The message is quite clear. They do not want the GST and they are fed up paying Tory taxes.
I want to ask the Minister of Finance today whether he can assure Canadians that come next week's Budget there will be no new taxes and no increases in existing taxes?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, we acknowledge that there are people in the country who are opposed to the GST. We also know that
February 15, 1990

at the Prime Minister's dinner, there were 450 people who listened attentively to what he had to say about the GST.
As a result of the Prime Minister's speech, they realized the benefits of the GST and how it will improve our ability to export, and how it will put Canadian producers on a level playing field with importers. Importers now have one-third less tax to pay than the Canadian producers. Also, they learned how it will help the farm community by giving them a full rebate on tax on all farm inputs. These are the benefits that are going to be gained by various sectors in the economy.
I will always come back to the same point. I have listened carefully to what hon. members in the Liberal Party have to say about the GST. They are full of complaints, but they do not have one alternative. They do not know where to go. If we said today, "No GST", they would have their mouths absolutely wide open with nothing to say because they do not know what the alternatives are.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear!


John Harvard: Mr. Speaker, the minister says there were 450 at the meeting. Yes, but they were all carefully selected.
The Minister of Finance will be debating the GST with our finance critic in Edmonton on March 5, but the tickets are by invitation only and they are going to cost $100. That, to me, is an outrage.
I want to ask the finance minister whether he would consider attending another meeting in Edmonton the same day, where the admission price might be free so that ordinary Canadians do not feel locked out of the process and where they can put their questions and concerns directly to the finance minister? It seems to me that if the finance minister wants to elaborate on the GST this will be an excellent opportunity for him.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the thoughtfulness of the hon. member. He should know that that particular debate is going to be on national television. Surely that is going to give Canadians from coast to coast an opportunity to listen and see the nature of the debate.


John Harvard: Another selected audience.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Hon. members would like me to respond to questions. I have been on many,
Oral Questions
many open line shows, coast to coast. The week before I am going to be on three open line shows in British Columbia. I believe I am going to be on an open line show in Edmonton the same day as the debate on March 5. I am happy to do this on an ongoing basis because I have confidence that the GST is right for this country. It is going to put our country in a more competitive position. It will also avoid $2 billion worth of tax avoidance.
Now if the Liberal Party of Canada is in favour of $2 billion of tax avoidance, it is great to hear it because these are the things that we have been trying to stamp out for the last five and a half years, and we have been making good strides in doing so.


INDUSTRY
Mr. Steven W. Langdon (Essex-Windsor):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion. I met today with workers from Varta Batteries Investment Canada. Some 175 workers face job losses in Winnipeg because of the U.S. takeover and shutdown at Varta.
Investment Canada admitted that its review had not taken account of the spin-off job losses at Canada Medals and Reliance Plastics. I want to ask the Minister how he can possibly justify a decision which did not take into account these important points in terms of economic impact.


Hon. Harvie Andre (Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion and Minister of State for Science and Technology):: Mr. Speaker, this particular company was losing substantial amounts of money and it was simply a case of their going bankrupt if we did not allow someone to purchase them. I suppose we could have nationalized them, but if that is what he is advocating we will take a look at it. The alternatives were very limited because of the financial situation of that company.


Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, in fact, the Manitoba government claimed that some workers from Winnipeg would be transferred as part of this takeover to the remaining St. Thomas plant which was going to be kept in operation. But this week we learned that 35 workers at the St. Thomas plant have also been given layoffs.
Why has the minister approved a takeover and a shutdown which has lost us one plant in the west and is losing us jobs here in Ontario? Is this not simply a case of

February 15, 1990
Oral Questions
a company taking over a Canadian firm, shutting it down, piece by piece, in order to benefit from free trade?


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, as I explained in answer to the hon. member's first question, the company was losing business.
I think the hon. member should be aware of the fact that during the 1980s, on average, 130,000 new corporations were created each year and 100,000 went out of business. Every year four million Canadians change jobs. The hon. member talked about 35 jobs in St. Thomas, and that is regrettable. But I am pleased that Freightlin-er is building a new factory in St. Thomas that will pick up that 35 and about 1,000 more. I think that on balance St. Thomas is well looked after.
The point is that change occurs. The New Democratic Party would like to'stop all change. That is not wise. It is nonsensical.


MINING EXPLORATION
Guy St-Julien: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. The February 6, 1990 issue of the Val d'Or L'Echo newspaper referred to a statement made by Mr. Raymond Savoie, the Quebec Minister responsible for mining, and then added:
The minister also confirmed the rumours to the effect that the
PSEC would be phased out by 1991 because of budgetary cuts.
My question is this: Could the minister confirm that Minister Savoie consulted him or his department before announcing that the PSEC for mining exploration would be phased out by 1991 in Canada?


Hon. Jake Epp (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I cannot confirm anything relating to either conversations that have been alleged or that might have been mentioned in newspapers, or any speculation on any budgetary matter.


THE WORKFORCE
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Labour. Yesterday the Economic Council published its report, Good Jobs, Bad Jobs, in which it indicated that 70 per cent of Canadians are now employed in service industries and that there is a growing polarization between the good jobs and bad jobs in this sector, with the result that there is a 'declining middle-class in this country. The report said that this was due to the fact that between 1980 and 1988, half of the jobs created were part-time, temporary, low-paying jobs with low benefits.
When will the government implement the recommendations in this report to better protect these workers and to give them adequate compensation? When are we going to see some action in respect of this report?


Hon. Jean Corbeil (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I am aware of the report which was tabled yesterday. We have started reviewing it. I am very pleased to inform the hon. member that the Minister of Employment and Immigration in her Labour Force Adjustment Program has forecast $100 million specifically for older workers to get retraining. If his friends in the other Chamber can let Bill C-21 go, we will have $800 million to retrain people in Canada, precisely to occupy these new jobs.


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, Bill C-21 is not doing this in the way in which the Economic Council recommends. If the minister reads the report he will notice that the council states that the growth of these low-paying jobs is undermining the economic security of a significant and growing portion of the workforce. That is an alarming indictment of the government's policies in the employment and labour area.
Will the minister on behalf of the government make a commitment to report soon to this House what the government's response will be to this report, to deal with these workers, the one-half of Canadian workers who are being left out of this growing Canadian economy?
February 15, 1990


Jean Corbeil: Mr. Speaker, I should like to tell once more to my hon. colleague from Notre-Dame-de-Grace that this government has been involved for many years in setting up programs for preparing Canadian men and women in the labour force to occupy the jobs which exist now or will exist in the future in the new technological industries.
I suggest however that he would do a favour to the Canadian public generally if he managed to convince his non-elected colleagues in the other place to adopt as soon as possible Bill C-21 which is now before the House, thereby making available to us the money we need to provide Canadian men and women with the necessary training to fill up the new jobs of the 1990s and the 2000s.


ATLANTIC CANADA
Mr. Ron MacDonald (Dartmouth):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the minister responsible for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency. Over the past few days the minister has been floating trial balloons about possible changes to the ACOA program. The last time the minister took such flights of fancy ACOA suffered a 20 per cent cut and its program criteria was dramatically altered.
Now that the minister has seen the error of his ways, will he give Atlantic Canadians an assurance that his so-called impending changes are not just code words for further gutting of the only regional development program in Atlantic Canada?


Hon. Elmer M. MacKay (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, I received my colleague's letter yesterday, delivered to my office, in which he earnestly requested to be kept very closely informed about any such changes so that he could adequately respond. I will keep that in mind.
In so far as detrimental effects, I want to point out to the member again that in his constituency alone he has had over 600 jobs created under the auspices of ACOA,
Oral Questions
at estimated total costs of $42 million. I think that perhaps it would be in order for him to wait and see about the changes because ACOA is the best thing he and other members in Atlantic Canada have going.


Ronald MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the minister for his compliment about my competence as the member for Dartmouth.
I would like to read from the Conference Board of Canada report today which states:
The Maritime provinces will have to weather a storm front of
economic uncertainty as major problems in the fisheries adversely
affect their economic performances in 1990 and 1991.
It has been confirmed that a part of the proposed fisheries assistance program will be delivered through the ACOA budget. But what we do not know is how much the program will cost or where the money is going to come from.
Will the minister confirm that any fisheries assistance program will be funded by additional new moneys, or is the minister finally admitting that the promised generous assistance is nothing more than a deceitful reshuffling of an already gutted and battered ACOA budget?


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Mr. Speaker, it is disappointing to see that my colleague opposite has joined the legion of the perpetually indignant, Mr. Speaker. I can only say to him that the assistance that will be allocated to help the town of Canso and other disadvantaged areas in Atlantic Canada will be real assistance and whether he wants to quibble about old money or new money is up to him.


THE LUMBER INDUSTRY
Mr. Jack Whittaker (Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt):: Mr. Speaker, in a recent article in The Citizen the Canadian Lumbermen's Association president has noted that the jobs hundreds of people across Canada who work at 40 distribution centres for the lumber area where wood is unloaded at warehouses and reloaded in different packages for American customers will be lost as a result of the goods and services tax. They say that to avoid the high cost of financing the tax the reload centres will just simply move across the border.

February 15, 1990
Oral Questions
My question is for the Minister of Finance. Will the minister finally hear the cries of the lumber industry and Canadian workers and finally give the industry and the people of Canada a break?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, this is one of those industries that is a major beneficiary of the goods and services tax. The hon. member should realize that included today in the price of fuel, computers and telephones, of building materials, of office equipment, and a range of things are existing federal sales taxes.
As a result of the GST all of that sales tax will be removed from the costs. It will make industries more competitive. It will put them in a better position where that particular industry will be able to sell into their major market, the United States, in a much more competitive way than it can today. That is why the GST is going to create jobs. It will create more wealth for the province of British Columbia. That is why we are in favour of the GST.


John R. (Jack) Whittaker: Mr. Speaker, it is obvious that the Minister of Finance thinks that if he continues to tell a lie often enough, or tell his story often enough-


Some hon. members:: Order!


John R. (Jack) Whittaker: -that finally the people of Canada will believe that story.


An Hon. Member:: Order.


John R. (Jack) Whittaker: Mr. Speaker, the Canadian lumber industry is still reeling from the 15 per cent tax imposed on it for export to the United States. Will the minister recognize that even this industry does not want the GST? Will he axe the tax now?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure whether the member from Victoria was distracting you, but when a member says that I have been telling a lie many, many times, then at that stage I draw the line and say no answer to that type of question.


Mr. Speaker:: I ask the hon. member to withdraw the remark.


John R. (Jack) Whittaker: Mr. Speaker, I would be most happy to. I tried to
correct the error in my original summation by changing it to story. I am very pleased to withdraw the allegation that there was a lie by the minister. I withdraw that allegation.


CFB CHATHAM
Mr.   J.W. Bud Bird@Fredericton-York-Sunbury: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Defence. I would like to ask about the Tracadie at CFB Chatham. For several years now, negotiations have been under way between the federal government and the Province of New Brunswick for additional lands for the Tracadie range associated with CFB Chatham. What is the status of these negotiations at the present time? What will be the extent of the utilization of that land, and what is the environmental impact?


Hon. Bill McKnight (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member asks several questions. In 1985, the Government of Canada started negotiations with the government of New Brunswick to use New Brunswick Crown land to provide low level air defence training. At the present time those discussions are going forward. At the present time there is a joint environmental impact study being done by the province and the federal government.
The land would be used less than 70 days a year for low level air defence training. The very important consideration is that unless that land can be provided by the government of New Brunswick, either at Tracadie, Kearns or Dungarvon there will not be an opportunity to have a low-level air defence training school in Chatham, and we will have to consider closing that base.


ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT OF SOUTHWESTERN MONTREAL
Mr. David Berger (Saint-Henri-Westmount):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Labour. The minister knows that one of the major recommendations of the southwestern Montreal employment and economic recovery committee (CREESOM) was to favour local solutions and community organizations. The minister said recently, and I quote: "-it is not up to the federal
February 15, 1990

government to be in charge of Montreal's economic recovery; it must come from the community."
Can we conclude that his government accepts the philosophy of the CREESOM report and that the government will financially support RESO, the southwest Montreal local economic development corporation?


Jean Corbeil: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to repeat the answer I gave yesterday to a similar question: the CREESOM report was given to us in late December and we then told its authors that we would answer them by late February or early March, and that is what we intend to do in the next few weeks.


David Berger: Mr. Speaker, the minister's answer is disappointing. He must know that the people of southwest Montreal are eagerly waiting for the government's answer. I am not asking him to give exact figures; I am just asking him to confirm whether he accepts the basic philosophy of the report, which is to encourage community organizations and local solutions, because that seems to tie in with his own philosophy? Yes or no, does he accept this philosophy?


Jean Corbeil: Mr. Speaker, I will repeat it again.

I will repeat it in the other language to make sure that my hon. friend understands. We have said to the authors of this report that we will provide our answer by the end of February or beginning of March, and we intend to respect that deadline.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Joseph Volpe (Eglinton-Lawrence):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs.
Now that the Open Skies Conference is over, we have seen the superpowers come to an agreement on troop reductions in Central Europe and we have had a firsthand experience of glasnost internationally, will the
Oral Questions
minister commit to conduct a reassessment of Canadian foreign policy?
Will that reassessment include and be accompanied by a new defence policy which wifi focus on Canada's role in the areas of arms control, disarmament and peacekeeping internationally?


Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I think the recent success of the Open Skies Conference is, among other things, an indication of the success of Canadian foreign policy.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: That open skies proposal was very strongly and early endorsed by Canada. I think we can claim some of the credit for having persuaded the other 22 countries to gather here for the discussions.
I indicated in response to a question a couple of weeks ago in the House that we are in fact undertaking a fairly substantial review of our policy respecting Europe because of the dramatic impact upon Europe and the world of the changes occurring there. I undertook at the time to bring that report to the standing committee of the House of Commons. After I have had a chance to have it discussed by my colleagues in cabinet, I will do that.


Mr. Speaker:: That closes off Question Period.
I understand that there may be some disposition in the House. Perhaps I could hear from the Hon. Minister of Justice.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions among the parties and I think you would find that there is agreement in the House to revert to Statements by Ministers in order to allow for a statement on the twenty-fifth anniversary of the Canadian flag.


Mr. Speaker:: That is the proposition being put forward by the Minister of Justice.
I must advise the House that I have received notice of certain questions of privilege. I am mindful of the rule that a question of privilege takes precedence over all other matters, but I want to assure those who have given me notice of questions of privilege that if consent is given, as the House leaders seem prepared to do, the questions of privilege will be heard immediately after the statements.

February 15, 1990
Routine Proceedings
Is there agreement for the proposition of the Minister of Justice?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Hon. Gerry Weiner (Secretary of State of Canada and Minister of State (Multiculturalism and Citizenship)):: Mr. Speaker, as I said at noon at the ceremony on Parliament Hill: In the life of a country, symbols are an important visual manifestation of a nation. They embody a feeling of identity, pride and harmony that transcends all divisions. They are a force that unites citizens as members of one big family.

Today we celebrate perhaps the most visible and beloved symbol of Canada, our national flag. As we mark the twenty-fifth anniversary of the distinctive maple leaf flag we can't help but think back to what we have accomplished together and the heights we have reached since 1965 when the new flag was first raised over Parliament Hill.
The maple leaf flag will always symbolize a united and confident bilingual and multicultural nation at home and around the world.

Today, as we celebrate the historic anniversary of our flag, we celebrate our citizenship and our pride in belonging to a country that we cherish. Canadians from Newfoundland to British Columbia love their country in ways as diverse as their geography and often uniquely personal.
Let us celebrate today the anniversary of this flag that is a matter of personal and common pride, and let us keep building a just and compassionate society that can be a model to the world.

I urge all hon. members to join me in saluting our Canadian flag and the country for which it stands.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Marcel Prud'homme (Saint-Denis):: Mr. Speaker, first of all I would like to thank the new Leader of the Opposition for allowing me to take his place temporarily on this occasion.
Those of us in the Official Opposition who 25 years ago were on the government side and who followed this debate with great diligence cannot but rejoice in today's great celebration.

We all met earlier this morning a lot of young Canadians. They could not believe that we had a debate. Yes, Mr. Speaker, we had a long debate, a very long and very difficult debate. At long last we agreed with each other; agreed to disagree maybe, but at long last we gave Canada and Canadians a new Canadian flag.
A very few days after the debate was over, Canadians from every region and province of the country, as well as people from outside Canada, accepted what is so natural for a country-to have its own symbol.

-a symbol of pride. A symbol of pride is always something that does not denigrate others but gives us who call ourselves Canadians a symbol of our belonging to a country. And that is our flag, the Canadian flag!
On behalf of my party, on behalf of all my colleagues, and on behalf of three members who survived that time, the Right Hon. John N. Turner, the Hon. Herb Gray, our new Opposition Leader, my new Opposition Leader-

On behalf of my new leader and on my own behalf I want to say that it is a great day for us to celebrate 25 years.
We know that 25 years later we are going into some other debate, but we know that people of good faith will find a solution for Canada.
I could not conclude and take my seat without at least giving an extract of a speech that taught me what politicians should be: people of courage. I was very honoured as a young, new parliamentarian to be invited by the right hon. Mr. Pearson to go with him to Winnipeg-yes, Winnipeg-for an address by him as Prime Minister to the Twentieth Dominion Convention
February 15, 1990

of the Royal Canadian Legion at the Capital Theatre on Sunday, May 17, 1964.
It was for me an event that I will never forget. It is a lesson I will teach young Canadians, that when you have strong beliefs you must express them. Mr. Pearson did not choose to go to Quebec City where it would have been very well received and highly popular to say: "We have a new Canadian flag". No, he chose the place where he knew they were the most reluctant.
If you watched TV last night, you will know that he was completely booed by the attendees. I think there was Mrs. Pearson, Mary Macdonald his secretary, myself, and a couple of people somewhere who applauded. You saw that on TV last night. Yet, a few days later he started the debate.
I would like all of us to reflect on this quote in these so-called difficult times that our country is going through on another issue. He said: "We who are elected to serve Canada in Parliament owe all those who elect us more than the advocacy of non-controversial ideas. We owe Canada our best judgment and we fail Canada if we fail to exercise that judgment or if we pass our responsibility for judgment back to the electorate who send us to Parliament."
I would like us to reflect on that. I would like to pay tribute to the right hon. Mr. Pearson and to all those who accepted that it was in the best interest of Canada at that time, since today we all agree that it was the right decision. Young Canadians from all parts of Canada are proud.

Just travel across Canada, in all our provinces, and you will see the pride of our young people when they show they are Canadians by waving the Canadian flag.
Thank you for this occasion! I say to young Canadians: Do not lose hope. We have a great country to build, a country that is growing every day. We will keep building it, but we must not abandon our youth which was our hope, 25 years ago, when we chose this flag.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.
Routine Proceedings


Ms. Margaret Mitchell (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, today we celebrate together the twenty-fifth anniversary of the raising of the first national flag of Canada, the Canadian maple leaf flag.
As we stood today in front of the Peace Tower in a bitterly cold blizzard, I recalled the tremendous struggles and the many achievements of the people who have gone before us to build this great nation from sea to sea to sea: the aboriginal peoples who have protected this land from its beginnings; the explorers and early settlers in Upper and Lower Canada who spoke English and French; the Fathers of Confederation who met in Charlottetown; the influx of the European immigrants who homesteaded and settled the west; the Chinese workers who built our railroads and the many immigrants who joined them to settle in B.C. Our country and horizons expanded as Newfoundland joined the Canadian family and our appreciation grew with the vast and exciting northern territories.
Many of the pioneers in our history books are men, but the women who also homesteaded raised large families, suffered loneliness and hardship and often died young. They also are the heroines of our history.
My thoughts as we faced the blizzard also went back to my own first experience overseas as a Red Cross worker with Commonwealth forces in Japan and Korea. The maple leaf flag was our rallying point, and we were one Canadian family regardless of our home province or language.
When we travel away from home we realize how fortunate we are to be Canadians and live in a land that is so vast and beautiful and resourceful. We give out our flag pins proudly and usually receive a warm response around the world.
As we stood in the snow today, the hon. Stanley Knowles reminded me of the bitterness and partisanship that preceded the final acceptance of our red maple leaf flag 25 years ago. I could not help but think that watching high over us silently from his permanent place on the Hill was the Leader of the Opposition of that day. I wondered what he was thinking as he looked down on today's proceedings.
Our flag is our symbol of Canada. It symbolizes our love for this beautiful multicultural country and our distinctive Canadian values. We pass on this flag to our

February 15, 1990
Privilege
children to symbolize unity and peace and respect for our varied peoples and varied regions. We want it to fly over a land whose beauty and richness will be protected, to be enjoyed by future generations.

We are Canadians!


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


PRIVILEGE
Mr. Speaker:: On a question of privilege, the hon. member for Nickel Belt.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: A point of order, Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: I indicated that those who had questions of privilege put them aside on the clear undertaking that I would hear them immediately after the tributes to the flag. I think I am bound by that.


Mr. John R. Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege of which I have given you notice. It arises out of a meeting of the finance committee this morning. With your indulgence, Mr. Speaker, I would like to present the evidence, veiy briefly, for why I think there is reason to rule that there is a prima facie case of a breach of my privileges as a member of Parliament.
This morning the finance committee met to consider Bill C-62, the proposed GST legislation. At the sound of the gavel the chair of the committee, the member for Mississauga South, recognized the member for Edmonton Northwest, who moved that we go immediately to orders of the day.
At this point my colleague, the member for Esquimau-Juan de Fuca, and myself protested. We called for points of order and, when these were ignored, I asked to be recognized on a question of privilege. I tried to get the chair's attention but the chair ignored my request to be recognized on a question of privilege. Instead, the chair moved to a clause by clause examination of the bill.
I continued to protest and the chair then asked one of the clerks of the committee to get the Sergeant-at-Arms
to have me removed from the committee. I am not privy to what the clerk told the chair, but the request was not carried through and the chair then suspended the meeting for a break. After a 15-minute break, the chair reconvened the committee and I asked to be recognized on a question of privilege. Again the chair refused to recognize me and said that he had something to say and adjourned the meeting.
I feel that my privileges have been breached on two counts. First, Standing Order 48(1) states:
Whenever any matter of privilege arises, it shall be taken into consideration immediately.
According to Beauchesne's Fifth Edition, Citation 81:
By its nature, a question of privilege is of such importance that it may be raised at any time and S. O. 17-
Standing Order 48 as well.
-makes provision for the precedence of a question of privilege over all other business of the House. A question of privilege arising out of proceedings in the Chamber, during the course of a sitting, may be raised without notice.
I think my privileges as a member were breached on numerous occasions as the chair of the finance committee refused to recognize me when I asked to raise a question of privilege. Second, the chair of the committee threatened to have me removed from the finance committee without having the power to do so. I cite Standing Order 117 which states:
The Chairman of a standing, special or legislative committee shall maintain order in the committee, deciding all questions of order subject to an appeal to the committee; but disorder in a committee can only be censured by the House, on receiving report thereof.
And Beauchesne's, Citation 609, states:
A committee has no authority to punish one of its members or other person for an offence committed against it, as by disorderly words or contemptuous conduct; for example, when a witness refuses to testify, or prevaricates. The committee may only report such offences to the House for its censure.
I think the chair did not have the power to threaten to have me removed. That is a decision that could only be decided by an appeal to the House, and only the House can censure me.
In conclusion, the bill that was before the committee is one of the most sensitive that has come before this House and this country. With the extensive use of closure, committees are one of the few places left where members of Parliament can call the government's actions into account. Even this is now being undermined by
February 15, 1990

the authoritarian actions of the chair of the finance committee.
I know, Mr. Speaker, that you have often said in the past that what goes on in committee is the committee's business, but if a member of Parliament cannot appeal to the highest Chair in Parliament, where does he seek justice if he cannot get it from the chair of the committee of which he is legally a member?
I humbly submit then that there is evidence of a prima facie breach of my privileges and that the matter be referred to the Standing Committee on Elections and Privileges.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Gloucester also has a question of privilege. It seems to be very much on the same point. It might be better that I hear his point before hearing any response.


M. Douglas Young: Mr. Speaker, I will be veiy brief. My point of privilege, as I indicated under Standing Order 42, is based on the fact that this morning we were convened to a meeting of the Standing Committee on Finance to deal with matters referred to us by this House.
I want to explain that under normal circumstances when a meeting is convened, as it was, for the hour of 9.30 a.m. we should be there. The events of this morning that have been described in some part by my colleague from Nickel Belt took place without my being present, and I want to explain why I believe there is a question of privilege involved.
This morning the West Block of the Hill was very much a buzz of activity as a result of His Excellency, the Secretary of External Affairs of the Soviet Union being present in that building to address another committee. I left a meeting being held at the Centre Block and walked over to the building. It was difficult, and understandably so, to get access to the committee room. I arrived at 27 minutes before ten o'clock. I see my hon. friends who cooked up the scheme that they were part of this morning shaking their heads. Most of the time they are not there at all, much less on time.
We walked in and already the event described by my hon. colleague who raised the question of privilege had taken place. I do not want to comment on the events that
Privilege
took place this morning as it applies to the question of privilege raised by hon. friend, but certainly it seems to me that, in keeping with the traditions and customs of this place, it was not necessary, although the activities that took place yesterday may have caused some embarrassment to members of government, to try to push through the reading of a certain number of clauses in the legislation that had been referred to us.
I am suggesting that even if the government is exasperated with the activities of certain members, it still seems to me that given the situation of what was going on in the West Block this morning and the difficulty that we had to arrive there, it was not courteous to members of this House that we had to play the political games that were being played there this morning.
I humbly suggest that my privileges as a member were breached by the lack of understanding exhibited by the committee at the time, by convening it at 9.30 a.m. and by concluding its activity minutes later.
When I did arrive, the Chairman of the Standing Committee on Finance indicated that there had been some deliberations take place of a very, very short nature and that the meeting was adjourned to the call of the chair.
Given the fact that members are in different parts of the complex here, whether at the Wellington Building, Confederation Building, Centre Block, or West Block, it seems to me that we do need to respect the rights of members of this place. Functioning on a committee such as the Standing Committee on Finance requires a great deal of time and a great deal of effort. It does not serve the purpose of this House, when it refers matters of such importance as the goods and services tax to the committee, that these kinds of things take place.
I respectfully submit to you, Mr. Speaker, that in operating as they did this morning in that committee my privileges and the privileges of my colleagues, the Liberal members of the finance committee, were breached. I bring to the attention of the Chair and to the Chairman of the Standing Committee on Finance that if we are going to deal in a meaningful and constructive way with important measures that are brought before us, we might want to start to behave the way I think most Canadians expect parliamentarians to behave in such circumstances.

February 15, 1990
Privilege


David Barrett: Mr. Speaker, I will be very brief on my question of privilege. I do not wish to repeat what my colleagues have said. I do regret, though, that the meeting was called so abruptly without giving all members time to be there. I know the Liberal members made a valiant attempt to be there but something else took place.
My concern is about the public right to be heard which is a debate between the parties. My concern is about a member's right to be heard. We can have fights in committee, Mr. Speaker. I know how difficult this is for you, and I know you will rule on this.
My particular area of concern was the threat to my colleague, and implied to myself, that if we did not shut up we would be thrown out of the committee. I tried to raise a point of order on 'that threat, suggesting to the chair of the committee that he had no such authority to do such a thing and, second, that he had no such authority to threaten.
I am not frighten of threats and my colleague is not frightened of threats, but they have no place in that committee. To suggest that bullying from the chair is a method of conducting the business of this House is grossly mistaken and against all the traditions of Parliament.
That is why I am taking this opportunity to raise it on privilege. I refuse to be threatened by anybody and this House shall make judgments on the behaviour of members, no other member, regardless of what situation. I just wanted to point that out.


Mr. Don Blenkarn (Mississauga South):: Mr. Speaker, I am a bit surprised that my friends from the New Democratic Party would raise the issue in this Chamber the way they have this afternoon, particularly after the way they were put on the committee yesterday and spent the whole day arguing a motion, refusing to allow the motion to come to a vote.
However, I did talk to parliamentary counsel, I did get the advice of my clerk and my deputy clerk, and I was advised that a motion to move to orders of the day was appropriate. The motion was made to move to the orders of the day. I called for a vote on that motion and that motion was carried.
There was no request for a poll and I proceeded to call clause by clause. I called Clause 1 on the order of the
day. I asked for a vote on Clause 1. There was no contrary on Clause 1, and I called Clause 1 carried. And the same occurred with every clause to Clause 11. At Clause 12 one of the members, the vice-chairman, asked that Clause 12 be deferred. There was no comment from the other side about the clause.
We went then to Clause 13 and Clause 13 was carried, again in the same fashion, and Clause 14 and Clause 15 and Clause 16 and Clause 17.


John R. Rodriguez: That's not the truth.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: I then suspended the hearings of the committee to see what we could do to work out something. All of the time my colleagues from the New Democratic Party were screaming, yelling, pointing, and standing up almost on their chairs. I did speak to my clerk about how to retain order. He said that I would have to report so I said we would go ahead with clause by clause. We did so.
I think I have followed the requirements of this House. I have run this committee, as you know, Mr. Speaker, as chairman, elected unanimously at every occasion for the past five years. I have enjoyed the support of the regular members of the committee, but I must say that when new members are suddenly imposed in a committee without knowledge of the committee's background sometimes things do not work in the normal fashion.
The committee did have a complete meeting lined up to analyse the way we would proceed, and we proceeded agreeably with the permanent members of the committee, but when we came to public hearings the matter was altered accordingly.
I must say the witnesses who were called for the day were all there. There was a quorum of the committee there. Unfortunately, Liberal members did not show up in time.


Mr. Speaker:: I have listened very carefully to three members who have raised the question of privilege and I have listened to the chairman of the committee. I also have here a transcript of the proceedings.
I am going to do an unusual thing. I am going to reserve on this matter and I will return to the Chamber as quickly as possible. I do not think there is any need for me to hear further argument. I have the point and I also have the transcript, and I will return to the House as soon as is appropriate.
February 15, 1990


Mr. Skelly (North Island-Powell River):: Mr. Speaker, I too attempted to attend the finance committee this morning on time. I arrived and the door was locked.


Mr. Speaker:: I am sorry. I have already given this an extensive hearing. My usual ruling would be that it is completely improper for the Chair to consider what goes on inside the committee. I have listened carefully to what has been said. I am going to consider it. I am going to look at it. I do not need to hear any further comment. I have the transcript and I hope the hon. member will co-operate with me.


Raymond John Skelly: Mr. Speaker, if I might for one minute-


Some hon. members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: If the hon. member has another point of privilege, I would ask him to bring it to my attention.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, this being Thursday, I would like to ask the government House leader what business he will bring to the attention of this House today, tomorrow, Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday, if he can.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, this afternoon we will begin debate on the Prime Minister's motion respecting linguistic duality, Meech Lake and the Official Languages Act.
I would like to indicate now that the government is prepared to extend hours this evening with the provision that there be no dilatory motions in order to allow as many members as possible to speak on the motion, and with the proviso that when the last speaker seeks the floor, has it and then sits down, that the debate would automatically be adjourned until tomorrow. There would be no vote obviously.
We would also call the motion for debate tomorrow and again on Monday. I would make the same offer on behalf of the government with respect to debate on Monday, that in order that as many speakers as possible from all three parties may be heard, that we extend the
Business of the House
sitting in the evening on the basis that there be no dilatory motions and no vote.
If that does happen, by the end of the evening on Monday we would be in a position to determine just how much time is needed to continue the debate and we could fix a vote at a time which (a) has enough notice as possible for all members; and, (b) is at a time convenient to the members. I would suggest, perhaps, some time Wednesday or Thursday.
I have not settled on business for Tuesday morning at this time, nor Tuesday afternoon. But at 4.30 p.m., we have the budget presentation of the Minister of Finance. The House and the members will know that it is important that we have a fixed time for this statement by the Minister of Finance. We will be presenting the usual motion to the House tomorrow to tie down all the details on that.
Wednesday would be day one of the budget debate. Thursday would be day two. Normally there would be a vote on the NDP subamendment on Thursday at 5.45 p.m. if in fact they feel they have to amend the budget statement.
I would also indicate to the House that the Main Estimates for the 1990-1991 fiscal year will be tabled next Thursday, February 22.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, it is pretty vague as far as Tuesday is concerned. I would ask the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons to be more specific about the business for Tbesday. It is very important for us to know what he intends to do on Tuesday. He said that tomorrow we might have more details, but I would like to know about the day the Budget is brought down and whether he will tell us what the business of the House will be for that day. We have to know.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that. I will have my office get in touch with my hon. friend. As I said, we may continue the debate on the motion. In any event, I can assure my friend because all members want to be au courant on the affairs of the budget and be in a position to comment to their constituents as soon as possible. The business of Tuesday morning and Tuesday after Question Period will be of such a nature that it should not cause great difficulty to the people who will be involved in the lock-up and that type of business. We will make sure we

February 15, 1990
Government Orders
coordinate with the other two offices to see that we have something that is convenient.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the House leader for the government providing us with the agenda for the next few days. It is not clear to me yet about the additional hours today and additional hours again on Monday to allow all members a chance to participate in the debate. How long will those extended sittings be? He then made reference to a vote that may take place. Since the government has introduced the motion, I am assuming they are in support of it unanimously.
My friend, the House leader for the Official Opposition, has indicated ifs intention to support the motion. We have indicated our intention to support the motion. Right now we presume it has unanimous support of the House of Commons. Normally we would have discussions as to the details. Are we just going to leave it open-ended in terms of how late we go in the evenings and when the vote may take place, if there is a need for it? It seems to be a rather awkward and peculiar way to arrange the business of the House.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, discussions did take place among the House leaders vis-a-vis the extended hours and they are exactly as I related them on the floor of the House just a minute ago. The debate will continue tonight with 20 minute speeches until such time as the last person speaks. When the last member is finishing speaking we would simply adjourn until tomorrow. That same arrangement would take place on Monday.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I apologize that this is a long debate and for negotiating on the floor of the House, but I have not given my consent to sit tonight at all. I do not want the minister to think for one moment that we want to extend or prolong this debate indefinitely. I have told you, Mr. Speaker, and I have told the members of this House and the people of Canada that we are supporting this resolution, but we would like to have some order. We are asking the minister what time does he have in mind for ending the debate so that people can be here to vote and approve this motion? That is what we are trying to do.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, my question to the government House leader is the same. He is indicating that the
government for some peculiar reason wishes to have a vote on something that we all unanimously support, but he does not say when the vote will take place. He leaves some open-ended arrangement. Could he be explicit as to when the vote will take place on this resolution?


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I can be very explicit on when the vote will take place: with enough notice that every member will have an opportunity to be here and vote.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: No way. That's nonsense.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: We have had enough negotiations. I think what the House leaders should do is have their negotiations and we should carry on with Orders of the Day.
I wish to inform the House that because of the ministerial statement, Government Orders will be extended 12 minutes, therefore, Private Members' Business will begin at 5.12 o'clock p.m.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Right Hon. Brian Mulroney (Prime Minister) moved:: That this House reaffirm its commitment to support, protect and promote linguistic duality in Canada, as reflected by this House in the Constitution Amendment, 1987 and the Official Languages Act, 1988.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I rise on this, the twenty-fifth anniversary of the Canadian flag, the universal symbol of Canada, to speak of national unity and linguistic duality.
Just before I do, Mr. Speaker, I think it appropriate that all members of the House on an occasion like this recognize the presence and participation of those members who were here a quarter of a century ago and who participated in that historic debate. I think it would probably be appropriate as well if I took the liberty of paying a special tribute to the Prime Minister of Canada at that time, the Right Hon. Lester Pearson, who was responsible for managing the debate, conducting it and for the tremendous result that we see flying over the Parliament Buildings today.
February 15, 1990


Some hon. members:: E[ear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I understand that that debate was not unanimous, which is a sort of break with the tradition we have known here for a number of years in the House. Every Parliament since Confederation has had to confront the question of Canada's linguistic duality. The members of every Parliament have had to stand up and declare themselves on this very fundamental issue.
These debates are in fact sometimes painful and divisive. But they have also given this country some of its finest moments in this the highest court of the land.

In 1969, the Hon. Robert Stanfield and the late David Lewis stood with Prime Minister Trudeau on the Official Languages Act; in 1973, they did so again, on a resolution of this House reaffirming linguistic duality.
In 1983 and 1984, Mr. Broadbent and I, together with the Trudeau government, supported the rights of the francophone minority in Manitoba when the Prime Minister of Canada presented a similar motion to this House.
In 1987, Mr. Turner and Mr. Broadbent stood with me in support of the Meech Lake Accord. In 1988, they did so again in passing Bill C-72, the new Official Languages Act.
It is in this spirit of co-operation that I have the honour to present this resolution before the House today for your consideration and for a debate which will no doubt be true to the great traditions of our Parliament on the most burning current issues, as in decades past.

It is time for all of us to stand up for Canada again because in recent days we have witnessed regrettable denials of some of Canada's fundamental values. Debate over language has been almost as frequent and fundamental a characteristic as the history of Canada's duality itself. But, with tolerance and respect for one another, we have built a country that has not simply acknowledged its own diversity but thrived on it.
Confederation was the coming together of English and French-speaking Canadians whom Wilfrid Laurier was
Government Orders
later to characterize as the "marble and the oak" of this remarkable home that we now call Canada.
The Fathers of Confederation never suggested in 1867 that building a country in which English and French would both be spoken would in any way or at any time be easy. In fact, they often referred to the difficulties that they knew awaited successive generations of Canadians. They called upon them even then for the foresight, the openness and the tolerance that would be required to bring this great Canadian experiment forward and to enrich it generation after generation. They also understood that this was a fundamental characteristic of the new nation that they were building for a people searching for a new home from countries around the world.
Sir John A. Macdonald said in the Confederation debates in respect of the concept of duality, to paraphrase him in that particular debate in February 1865, 125 years ago just about today, he acknowledged that the easiest and the most efficient way to run Canada would be with a unitary state with one language. He acknowledged that that brought with it great advantages. But as he indicated, the only problem with it is that it would not work. If you adopted that view, there would be no Canada because, as he said, "any proposition which involved the absorption of the individuality of Lower Canada, Quebec at the time, would not be received with favour by her people".
In 1865 he was speaking of the notion of individuality of Lower Canada. Today, the same fundamental meaning finds usage in the word "distinct". It is as true today as it was when Sir John A. Macdonald and Etienne Cartier began the nation-building work of binding this country together with their own hands.
That duality was something that just did not happen. It was acknowledged, reflected upon and deemed by everyone involved as absolutely indispensable, not only to the functioning of Canada, but to the existence of Canada. Macdonald acknowledged time and time again that Canada could not come together without a fundamental acknowledgement of that linguistic duality.
That duality was enriched and strengthened over decades by wave after wave of immigrants from eastern Europe, central Europe and elsewhere, who caused the prairies to bloom and the sovereignty of Canada to extend to the farthest reaches of this continent. It is a safe statement to make today when I say that if Canada as we know it was begun essentially by Scottish Protestants from Ontario and French Catholics from Quebec,

February 15, 1990
Government Orders
it has been immeasurably enriched by people from every country of the world who have now made of Canada a truly modem, tolerant society.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, few subjects have so aroused public opinion and stirred such individual passions as the debates over language.
But some of the finest chapters in our history were written by those who made the voice of reason prevail, who made tolerance triumph and who wrought the necessary accommodations.

Linguistic duality and the protection of minority language rights are not abstract concepts. They are given life by legislative enactments such as the Official Languages Act. They are given permanence and protection by the Constitution and they are given meaning by the national will of a generous and a tolerant people.

The rejection of minorities is an attack on the nature of Canada. When language becomes a motive for exclusion and fear, it is time for all Canadians who love their country to speak up and speak out.
There is no place in Canada for intolerance-although no one would suggest that Canada, or any other country, is absolutely free from it.
The resolution now before the House is an opportunity for all members to speak up and speak out, again, for what is best about Canada.
It is an opportunity to send an absolutely unequivocal message, again, of unity and mutual respect.
The issue before us is not bilingualism or even, despite claims to the contrary, the expense of bilingualism.
The issue before us is simple and important-the will of English- and French-speaking Canadians to continue to live together with mutual respect and fraternity, while
honouring our original undertakings to each other and to the whole nation.

It is time to refer back to some of our fundamental values and I think it is also time to try to put this entire issue in some perspective. This is not the first time nor will it be the last time that there have been misconceptions and misrepresentations on the government's policies regarding official languages.
This is not the first time nor will it be the last that certain voices have been heard alleging that the policy constitutes enforced bilingualism. Something is being "rammed down people's throats". Surely that phrase and that expression had to arise in Canada. Only in a country this prosperous and this magnificent would people have the time to worry about expressions like that. Nothing is being forced down anybody's throat, although the concept of enforced bilingualism or a double standard, one for Quebec and another for the rest of the country, has been alleged in this country from the days of the Confederation debates. There have always been voices, fortunately few and far between. But there have always been voices who have tried to trade on this kind of falsehood and distortion that fortunately has been repudiated time and time and time again by this Parliament, regardless of its composition and regardless of the government that happened to be sitting at the right of the Speaker.
There is no better way to bury these damaging misunderstandings than to recall the words of one of the original architects of the original Official Languages Act. In 1974, the Hon. Gerard Pelletier, then Minister of Communications, spoke as follows, and I quote:
-some people were surprised recently by my statement favouring the promotion of an intensely French Quebec. They thought they saw a contradiction with the federal government's official languages policy. But the efforts of the federal government in linguistic matters has always been subjected to the most absurd interpretations, the most frequent being that the ultimate objective of the Official Languages Act is to make each and every Canadian citizen bilingual. The facts are diametrically opposed to this fable: one of the effects of
February 15, 1990

this law is to permit anyone to remain unilingual, if that is his wish, in all of his relations with the Government of Canada.
If you want to be bilingual, terrific. If you want to remain unilingual and deal with the Government of Canada, the law was designed in such a way as to make sure that both sides of this great national debate and these two perceptions could be accommodated equally.
What is more appropriate for a country that values its linguistic duality and protects its linguistic minorities in an imperfect nation such as ours? While we have many advantages and many accomplishments, our imperfections show every day of the week. What would be more appropriate than to proceed on a sensitive and delicate issue along the lines that Mr. Pelletier suggested in 1974.

It is time, Mr. Speaker, to remind ourselves what it is like to be a minority and to treat minorities with the same tolerance and generosity of spirit that we would want to be treated with, if our situations were reversed.

Elow else would you treat a minority, except to ask yourselves what would it be like to be a minority and to treat the minority in exactly the same way that you would want you and your family to be treated if the situation were reversed. Surely that is a fundamental concept of social justice in this country.


Some hon. members:: Elear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: While we happen to be talking about linguistic minorities, the principle holds true for visible minorities and every minority in Canada who is entitled to be treated with justice and equity and equality at all times and in all circumstances in this country of Canada.

It is just these values of tolerance and generosity that will help us face an increasingly competitive and interdependent world.
Mr. Speaker, it is such an obvious advantage, and not a handicap, for Canada to speak the world's two leading languages. Our competitors in Europe often speak three languages fluently and four or even five quite well. Today
Government Orders
some Canadians say they are disadvantaged because they want to preserve the integrity of one language. But please, never prevent our young people from learning two languages, because that enriches the whole nation.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Linguistic duality lies at the foundation of our country and must be constantly preserved and promoted if we are to progress as a nation.
The British North America Act established rights and obligations respecting the use of English and French in Parliament, the Quebec Legislative Assembly and all the courts of Canada and Quebec.
Three years later, these same rights and obligations were extended to the new province of Manitoba.
Section 94 of the BNA Act provided that Parliament could make provision for the uniformity of court procedure in Ontario, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia-but not for Quebec whose system of civil law was distinct.
English and French were entrenched as the official languages of New Brunswick in 1982.
In 1988, we adopted a new Official Languages Act to bring our fundamental language law into line with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
In adopting the Official Languages Act in 1969, Parliament had recognized the importance of our linguistic duality. But the 1969 Act, in spite of its achievements, had other shortcomings because it focused on the individual's right to obtain services from the government, not on the vitality of minority communities-and thus was not able to halt the erosion of minorities throughout Canada.
The lesson we have learned over the past twenty years is that the strength of the community is critical and must be fostered if linguistic minorities across Canada are to retain their vitality. This is what inspired the major changes supported by all, or almost all, members of this House barely a year and a half ago.
That is why we gave a community orientation to our official languages policy when we adopted the new Official Languages Act.

Government Orders

Alliance Quebec said in respect of precisely that initiative, Alliance Quebec representing effectively and well the interests of the English-speaking minority in the province of Quebec, and I quote:
-the legislation adopted by the House of Commons represents a significant act of leadership by the federal government-We particularly welcome the Government of Canada's eloquent commitment, contained in the preamble of Bill C-72: "-to enhancing the vitality and supporting the development of English and French linguistic minority communities-".

The Federation des francophones hors Quebec said:
We support this new and improved legislation which is a very important development tool for francophones outside Quebec.
The House of Commons of Canada and the three main parties that sit here in the House have been presented with a problem; they have dealt with a solid major piece of legislation, which was endorsed by almost all hon. members. This is to the credit of the House and all hon. members who sit there.

The federal government has been active over the past years in promoting linguistic minorities. We give considerable financial help to provincial governments to provide minority language education and second language education training and facilities. We assist provinces to make possible a wide, indeed a vast range and array of other provincial services to minority language communities.
In 1988, for example, we signed agreements with the Saskatchewan government to give the Fransaskois greater control over the education of their children.
We entered into an agreement with Prince Edward Island on services in French, and another on a school and community centre in Charlottetown.
We concluded a Memorandum of Understanding with Nova Scotia on the College de l'Acadie.
We reached agreements with New Brunswick on school community centres which provide a focal point for the education and cultural activities of the minority community.
We arrived at a framework agreement with Ontario on the promotion of official languages. In 1989, we signed an agreement with Ontario on a Francophone college network, something that the French-speaking Canadians in the province of Ontario had requested for decades.
In co-operation with the government of the province of Ontario I was delighted that this Parliament and this government were able to finally meet an historic need which helps build Canadian unity and which represents the very best elements of our society which must be encouraged if Canadian unity is going to be strengthened.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: We concluded an agreement with the Yukon on French language services.
We entered into an agreement with the province of Quebec, a very important and substantial agreement, on the provision of health and social services to the English-speaking population of that province. On February 2, this year, we signed an agreement with Quebec on official languages and education.
As one can see, there is symmetry and there is balance. There is fairness. There is not a double standard by this Parliament in respect of the application of bilingualism, or in the application of the official languages law. There are imperfections, obviously. But each and every member of this House seeks to eliminate and minimize those imperfections and from time to time as we proceed with improvements and amendments we make it better. When we make it better, we make life a little better for minority communities across Canada.
That, surely, is the principal objective of a sensitive and thoughtful approach to bilingualism and to the fundamental rights and values of minority language communities across this country. They must be able to turn to the Parliament of Canada when in moments of difficulty; and the Parliament of Canada should be able to respond with as much generosity and leadership as this country is capable of.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, while we have made important progress over the years to uphold this fundamental characteristic of our nationhood, our history has
February 15, 1990

Government Orders
been marred by troubling and divisive linguistic disputes. We will not tell each other scare stories. These events did not just begin a few weeks ago, in northern Ontario. One has only to recall the controversy over the closing of Catholic schools in Manitoba in 1890, Regulation 17 in Ontario in 1912, which had a devastating effect on that province's francophone community, and the Gens de I'Air dispute of 1976.
In 1905, Prime Minister Sir Wilfrid Laurier decided that language rights in Alberta and Saskatchewan, in contrast to the situation in Quebec and Manitoba at that time, should not be entrenched in the Constitution but rather left within provincial legislative jurisdiction.
It was, Mr. Speaker, therefore open to Alberta and Saskatchewan in 1988 to override a Supreme Court decision and abolish certain language rights and obligations that they had inherited from the Northwest Territories.

But in 1981, another significant decision was taken, obviously not with this in mind. No one can foresee the future with accuracy, but another significant decision was taken. It was to entrench in the Constitution a notwithstanding clause which permits legislatures to override many of the basic rights and freedoms of Canadians. Because of that clause it was open to Quebec, in enacting Bill C-178 respecting external, commercial signs in 1988, to override freedom of expression provisions of the Canadian Charter.
In all three cases the provincial legislatures used existing powers to limit rights that had been confirmed by the Supreme Court of Canada. In each case the government and, I suppose, most if not all members of the House of Commons and I personally deeply deplore the actions taken. But as has happened over history, it is now left for another day to try and remedy the situation and improve upon minority rights and the status and the state of our bilingual nation and all of the challenges and opportunities it gives to all of us.
We need today through our attitudes, our statements and our actions to arrest this trend and to return to the fundamental concepts as best we can that built this nation.

Our country, which at various times in its history was thought to have been weakened by division and misunderstanding, was in fact strengthened by the common will which always arose at such times to overcome these threats to our unity. The forces of reason, fairness and generosity must again be mobilized. Let us do so always keeping in mind the future of young Canadians, our children. Our greatest responsibility is to leave them the united and prosperous country which our parents dreamed for us.

If there is an obligation, perhaps in a pyramid of obligations in this regard, that takes a predominant place, of all the obligations that we have, and we have many, surely few can be more compelling than to make sure as best we can that this country which we did not build-it was built for us, it was given to us-this magnificent, wealthy, prosperous, admired, envied nation which has made our lives so complete and so productive, surely our fundamental obligation must be to take every action we possibly can to pass this country on undiminished to our children and then to their children. That is what it is all about.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I say, not in any argumentative way whatsoever, but simply because the reasons I have tried to explain, and as a fundamental bearing on the nature of linguistic duality in Canada and this matter before the House, that for this reason and this reason alone I submit respectfully that I believe in many ways, but not in any perfect way, that the Meech Lake Accord has an important role and that it fulfils many of these responsibilities. It reaffirms our national identity by recognizing in the Constitution Quebec's distinctiveness and Canada's linguistic duality.
In 1982, a similar recognition was properly given to our multicultural and aboriginal traditions. In the same way the courts were instructed to interpret the Charter in light of these provisions.
In the words of the joint parliamentary committee that carefully studied the accord, the addition of the linguistic duality and distinct society clause "will better reflect Canada as it is".

February 15, 1990
Government Orders
The Meech Lake Accord is for all of Canada. It brings Quebec back into the Constitution voluntarily and on terms that are reasonable and may never come again.
Meech Lake ensures that all provinces will have an equal say in the reform of national institutions, including the Senate. There will be no winners and losers. Most of all, there will be no second-class provinces.
Meech Lake gives provinces a say in the appointment of Supreme Court Judges and Senators. Why would this be a source of astonishment in a federation? What could be more normal than to consult on questions like this, on federal institutions that need the legitimacy and the participation, as does the Senate? These are not offensive or original notions; they have been debated exhaustively in the past in different circumstances in Canada. All of them have much to suggest that they are worthy of careful consideration.
The Meech Lake Accord also promotes the development of new shared cost programs in a manner that, as Mr. Broadbent said in different circumstances, is sensitive to local needs.
Its ratification will establish a favourable climate for investment and economic growth. Most fundamentally, its ratification will promote national reconciliation.
It is not an argumentative or adversarial comment to say that any Constitution that is truly a Constitution which should unite all peoples will never be complete until the province of Quebec has been brought back to the family.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: Meech Lake places the co-existence of English and French-speaking Canadians in a pan-Canadian context, which is exactly what this country requires and exactly what the Accord does.
Lest there be any confusion on this matter, and because there has been confusion, let me read directly from the Meech Lake Accord the provision on linguistic duality. It is precisely the reason why it has a vital bearing, an absolutely indispensable bearing on this resolution and on the concept of minority rights and on
the concept of linguistic duality in Canada. Let me read textually:
2. (1) The Constitution of Canada shall be interpreted in a
manner consistent with
(a) the recognition that the existence of French-speaking Canadians, centred in Quebec but also present elsewhere in Canada, and English-speaking Canadians, concentrated outside Quebec but also present in Quebec, constitutes a fundamental characteristic of Canada;
What could be clearer than that? It is not a legal definition. It is a statement of reality. Yet some people persist in suggesting that this will describe a Canada of two linguistic enclaves. In fact it does precisely the opposite and brings Canadians together and makes sure that Canadians are at home right across Canada.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: It is a statement of the situation of the English-speaking minority in the province of Quebec and its access linguistically of course to the rest of Canada, and the inverse being the presence of Frenchspeaking minorities across the country, with a Frenchspeaking majority centred in Quebec, as being "a fundamental characteristic of Canada". Not only is it a fundamental characteristic of Canada, if it were not a fundamental characteristic of Canada this country would not have survived since 1867 because, as Sir John A. Macdonald said in 1865, the individuality of Lower Canada is something that must be respected in a new confederation, failing which there would be no Canada.
It is simply because Sir John and Cartier recognized that 125 years ago that Canada grew and prospered. It is because this House acknowledged it 100 years later that this countiy will continue to grow and prosper as one strong, united Canada.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: For the first time in our history, 11 governments committed themselves to preserve linguistic duality. Mr. Speaker, the Commissioner of Official Languages, the individual responsible not to a government but to this Parliament, a dispassionate, sensitive and objective observer of linguistic matters in this country, carefully analyzed every provision of that Accord. He said that this represents "a net gain" for linguistic minorities.
This debate today on this resolution is about linguistic minorities and it is about fairness. The Commissioner for
February 15, 1990

Government Orders
Official Languages says that in the documents submitted to him this represents a net gain for linguistic minorities-the English-speaking minority in the province of Quebec, and French-speaking minorities elsewhere. That is what we sought to do.
I was honoured by the fact that one of the most important observers in Canada's national life agreed and stipulated very clearly that this was a net gain for all of Canada's linguistic minorities. Its ratification is the best guarantee that minority language communities will flourish in Canada.
Ten provincial premiers representing four different political parties from British Columbia to Newfoundland and Labrador supported the Accord. All three federal leaders in the House of Commons strongly endorsed it. In politics in Canada this is about as close as you are ever going to come to a miracle, Mr. Speaker.
The Meech Lake Accord was inspired by the same insight and realism which motivated Sir John A. and Sir George-Etienne Cartier a century ago. "We are a great country", Sir John said, "and shall become one of the greatest in the universe if we preserve it; we shall sink into insignificance and adversity if we suffer it to be broken".

Here is what Georges-Etienne Cartier said about the 1867 Constitution. Some time later, Cartier said, "I hope that if this grand project of Confederation must be amended, it will not be to narrow the principles of fairness on which it is founded, but rather to enlarge them even more."
Ratification of the Meech Lake Accord will allow us to address an agenda of importance to all Canadians: Senate reform, aboriginal rights, minority language rights and improving the Charter. Those are critical matters for all governments and all legislators to consider as we approach the June deadline for ratifying the Accord.
Some would say, Mr. Speaker, that we have come a long way since 1867, and we have, certainly. But in my view, all the reforms we have instituted in the past quarter century do no more than ensure that the concept of partnership is brought up to date with changing times and circumstances.
Without such reforms, the splendid concept, the uniquely Canadian concept, could wither and die, and with it the essence of Canada and the core of Canadian values.

Twenty-five years ago today a new Canadian flag was raised for the first time on Parliament Hill after a long, raucous and emotional debate across the nation and in this House of Commons. The flag too, as some members will recall, was the subject of very substantial and prolonged disagreement and, indeed, division.
Many felt strongly that the red maple leaf was not the right flag for Canada. But 25 years later every single Canadian rejoices in our flag's distinctiveness. It is celebrated as perhaps our most important symbol of unity. There is not a single Canadian who has travelled across this country or elsewhere in the world who on seeing the Canadian maple leaf flag flying does not look at it with pride and joy and says: "There is our flag and I am a Canadian."


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: So may it be some day with the Meech Lake Accord and documents designed to unite Canada to bring us together to make sure that the vision of the Fathers of Confederation is respected and honoured and that this country becomes effectively what it was always designed to be-one Canada.
The breathtaking pace of international events, the tremendous development of technology and the vast trade opportunities opening up in the world urgently remind us that we cannot condemn another generation to sterile and interminable domestic quarrels.
We have had our fill of constitutional conferences! [English]
We are the international experts in the cottage industry of commas, colons, paragraphs, notwithstandings and constitutions. We could give advice to anyone in the world on how to do it, but unfortunately we have not completed it ourselves.
I think Canadians call upon us in the same spirit of openness and generosity to recognize those values that moved the Fathers of Confederation and who look at us today, 125 years later and say: "Surely the time has come". That is said in the context of the continual respect of that individuality of which Macdonald spoke in 1865, of the respect for minority rights which has now extended to respect for all minorities across the country, respect for bilingualism and the tremendous value, the

February 15, 1990
Government Orders
magnificence that it brings to our citizenship and the pride and the joy that it gives us in being Canadians.
Let us adopt this resolution which speaks to some fundamental values that have been the source of great pride for all Canadians from the very beginning of Canada. Let us adopt this resolution loudly and clearly and, hopefully, with one voice. In the process of doing that we do honour to Canada and we do honour to this House of Commons. Perhaps even more important we do honour to our obligations to each other.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear!


Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity this debate gives this House to send Canadians a positive message in support of bilingualism in our country.
I think members on both sides of this House understand that there is an urgent need to send a clear and unmistakable message to the country in support of linguistic duality, of bilingualism. Therefore we will support this resolution because, above all, it calls for the reaffirmation of the importance of bilingualism as, what is, and what should be a fundamental characteristic of this country.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear!


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: In short, I see this resolution as a vehicle which enables parliamentarians of all parties to send this positive message to Canadians.

But, Mr. Speaker, it is not enough for us as parliamentarians to pass a motion showing our support for bilingualism to fulfil our duty to promote and encourage bilingualism.
We must show our support for it. And I sincerely hope, as do my colleagues, that the government will not stop with this resolution and that it will launch a dynamic program in its wake to encourage bilingualism. It is up to the Prime Minister and his government to set the tone on this issue.
My predecessor, the right hon. member for Vancouver Quadra (Mr. Turner), sounded a warning note a few months ago here in the House. He said
-that if the federal government did not act as soon as possible to promote linguistic equality, there would be serious consequences.
Mr. Speaker, he was right.

I believe that the current wave of English-only municipal resolutions in Ontario has a lot to do with a lack of federal leadership. There is a perception on the part of some Canadians that their federal government is sending out conflicting signals, that it says one thing to people in one part of the country and another thing to people in other parts.
This government must change its laissez-faire attitude and become more active in the promotion of bilingualism. If it does not, many people will continue to hold the misconception that bilingualism is just an expensive luxury that this country does not need.
In fact, it is the duty of all of us to work diligently to dispel that myth and to convince Canadians that official language equality is one of this country's most distinctive and positive feature. That misconception, that myth I have just outlined, is not only wrong, it is also dangerous. It is wrong because it denies our history and dangerous because it could deny us our future.
It is dangerous because, if taken to its extreme, it will have us ignore the fundamental nature of this country, namely, that we are a country whose history has given us two languages, English and French, as part of our basic national fabric. If we reject the fundamental nature of this country, then we are rejecting the kind of Canada we have been building here for the past 123 years. A Canada that rejects this principle is not the kind of Canada I want to see in the next decade and the next century for my children and their children.
I believe that if we reject this principle, Canada will not survive as an independent, distinctive and united country. I do not believe a Canada that rejects the principle of language equality is the kind of Canada the majority of Canadians want to see either.
Members will no doubt be aware of a new poll completed by the respected firm Environics Research Group and released today by the Canadian Parents for French. It shows that nearly three-quarters of all Cana-
February 15, 1990

dians are in favour of having the children of their province learn the other official language.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear!


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: These figures represent an increase in favour of second language training over a similar poll six years ago. They show that in all parts of Canada a majority supports second language education.
Referring to the survey, Kathryn Manzer, the president of Canadian Parents for French stated:
These findings affirm my faith in Canadians and in the future of our country. It's good to know that Canadians really do share a desire to understand and communicate with one another.
I agree with these sentiments.

We have built a strong and unique democracy, founded on justice, tolerance and understanding. True, we have had the occasional set-back, but I believe we have made considerable progress in building a society that gives equal opportunities to all citizens, regardless of language or origin.
I would like to quote my predecessor who said last year in the House of Commons, on April 5:
The whole history of Canada, since the very day it was founded, reflects the fragile balance between the two founding peoples and the two language communities. It is the duty of all of us here in the House, the elected representatives of the Canadian people, to work zealously, carefully and generously to cement the links between these two language communities.

My background is neither French nor English. My parents were Jewish immigrants from eastern Europe who became proud Canadians, as I am. Today, I have the honour to stand here as a member of Parliament and, even if for a limited period, as the Leader of the Opposition. I am proud to work for our country, to speak for Canada in both official languages.
I believe that if we begin to undermine the concept of bilingualism, we are also beginning to undermine the concept of multiculturalism. After all, if we cannot recognize the value of having two official languages in this country, can we long continue to recognize the value
Government Orders
of the many non-English and non-French cultural heritages of some one third of Canadians?
I believe, and I hope all Canadians will agree with me, that you do not build yourself up by tearing someone else down. In the long run, you do not increase your rights by attempting to take away the rights of others.
More than that, diminishing the rights of Francophones outside Quebec does not increase the rights of Anglophones inside Quebec, just as limiting the rights of Anglophones inside Quebec does not increase the rights of Francophones elsewhere in our country. If anything, actions such as those we have seen in recent months only serve to make matters worse for minorities in all parts of Canada.
The English-only municipal resolutions we have seen recently represent a very backward step. They are based on misconceptions and misunderstandings about the financial implications for municipalities of Ontario's Bill 8. As I understand it, that bill does not require municipalities to spend any money. It does not require their citizens to pay more. It also does not require municipal governments to do anything they do not want to do. But, unfortunately, French language rights and services have become the undeserving scapegoats for concerns about municipal taxes and services.

Mr. Speaker, when I sat in the House of Commons for the first time in 1962, we were just starting to provide services in both official languages. I want to pay tribute to all members of the House of Commons who pursued that objective. Under the Pearson Government, the Laurendeau-Dunton report on bilingualism and bicul-turalism was published. The result? Under the government of Pierre Elliott Trudeau, we tabled the official languages bill.

The task of winning acceptance of that legislation was not small. My predecessor, the member for Vancouver Quadra, played a leading role in that process. As Minister of Justice in 1969, he criss-crossed the country consulting with provincial governments. He negotiated with the attorneys-general of the four western provinces because there were objections. He appeared before provincial legislative committees throughout Canada, because, as he told this House last April: "As in all cases involving language, this law to legitimize equal status for

February 15, 1990
Government Orders
our country's two official languages was hard to accept in some parts of our country. We needed great patience and determination to reach our goals". Then he went on to make this important point: "But we did it, thanks to Canadians' tolerance, generosity and goodwill".
We are today asking Canadians to regenerate that same spirit of tolerance, generosity and goodwill in the face of the challenges now before us. We are asking Canadians to put aside narrow concerns and reject the temptation for the kinds of answers that seek to divide. We are asking all members of this House to take an active role in achieving that renewed consensus because, as my predecessor went on to say in that same speech, "We must also, all of us, do our best to rekindle the bonds between our two linguistic communities to encourage and revive the spirit of harmony and tolerance which is lacking today".
I think that today, when we are celebrating the twenty-fifth anniversary of our Canadian flag, we can find some parallels in the current friction over language. I am one of only three current members who were in the House during that period. I participated in the debate over the flag and that debate was marked with division and acrimony.
Earlier today, I took part in a celebration of that anniversary which was organized by a government, formed by the party, many of whose members at the time, led the opposition to our new flag. Yet today, all parties in this House and indeed all Canadians look upon the flag with pride.
Many people thought, at that time given the bitterness of the flag debate, that this could never happen. But, Mr. Speaker, it did happen. It happened because people came together, built understanding and consensus. I sincerely hope that we can, as parliamentarians and as a country, do the same over the matter of bilingualism. Surely this is something we must do.
I believe, as my predecessor said only last week: "Canada's potential fragility is language, but Canada's potential strength is language".
I urge all members to support this motion. Let us make today the day we begin to build on that strength and turn the tide toward a more tolerant, more compassionate and above all, a stronger and more united Canada.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Before I recognize the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville, it is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Coquitlam- Unemployment Insurance; the hon. member for Saint-Leonard-Small Business; and the hon. member for York Centre-Justice.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, before I begin the formal part of my remarks, I want to inform the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition in the House that my leader would have liked to have spoken today but she has other commitments. I think the government was aware of that a few days ago, but I want to make it very clear.
In the beginning, I want to say that we support the resolution before the House today. I do so personally, and my party does so with a great deal of pride. We hope that the resolution before the House today will help unify this country and bring Canadians together.
I also rise as a western Canadian who has never hesitated to speak out in favour of bilingualism in this country and the equality of our two languages no matter where I go, not only in my constituency, but indeed anywhere across the west, or anywhere across Canada.
The debate today is a debate about linguistic minority rights. It is a debate about justice and about fairness. It is a debate about the future of our country.
I think that our party throughout its history, going back to the CCF and then the NDP, has had a very proud history of fighting for linguistic equality in this country.

I know the Prime Minister is a friend of Robert Cliche, who was the leader of our party in Quebec. Mr. Cliche worked very hard for the equality of our two official languages in this country, and I am very proud of his contribution, not only to our party but to the entire country, and I know the Prime Minister will agree.
February 15, 1990

[English\
I also remember when I was first elected in 1968 that one of the first pieces of legislation we dealt with that year was the Official Languages Act. I remember that David Lewis, Tommy Douglas, Stanley Knowles, and yourself, Mr. Speaker, were all in the House. We had a good debate and it was with a great deal of pride that we passed the Official Languages Act back in 1968 to establish in law the equality of the two languages in this country in terms of the interaction of citizens with the Parliament of Canada and the institutions of this great Parliament of Canada, the institutions of the federal government.
What we are doing today is reaffirming, very importantly, our belief in the duality of this country that it must be protected, enhanced, and promoted.

Mr. Speaker, it is a fact of life in Canada. We are a country with two great languages. We have two founding peoples: the English and the French. In Canada's history, we read about an agreement between the two founding peoples on English and French.
At the time of Confederation, 125 years ago, it was agreed that the Civil Code would prevail in Quebec and Common Law in the rest of the country.
Mr. Speaker, besides two founding peoples, we also have a very important group, the pre-founding people: the aboriginal people of Canada. There were many Indian, many aboriginal groups in this country before the others arrived.
And subsequently, Mr. Speaker, a fourth dimension was added to our country. With a name like mine and a name like yours, Mr. Speaker, we and our fathers came from other countries. In my case, it was Sweden, and in yours it was the Ukraine, a long time ago. Another part of Canada's fourth dimension is our visible minorities. The result is that we have a country that is quite different from our neighbours to the south.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to say it in French. I know I speak with an English accent, because I learned French as an adult, but I would like to say something personal in French to our Francophone listeners. I remember that when I was elected-I was only 22-the House was
Government Orders
considering the official languages bill. There had been a negative reaction in Western Canada from a large part of the population. I also remember Mr. Alex Kuziak, the first Canadian of Ukrainian descent to be appointed a minister here in Canada, and it was Tommy Douglas who appointed him when he was Premier of Saskatchewan. In the autumn of 1968, he told me that we had to pass the official languages bill for two important reasons. First of all, because it was a just cause. Here in Canada we had a french-speaking minority representing 30 per cent of our population, and it was a matter of justice for the French language and that part of the population that spoke French. But there is another reason, Mr. Speaker, and I remember it well, as a member of the fourth Canadian dimension. He said: Because of the French fact here in Canada, we have a tolerance for the other ethnic groups and for our natives. In this country, because we are tolerant with the French and the English, we are also much more tolerant than in the United States with the universities and with multiculturalism. It is also for this reason that he said we had to support this bill in 1968.

Those are great reasons that we should favour promoting and protecting the two official languages in this country.
This afternoon I want to speak about something else that is important, namely, the question of leadership. I think it is very important that this House take a very firm stand, and a very quick stand in support of duality in this country. Regardless of whether or not some people are in opposition to what we are saying, it is very important that we do what is right. It is very important that, as politicians, we do what must be done for the future of this country. It is very important that we not stick our heads in the sand, or try to forget that this issue exists, or not talk about it because it is not very popular in certain parts of the country.
My riding of Yorkton-Melville probably has fewer Francophones in it than any other riding in western Canada. I believe in the last census there were fewer than 100. But I have found throughout the years that if you speak openly, directly and honestly about the importance of linguistic rights in this country, the people of my riding and people across this country respect that and support me and support us for doing so.

February 15, 1990
Government Orders
That brings me to the second point about leadership. Here I think is where a lot of us have failed this country quite badly. Many of us have forgotten that we have to educate people as to why we are doing certain things in this country, why we have passed certain laws, why we have created certain institutions. For example, in the province of Ontario, and I am not going to be critical at all of my Ontario colleagues in the provincial Legislature or the Premier of Ontario, but politicians in all three parties should do more to explain what Bill 8 is all about.
From my understanding, and I am not an Ontarian, Bill 8 provides French language services at the provincial level only where numbers warrant. In other words, where 10 per cent of the population is of the Francophone expression or if there are 5,000 Francophones in one community there will be certain French language services for those people in places like Sudbury, Hawkes-bury, or Nickel Belt or the city of Windsor, the city of Ottawa and so on.
It seems to me that some of the opposition to what is happening in Ontario is there because certain politicians have not played a leadership role in explaining what Bill 8 is all about, or in explaining what official bilingualism at the federal level is all about. Some people are in opposition to that today because they do not have the information that they should have about their country its laws or its institutions.
Often western Canadians ask me why I support bilingualism. They say, "When my kids or grandchildren grow up they will have to speak French to have any federal job here in Saskatchewan or Alberta or Manitoba." Little do they realize that very few jobs in the federal Public Service in western Canada are designated bilingual. People do not realize that because we have failed collectively to do our job in educating the people of this country.
One of the consequences is that some people have a fear of what they think is going to happen. Let me tell the Prime Minister that one of the best speeches I have heard in this House was one of his back in September or October of 1983. He was then Leader of the Opposition and he spoke on the question of Francophone rights in the province of Manitoba. I was proud of him as the Leader of Opposition at that particular time for having had the courage to stand up at a veiy sensitive time in our history and speak out in favour of Francophone
rights in the province of Manitoba, rights that Premier Pawley, who was the leader of the government from our party in Manitoba, was attempting to negotiate at that time.
I remember the Prime Minister saying then-and I have not had a chance to reread his speech so I hope it is not out of context-that we should not condemn most of the people who were in opposition to the rights that Premier Pawley was trying to give to franco-Manitobans that were theirs because of a constitutional agreement many years ago. I remember the Prime Minister saying that we should not condemn those people, that many of them were fearful and did not understand the situation, that what we should try to do is educate them about why this had to be done.
I do not rise today and say that all people in Sault Ste. Marie are racists or bigots. They are not racists or bigots. I do not rise here and say that everybody in Thunder Bay, because of the resolution passed, are racists and bigots. They are not racists or bigots.
[ Translation]
And that is exactly the same thing in Quebec, Mr. Speaker. I know a great many Quebecers who are against the development of the English language in that province. But most Quebecers are not racists, Mr. Speaker.
But at the same time, I also do not hesitate to condemn some of those people who are intentionally trying to stir up trouble in this country, who are antiFrench, who are anti-Indian, who are anti-English, and some of them circulate petitions and try to raise fears. When we run across those people we should call a spade a spade and condemn them.
We are very lucky in Canada that we do have two official languages. The English language and the French language are the two greatest languages in the world. I think that we should celebrate that fact. It should be a fact that unites this country and not tears this country apart.
It is part of the richness of Canada. It is part of what we are blessed with as a nation. Most Canadians who have a sense of fairness and justice agree with that vision of Canada, that we are indeed very fortunate and indeed very aware.

February 15, 1990

At this time in our history we should not forget the philosopher who once said that you judge a society by how the society treats its minorities. We must judge our country by how generous we are to our minorities.
We cheer at the tearing down of the Berlin Wall. We cheer Mr. Gorbachev, and yesterday we all cheered when the Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics stood up here in the gallery. We cheer the Soviets for opening up their society. We encourage them to have more human rights. We pull for the openness in their society and the democratization of their society. We cheer Nelson Mandela being released from jail in South Africa, and we hope that the minorities, in that case the majority, will be treated more fairly and more justly. However, it strikes me as very strange that there is still in this country a small number-and I stress a small number-of very narrow-minded Canadians who want to turn back the clock and deny minority rights to English-speaking minorities in Quebec or French-speaking minorities outside the Province of Quebec.
I want to close by expressing a worry and a concern. I have watched what has happened in this country over the last number of years. I know an important part of the agenda of the Prime Minister has been what he calls national reconciliation. We all want national reconciliation. We all want unity in this country. But as I travel across it and as I travel in Quebec and outside of Quebec, I sense that more and more Canadians are starting to give up. I sense in Quebec a bit more of a drift to Quebecers going on their own, to doing things their own way. There is a feeling in Quebec among more and more people that English Canada does not really care, and if English Canada does not really care, let us, Quebecers, start doing more things in our province in our own way and assert more and more sovereignty right here in Quebec. Outside of Quebec, we have seen in places like Sault Ste. Marie and Thunder Bay the exact opposite reaction where people are saying, let them speak French in Quebec and we will speak English here. We will start going our own way as well.
I really fear that in some ways maybe the country is beginning to slip away. That is why it is so important that we not play politics with this issue. That is why it is so important that the three national political parties remain firmly and solidly united in terms of promoting duality in this country and recognizing the fact that we do have two official languages, that we stand up for minority linguistic rights, we stand up for fairness, we stand up for
Private Members' Business
justice, we stand up for the multicultural diversity of our country, and we stand up for the native people of our country as well. I think that is very, very important.
We adopted the Official Languages Act in 1968. We had amendments to it in 1988. We had the patriation of the Constitution in 1981-1982. We are now seeing an attempt to amend the Constitution in 1987 in terms of the Meech Lake Accord.
I hope all of these these will unite us, that all of these things will bring us together and help make this country a stronger, more fair, and more positive place in which to live.

Mr. Speaker, we have a great country. I am proud to come from Western Canada. I am proud to say that nearly 30 per cent of my countrymen speak French. I am very proud of that. That is something which makes Canada different from the United States. It makes Canada a country unique in the world, Mr. Speaker. I know that most of the people in Western Canada support the Canadian duality. They agree with Quebec being a distinct society. Most Canadians accept the five pre-conditions which Quebec insisted on during the constitutional debate a couple of years ago.
Mr. Speaker, it is such a positive element. As a representative of Western Canada, I am proud to see French immersion schools everywhere. I know that even in Calgary and Edmonton, a great many parents register their children with French immersion schools because they realize how important it is for their children to be able to speak both languages. That is something very positive.

It is important that we reaffirm once again that not only do we want to protect duality in this country, we want to preserve duality and we want to promote linguistic duality in this country. In doing so, we promote Canada. We stand up for Canada and make this country a much fairer and richer place in which to live. Let us celebrate that fact. Let us be proud of that fact. In showing generosity to our linguistic minorities, we show generosity as well to our native Indian people and generosity to people who come from many other lands and cultures. With that, hopefully, we can build a much more united, strong and prosperous country in the years that lie ahead.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear!

February 15, 1990
Private Members' Business


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


Mr. Caccia:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: I am sorry but I cannot recognize the hon. member. He is not properly dressed.


Some hon. members:: Question.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, the government has no intention of calling any further business until 5.12 p.m. I wonder if the Chair might suspend the sitting until 5.12 p.m. to allow Private Members' Hour to start then. However we can start now; whatever is the wish of the House.


SITTING SUSPENDED
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Is it the wish of the House to suspend the sitting until 5.12 p.m.?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.
The sitting of the House was suspended at 5 p.m.


SITTING RESUMED
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed at 5.12 p.m.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: It being 5.12 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.


PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS - MOTIONS   BILL OF RIGHTS SUGGESTED CHILD PROTECTION COMMISSION
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Tuesday, December 12,1989 consideration of the motion of Ms. Langan:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should consider the advisability of negotiating with the provinces to provide a comprehensive Bill of Rights for children which would standardize laws through the country, and that this Bill of Rights include a child protection commission and an emergency hot line which children could contact in times of crisis.
Mr. Allan Koury (Hochelaga-Maisonneuve):: Mr. Speaker, it is indeed a pleasure for me to be the lead-off speaker in this fourth hour of debate on Motion M-254, suggesting a bill of rights for children.
Again I wish to thank the hon. member for Mission- Coquitlam for placing this motion before the House, a motion which focuses on protecting the rights of our children. No one can deny they are Canada's most important resource.
As I alluded to in the debate last December, a number of developments have taken place with regard to families and children since the hon. member initially tabled her motion. Most important, of course, is the recent adoption of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child.
The convention covers a wide spectrum of children's rights and as such fully satisfies that part of the motion before the House which speaks to the need for a comprehensive bill of rights for children.
In this regard this convention is intended to establish a modem, international standard for addressing the social, economical, political, religious, cultural and civil rights of children all over the world.
As well, the convention provides for the protection of children from abuse, neglect and exploitation, and the protection of children with disabilities and the protection of children without families.
The list of possible initiatives deriving from the convention are many and would include, for example, support for an emergency hot line for children which was mentioned in Motion M-254 and which in fact has been the object of a recent federal grant for start-up costs. In this regard last fall the federal government pledged $1.3 million toward the start-up costs for an emergency hot line, the Kids' Help Line, which offers counselling information and if appropriate referral service to Canada's seven million children.
Since May of last year, the Kids' Help Line has received over 70,000 calls. The convention, through Article 27, also speaks to the rights of every child to an

*?
February 15, 1990

adequate standard of living and calls on state parties to take appropriate measures to assist parents in fulfilling this right.
Members will therefore have to examine issues like financial deprivation among children, something which we in Canada call child poverty, and to assess the need for action. In Canada there is the need to alleviate the problem of poverty among children. This is an issue which has quite rightly attracted increasing attention, including in this House.
As you will recall, Mr. Speaker, last November the House unanimously supported the motion by the former hon. member for Oshawa with regard to child poverty. A subcommittee of the House is presently studying child poverty and it is expected that it will present the report in November 1990.
Clearly, addressing the rights of Canadian children in very many instances would require provincial action. Moreover, formalizing the convention in Canada and thereby furthering the aims of a bill of rights for children will require a co-operative effort between the federal government and the provinces, given that many of the obligations in the convention fall within provincial and/ or shared jurisdiction.
To this end the federal government is now seeking the support of the provinces and territories for signatures. Efforts are also currently under way through federal-provincial consultation on the question of ratification of the convention.
We on this side of the House very much wish to support a motion on this important subject, but an amendment is required to highlight the important role of the UN Convention and the federal-provincial co-operation needed to secure its ratification.


Mr. Jim Karpoff (Surrey North):: Mr. Speaker, I am most pleased to be able to rise today to speak on this motion.
It is important to put on record some of my personal background because a great deal of my adult life has been spent in working with children who are in a state of either neglect or crisis. Of course my background is as a social worker.
I started out initially in juvenile and family court working with children who were before the court on
Private Members' Business
charges of delinquency and children whose families were before the courts because they had been unable or unwilling to care for them properly or had abused or neglected the children. I have seen a lot of what happens to children when we as a society do not provide them with the kinds of resources necessary to ensure that they mature, that they are nurtured, given adequate health care and education and a stable home living environment.
I have had the opportunity or the misfortune to work on the streets in Vancouver with runaway children, to be involved with one of the very positive and experimental programs, the Senator Hotel, when it had an outreach program on the streets. It was reaching out to young teenage children who were involved in the street scene.
It is not a pleasant scene. It involved drug abuse and sexual exploitation, including prostitution and other forms of sexual exploitation.
I have also seen other things that we sometimes do not like to admit happens in Canada. There is an increasing use of child labour in this country. All we have to do is go into any big apartment block or any big office building at ten o'clock at night and see who is cleaning it. More and more they are being cleaned by families, including eight year old kids, nine year old kids, or twelve year old kids. Because the family is the contracted unit we say there is not child labour going on. That is simply not so.
I have seen in government buildings that house child welfare offices children of eight and nine years old working at ten and eleven o'clock at night.
One of the things that we talked about in this House in the last week is the question of literacy. We know the high correlation between unemployment, poverty and illiteracy. While we may talk about adult programs, we are unwilling to face the reality that most of these problems could be solved if we provided the resources to our children.
The time to attack illiteracy is not when the person is 25 years old. The time to attack illiteracy is in Kindergarten or in Grade 1. That is where we need to put our resources. That is where we need to put the resources of special educators. Most Grade 1 teachers can identify on day one the child who is going to fail in Grade 9. Yet, we are so short-sighted we do not put the resources there.

February 15, 1990
Private Members' Business
In the area of corrections we talk about the problem of criminality and repeat offenders in our prison system, yet most Grade 1 teachers can identify the children who are going to have behaviour problems in Grade 5, who are going to be delinquents when they are 12 years old and who are going to be serving time in federal penitentiaries when they are 20 years old. We are unwilling to put in the kinds of resources necessary to see that that does not happen.
One of the proposals in this motion is for not only child protection services but an emergency hot line. It says that we should standardize our laws across this country. I think that is important, particularly as those laws relate to protection services, but I am also concerned that we must do more than standardize laws.
I want to emphasize how many of the problems we see in terms of the welfare of children and of adults are related to poverty. The government is proud that there has been a slight reduction in poverty in the last year. Poverty had gone up steadily since 1984, but in the last year it has gone down. Obviously this is related to employment rates. If unemployment goes down, poverty goes down.
However, we still have 1.2 million children who are living below the poverty level compared to countries like Sweden which has approximately 5 per cent. Even the United Kingdom has only 9 per cent.
The only country in the western industrial world that may have more child poverty is the United States. It is not just a matter of poverty, but it is how poverty correlates with other circumstances that put children at a disadvantage. The birth weight of babies born to families who are living in poverty is low. According to the Quebec Corporation of Physicians babies born in certain Montreal and Quebec City neighbourhoods are as likely to be underweight at birth as those in developing countries.
What an indictment of Canada when we have neighbourhoods that are poor and the standard of health of babies bom in those neighbourhoods is no better than that of babies born in developing countries.
We know that the mortality rate of children born with low birth weight is twice that of other children. We know that there is a growing problem of hunger among
children in this country. I was involved with the Vancouver school board in its attempts to get both the provincial government and this federal government to assist it in developing programs to feed school children who had come to school without having had breakfast, who had not had supper the day before, and probably some of them had not eaten for one or two days. Unfortunately they got no help from either the provincial government or the federal government.
Income assistance rates, according to studies in British Columbia, provide only enough money to feed children for two and a half weeks out of the month. What do you say to a hungry child? It is all very nice to pretend that you are going to be able to educate that child. The government talked this week about reducing the dropout rate among school children, and the best way to do that is to ensure that every child belongs to a family that has an adequate level of income. The drop-out rate is well over twice, in fact nearly three times the rate for children from poor families compared with rich families.
Sometimes we think it is mystical but what about a 13 year old who is going to school and trying to compete with other kids, where they have money to go on field trips, money for new running shoes, money to buy school lunches and they have nothing? They soon get discouraged and simply withdraw from that situation where they are perpetually embarrassed because they cannot participate in the life of the school the way their peers can.
Among the other factors that are creating poverty in this country for children is the housing crisis. Increasingly, families are being driven into poverty, particularly in the metropolitan areas like Vancouver and Toronto, because once they pay for their housing they have no disposable income left over to feed the children.
I notice, Mr. Speaker, you are signalling that I have run out of time. I will close with this one remark. Canada is a wealthy country. There is no excuse for child poverty in Canada. Eradicating poverty is one of the best ways we can ensure the protection of children in this country.


Howard Edward Crosby: Mr. Speaker, let me begin by extending my thanks and encouragement to the
February 15, 1990

member for Mission-Coquitlam for bringing before this House the subject of children's rights. Canadians are fond of saying that children are our most precious resource in Canada. Having said that, we do very little to ensure appropriate development of children not only in our social structures but especially in our legal system.
As you may know, Mr. Speaker, I have had special interest in the subject of missing children. I want to speak mainly about that particular interest. I am able to confirm many of the remarks made by my colleague from Surrey North who just spoke with respect to the plight of children finding themselves on the streets and highways of Canada without help, without parental help or assistance of any kind.
It is essential and necessary that we have in Canada some legal means to protect children, some constitutional base between the federal government and the provinces to enact appropriate child protection law.
At the heart of the problem is the divided jurisdiction between the Parliament of Canada and the provinces of Canada. Children's rights basically are a provincial matter. It would be difficult, and I have experienced this difficulty in attempting to draft legislation, for the Parliament of Canada to intervene in what is basically a provincial jurisdiction. Resolutions can be found for that aspect of the problem, whether it is through constitutional change or simply federal-provincial co-operation. But if we are to give meaning to the statement that children are our most precious resource, then we should be looking, not only once and from time to time at this matter but on a continuing and continuous basis.
By way of confirming the remarks made by the member for Surrey North about missing children, I must say that children who leave home at an early age, teenagers, and who find themselves on the streets of Canada are outlaws. They are outside the law. There is no question of protection of the law, they are without legal rights.
This leads to prostitution in a very broad sense. It is not simply sexual abuse, it is abuse in the labour force, in the kinds of jobs and benefits that a child labourer receives. In many cases, employers take advantage of their situation by employing them at less than minimum
Private Members' Business
wages without any other employment benefits. The member is quite correct. You will find them in the worst kinds of labouring positions, in the kitchens of the worst restaurants, in the basements of the worst hotels. It is not difficult for anybody to find proof of this accusation. I am sure they walk the streets of Ottawa and find this very situation existing here in the nation's capital.
It is discouraging to raise this matter from time to time and find out that nothing changes from year to year. I know in 1985 and before, I brought before the House of Commons the missing children's legislation, which was basically to give a legal technique for apprehending-I hate that word-missing children in order to get them back them off the streets and thereby allow some socially beneficial action to be taken.
Even in that small initiative you meet with opposition, technical arguments that it is not the jurisdiction of the Parliament of Canada, that this cannot be done. There is no attempt to resolve the problem, simply another obstacle in the way of resolution.
At least in 1985, as a result of the efforts some of us made, the Solicitor General of the day did respond in part to the problem of missing children and has created some techniques and institutions that have had a beneficial effect in attempting to resolve the problem of missing children. However, it was a relatively minimal effort. I do not say that in any critical way. I mean that it was only the beginning of a program that, frankly, has not been implemented in the way I would have hoped. So we still have to this day in the national capital and the larger cities, and even in the rural areas of Canada, this enormous problem of missing children.
The answer is often given that we do not have the resources to deal with it, the finances in the country are strained. I understand that, I know about the national debt, but it is very clearly a proposition of pay now or pay later. If we do not take the actions to remedy the situation now, we are going to have enormous expenses later.
It is almost unbelievable that we Canadians would not provide a home simply on the basis that a child is missing and on the streets of Canada. We would not pay for hotel bills or apartment rental. We would wait a few years until they are in a penitentiary and then pay all the expenses,

February 15, 1990
Private Members' Business
the enormous expenses of maintaining a young person in an institution.
I do not know what it takes to awaken Canadians to this issue but we have to start with Parliament and it is for that reason I congratulate the member for Mission- Coquitlam. The more we bring this matter to the floor of the House of Commons, the more interest it will generate and then maybe some action will be taken. In the meantime, children are being exploited, children are outlaws on the streets of Canada and not enough action is being taken.
You can ask the question: What action can be taken? Well, first we have to identify the problem very clearly. Many people know about it. There is not a social worker across Canada that has not had specific experience. The problem is to gather all this information together and utilize the information to establish a program of action.
Just by way of demonstrating in a graphic way the nature of the problem, there is an organization called Victims of Violence. Gary Rosenfeldt and his wife are very much involved in it. They have been before committees of the House of Commons time and time again to push this matter.
I remember them pointing out that in Canada, about four or five years ago, we had a registry system for missing automobiles and vessels, but we had no registry for missing children. In other words, we in Canada were concerned with vehicles that were stolen and missing but had no concern about the children who had been reported missing.
At least we solved that problem. We now have a registry of missing children. We also have alerted police forces, which at times have not been as co-operative as I would have liked them to be in this area, to the fact that they have a role to play. They cannot ignore missing children. They should not wait for them to steal or commit some other criminal offence before they take some action.
Sharon Rosenfeldt wrote to me in October 1985 and said: "This country has foundations for women's rights, human rights, save baby seals and whales, but there is no help for missing children from their parents". As I said, some steps have been taken to remedy and rectify this situation, but a great deal more action is required.
I want to say in closing that I recognize and realize that the motion that has been put forward has in mind a bill of rights for children. I think that what is at the heart of that motion is the demand for federal-provincial co-operation in this area so we can have a legal basis to deal with the problem and then the contribution of public resources, private resources and any other resources to resolve this problem. As long as we have missing children on the streets of Canada, we will have people outside the laws of society and they will suffer, and all society will suffer.


Ms. Lynn Hunter (Saanich-Gulf Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to be able to rise today in support of the motion of my colleague for Mission-Coquitlam that, in the opinion of this House, the government should consider the advisability of setting up some sort of a grand alliance with the provinces to deal with the issue of a bill of rights for children.
This motion indicates a vision of a lot of the problems that relate to children in Canada, but it also relates a vision of the way Canada could be seen as an example internationally. The way that we treat our children and the kind of resources that are allocated for children can be seen as an example internationally.
As you are no doubt aware, Mr. Speaker, Canada has agreed to co-host or sponsor the Summit on World's Children which will be held September 29 and 30 in New York city. Canada, along with Egypt, Mali, Mexico, Pakistan and Sweden, has agreed to sponsor this Summit on World's Children.
If the House agrees to pass this motion, I think that it has implications for Canada's international reputation. I would like to at least begin my remarks on that international perspective because passing this motion would send a signal to the world that we care about our children.
Much of the evidence, as has been stated in earlier addresses, would not indicate that we care. There is a lot of talk and very little action as regards the state of Canada's children.
Children are seen and not heard in the political context. Children are not voters. Children do not have political power. I think more and more Canadians are finding out what it means to be politically powerless. It is a sad statement of our own lack of resources that this
February 15, 1990

country has allocated to much of the problems of Canada's children.
This is not to be just heart-wrenching. We can wrench a lot of tears from people by telling sad stories, but I think that we in this House have a duty and obligation to try to do something about this.
This motion attempts that beginning, that a bill of rights be established, that children do have a place, do have a voice, will have some protection through a child protection commissioner, and that an emergency hot line be established. Rather than just nice words strung together in this House, we need something tangible to come out of this.
I would like to turn now to the international aspects of that. In my critic area of international development and in my role on the subcommittee on international debt of external affairs, we hear much about structural adjustment and the kind of effects that structural adjustment has on the developing world. International debt is a major crisis and yet the people in the corporate board rooms of the banks do not seem to understand that the decisions that are made in those boardrooms have an effect on the most disadvantaged in the world, particularly the women and children. The heaviest burden of the debt crisis is falling on the growing minds and bodies of children.
This motion to support a bill of rights that my hon. colleague has put forth would indicate Canada as an example. We are willing to do something in our country and we care about the children internationally.
We also have to indicate that structural adjustment does not just occur in the Third World where certain policies are taken in order to address a particular debt problem. We now have in our own country a debt crisis that has evolved over the years. Now those same politically powerless people are the ones who are paying the major burden of that debt through cuts to social programs and the things that are going on with health care. We have to understand what structural adjustment is. It is two nice words put together and yet it has very negative consequences for children here and internationally.
We are coming up in the next week to a budget. We are all waiting on tenterhooks to learn where the cuts are
Private Members' Business
going to come. We have been told by the finance minister that there are going to be major cuts. We can only hope that some of those cuts will come in defence spending. We have heard a lot about the peace dividend and what will happen with the peace dividend, that the money that will be hopefully reduced from defence spending will be allocated to social programs.
I caution you, Mr. Speaker, that it be not just social programs here. We seem to have achieved a global consciousness environmentally and yet we have not yet achieved that global consciousness socially or politically. We cannot see those things as mutually distinct. We are all on this planet together and we are interdependent, not just environmentally but socially and politically. What happens in Columbia, El Salvador and the Sudan has an impact on our lives. We are talking about political destabilization, a growing militarization in the face of that destabilization. The statistics of the resources that are allocated to the militaiy are shocking.
Developed countries on average now spend 5.4 per cent of their gross national product for military purposes. Canada only spends .43 per cent on overseas development assistance. In the Third World three in five governments spend more on their military than they do on health care. It is a shocking statistic when you realize that the cost of three hours of arms spending would pay for the entire World Health Organization $260 million annual budget. We talk about what we value in our society and about children as our treasure, and not just a national treasure but an international treasure. I think that these statistics put the lie to that.
We have to do a major reassessment of our values and a reallocation of our resources if we are going to really address the situation of children, and not just in Canada which this bill of rights would do. This bill of rights for children, this commissioner for child protection and an emergency hot line would be an important symbol that Canada does care for its own children, that we value our children and that our whole community values reflect that.
In conclusion, I want to urge the government and the members of the Liberal party to support this motion unanimously.


Mrs. Louise Feltham (Wild Rose):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to address this motion on the advisability of a comprehensive bill of rights for children which would standardize laws throughout the country and which

February 15, 1990
Private Members' Business
would include a child protection commission and an emergency hot line for children.
The protection of children is one of the foremost duties of any society. We can only be as strong as our weakest members. I, therefore, laud the member for Mission-Coquitlam for the concern she has shown for all children in Canada in her motion on this matter.
Having said that, I would now like to turn my attention to some of the real difficulties faced by this motion. Canada is under a federal system of government with both levels of government, federal and provincial, having certain areas of responsibility under the Constitution.
Provinces have been allocated power over much of family law, including the welfare of children under section 92, subsection (13) of the Constitution Act, 1867, which gives to provinces the right to legislate with respect to property and civil rights in provinces. In the adoption reference of 1938, the Supreme Court of Canada determined that the welfare of children was a matter of provincial responsibility.
We have in Canada two basic types of legislation which afford protection to children, the criminal law which deals with the physical and sexual abuse of children and child protection legislation which deals with the involvement of the state where a child has been abused or neglected. The federal government has constitutional jurisdiction over the former and provincial governments have constitutional jurisdiction over the latter.
Provinces deal with child protection in a number of ways relevant to their individual circumstances and with a wide range of statutes covering such topics as adoption, child welfare, custody and access, and education. Each province has a government recognized body which has the responsibility for enforcing child welfare laws in order to protect children and provide services to the child and his or her family.
Given that these services are in place throughout this country, it does not seem to be advisable or necessary to involve the federal government in a long phase of negotiations to standardize these laws, removing flexibility from provincial legislation and challenging the constitutional authority which has been in place since 1867.
Further, I am not at all convinced that a central monolithic child protection commission would or could provide better services than those that are now provided by each province and territory, nor am I persuaded that it would be constitutionally correct.
The hon. member for Mission-Coquitlam has also included in her motion a reference to the need for an emergency hot line which children could contact in times of crisis. I would like to inform the House that the Canadian Children's Foundation has established a 1-800 number to serve just such a function. It is called Help Line and it is my understanding that it is enjoying considerable success. This crisis line handles calls from anywhere in Canada and refers children in distress to local authorities and services for assistance in dealing with their problems. This valuable service offers support and assistance to children from all across Canada.
Children are our most important asset, as I mentioned earlier. Our society will be judged by how well we protect them. There are, in addition to child protection laws, criminal laws which protect our children. In particular, this government can be proud of its achievements in the prevention of child sexual abuse.
In January of last year, Bill C-15 became law. This bill amended the Criminal Code and the Canada Evidence Act to better protect children and youth from sexual abuse by enacting measures to permit more young children to testify and to provide more sensitive procedures for obtaining their evidence. In addition new offences were created and certain outdated and confusing provisions of the Criminal Code were repealed.
The Department of Justice has supported this initiative through law information activities such as the easy to read booklet for children age four to ten. It tells them to tell someone if they have been sexually abused. We also have a book for adults telling them how to proceed if a child discloses an incident of sexual abuse to them.
Concern for children is expressed not only in the Criminal Code but in the federal government's family law legislation. The Divorce Act, for example, provides that the custody of a child is to be decided upon with a consideration of the child's best interest only. This makes it clear that the needs and the rights of the child
February 15, 1990

are the central and indeed the only concern of the courts when deciding the difficult question of custody of children.
The government has expressed its concern in other ways for children in situations of divorce through the Family Orders and Agreements Enforcement Assistance Act. This act plays an important role in the enforcement of child support payments, as well as the recovery of children wrongfully abducted from the custodial parent by the non-custodial parent.
All too often, it is sad to say, the parent who is to pay support for the child, and it is usually the father, economically abandons his child by not paying or by paying late or by paying less than was ordered or agreed to. The Federal Enforcement Assistance Act allows for the garnishment of designated federal funds to enforce delinquent support payments, and I understand that program has been a tremendous success, having intercepted a total of over $6 billion in the year prior to June 30, 1989.
In many instances the debtor father chooses to disappear rather than to pay child support. In such cases the federal government will search its information banks in an effort to locate the father, thereby aiding provincial authorities in the enforcement of the support order or agreement. Information will also be released where a non-custodial parent takes a child contrary to an existing custodial agreement.
The government's work in the areas of support and custody and the Criminal Code are simply a few examples of our commitment to the protection of all Canadian children. The value of children cannot be over-emphasized. They are the future of our country. This motion, however, fails in my estimation to significantly improve the lot of children in Canada.


Mr. Pat Sobeski (Cambridge):: Mr. Speaker, the motion which I would now like to address proposes that the government enter into negotiation with the provinces with a view to achieving a comprehensive bill of rights for children which would standardize laws throughout Canada respecting children.
This government recognizes that the basic rights of children is very significant. There are many existing laws, both federal and provincial, which have a bearing on children. Examples are the provincial child care protec-
Private Members' Business
tion laws and the federal Young Offenders Act and the Divorce Act.
I remind this House that all of the rights guaranteed by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms accrue to children as much as to any other person in Canada. Indeed, some of these rights relate in quite a specific way to children. For example, Section 15 of the Charter guarantees the right to equality without discrimination on a number of grounds including age, and Section 23 provides for certain minority language education rights. None of these laws sets out in a comprehensive way the basic rights of children per se.
The question that we must now consider is whether it would be appropriate to begin negotiations with the provinces with a view to achieving a comprehensive bill on this subject.
One very relevant consideration is the stage of development in the draft convention on the rights of the child. After 10 years, almost a decade of work by the United Nations working group to complete the drafting of this complex and important convention, it was adopted by the United Nations Human Rights Commission about one year ago in March 1989. There appears to be an excellent prospect that it will be finally adopted by the United Nations General Assembly later this year. That will become open for ratification by all the countries of the world.
This draft convention on the rights of the child is very comprehensive in nature. It includes social and economic rights, such as those relating to social health and education security, as well as the sort of rights we find in our Charter. That is the fundamental freedoms of religion, freedoms of expression, freedom of association and freedom of assembly and also certain rights relating to the criminal process.
The draft convention on the rights of the child also contains many provisions in the area of family law, dealing with such matters as adoption, the resolution of custody disputes and measures relating to family reunification where parents decide to reside in different countries.
This country has been very actively involved in the drafting of this United Nations convention. A federal-provincial working group has met every year since 1981 to determine what should be the position of Canada on many issues regarding it. Many Canadian proposals have served as the basis for negotiations by the United

February 15, 1990
Private Members' Business
Nations working group. I understand that at the last federal-provincial-territorial ministerial conference on human rights, the human rights ministers recognized the active role of Canada in drafting the convention and agreed to continue their co-operation on this subject.
It is a matter of high priority that federal and provincial governments continue their co-operation on this very important convention. When it becomes open for ratification, the federal and provincial governments will all need to review Canadian legislation to ensure that Canada is in a position to ratify it. Then Canada will have to prepare an honest report to the United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child on measures Canada has taken to ensure that children here have the benefit of the rights provided to them in this United Nations convention.
This future process, relating to the draft convention on the rights of the child, will be a very helpful initial step toward determining whether it would be appropriate to have a domestic bill of rights for children and just what rights it should contain. For the moment, we should focus our efforts on this United Nations initiative regarding children's rights before we consider starting on a similar idea in the domestic area.
As I mentioned earlier, the Charter applies to children and some of its provisions deal with them in quite a specific way. There are already a number of Charter cases relating to children, to such questions as the confidentiality of proceedings involving young offenders, or the various age limits that are found in the Criminal Code, especially regarding sexual offences. It is not as yet clear just what all the implications of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms will be for children. Until Canadians have a better idea of the nature of children's rights under the Charter, it would be too early to begin writing a children's bill of rights.
There is one last concern of a constitutional nature that I will briefly draw to the attention of the House. The motion does not make it at all clear who is expected to enact the proposed bill. Is it to be the federal government or is it to be the provinces of Canada? Much of the jurisdiction over children lies with the provinces. Unless a constitutional document is contemplated, I question how one comprehensive bill of rights for children could be enacted in a federal country such as Canada. As my
colleague from Halifax West pointed out earlier, this is an obstacle that, indeed, we must overcome.
To summarize, considering our current commitment to ensure the successful completion, ratification and implementation of the draft convention on the rights of the child, and because of the Constitutional division of powers in Canada that I have just mentioned, it would not in my view be advisable for the government to support this motion.


Mr. Jacques Vien (Laurentides):: I welcome this opportunity to make my contribution as did those who spoke previously on the very important subject of rights for children in Canada. I want to thank the hon. member for Mission-Coquitlam for presenting this motion. In the course of this debate on providing a comprehensive Bill of Rights for children, a number of members mentioned developments on the international scene. In fact, several members suggested that instead of drafting a BUI of Rights for chUdren, Canada should concentrate on the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. I support this suggestion which, I think, is a realistic approach to enhancing the protection of chUdren's rights in this country.
Mr. Speaker, at the beginning of this debate, when we heard references to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the ChUd, we knew the General Assembly had not yet given its final approval. That important step was taken on November 20, 1989, when the General Assembly adopted the Convention on consensus. As a Canadian, I am proud of the leadership shown by my country in drafting and adopting this veiy important instrument. Now that the Convention has been adopted, the matter of signatures and ratification by Canada can be considered.
As the debate on the motion before the House progressed, it became increasingly clear that many, if not all aspects Canada intends to cover in the BUI of Rights for children had already been covered by the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. Members who raised this point mentioned a number of major problems that made it necessary to improve chUd protection, including poverty, mistreatment, needs of disabled children and chUdren suffering various forms of mistreatment or abuse. All these problems would undoubt-
February 15, 1990

edly be given considerable emphasis in the proposed Bill of Rights.
However, the United Nations Convention already deals with this aspect and with many others, and it sets standards for the States that become signatories to this instrument. For instance, it contains several provisions relating to poverty, including article 27 which acknowledges the right of a child to a standard of living that is sufficient to provide for physical, mental, spiritual, moral and social development. TTie same article asks States to take the appropriate steps to help parents and other individuals responsible for the child to implement that right and in case of need, to offer material assistance in acquiring food, clothing and shelter. The general question of poverty arises in other articles of the Convention relating to the health, education, survival and development of the child.
Mr. Speaker, child abuse has to be one of the most prevailing and tragic problems encountered by underprivileged youngsters these days. In that respect the convention sets standards designed to protect children who are victims of abuse and holds governments responsible for intervening on their behalf. More significant still, the convention requests that signatory governments take all appropriate steps to ease the child's physical and psychological rehabilitation as well as his return to society. The rehabilitation programs advocated in the convention are not designed only for children who are victims of violence and sexual abuse, but also for those who are subjected to other forms of abuse, negligence, economic exploitation and drug use.
In addition to these articles of a general nature which apply to handicapped children as well, the convention includes specific provisions aimed at offering better opportunities to these children. Article 23 spells out the role governments are expected to play to ensure that handicapped children benefit from, in the words of the convention, "as complete social integration as possible and their personal development".
Mr. Speaker, the debate on the motion introduced by the Hon. Member for Mission-Coquitlam and the special debate on child poverty in Canada which was opened by the former leader of the New Democratic
Adjournment Debate
Party have made it possible for all Members of the House of Commons to reaffirm their commitment with repsect to the need to uphold the rights of children in Canada.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The hour provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired.

Pursuant to Standing Order 96(3), the order is dropped to the bottom of the list of the order of precedents on the Order Paper.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 is deemed to have been moved.

Joy Langan: Mr. Speaker, I rise on the adjournment debate on the question that I put in the House on September 28, 1989.
The question was as follows:
Since last April the government has been telling Canadians that not many people would be hurt by the unemployment insurance cuts. They said only 30,000 people would be unable to obtain benefits. Statistics Canada has contradicted the government. It says that 130,000 people will lose all of their benefits. Thirty times more people will be hit in Newfoundland alone than the government had admitted to.
I went on to say:
My question was for the Prime Minister. Would the Prime Minister confirm that by Statistic Canada's own analysis there will be 130,000 Canadians who will lose all their benefits. And would he also confirm that his government's own stats have been a dramatic understatement.
The Minister of State for Employment and Immigration and Minister of State for Seniors responded by saying:
I am pleased to tell my colleague that since our government took office we have created 1,500,000 jobs including 878,000 for women.

February 15, 1990
Adjournment Debate
She went on to repeat that what they were trying to do with unemployment reform was to make the system fair and equitable.
The minister did not respond directly to my question and that is why I feel very strongly about coming before the House and putting the discussion on the table.
My supplementary question was to the minister. I asked her if she was telling us that she was really not aware of the horrible impact these measures would have on the unemployed and, if she was aware of them, did the government still allow incorrect numbers to be released. The minister responded by saying that she personally was responsible for the department that oversees Statistics Canada and she has confidence in Stats Canada's data. That was not what I had asked her. I had asked her if in fact she had allowed incorrect numbers to be released.
She said:
I also know that the data I just quoted you truly reflect the job
creation situation.
It seems that this government is so enamoured with the McDonalds burger type of jobs they create that it becomes impossible to get them to speak about Bill C-21, the Unemployment Insurance Amendment Act. It is impossible to get them to talk about the impact of this act on the unemployed in the country. Indeed, what we find is that we are constantly being told about how many jobs have been created in Canada. When we try to talk about the Unemployment Insurance Act nobody is saying that there have not been jobs created in Canada. We might argue the degree or the quality of jobs, but we are not arguing whether or not jobs have been created. What we are arguing about is unemployment insurance and trying to get this government to talk about and think about the impact of the changes of Bill C-21, the impact on people in the country, men and women. I have all kinds of statistics I can throw out here today, but throwing around statistics does not address the issue of the man who is unemployed in Newfoundland, the woman who is unemployed in the Northwest Territories or the family with both adult workers unemployed in British Columbia, or in my own riding of Mission-Coquitlam for that matter.
I would like to address the question of an interim report called: Regional Unemployment in Canada: A Nation Out of Balance. That report came from the Canada Employment and Immigration Advisory Council. It was completed in November 1989 and released by the minister in February 1990.
I want to speak to this report because prior to this life as a member of Parliament, I sat for two terms on the Canada Employment and Immigration Advisory Council. The council is made up of 21 members. There are seven representatives from labour, seven from management and seven NGO representatives. I have sat through many a long meeting on that advisory council where we knocked heads and came out with a common theme representing the views of the labour movement, the corporate community including the Chamber of Commerce and bankers, and the views of the non-government organizations.
That advisory council came out with this report that was critical of the way in which the Department of Employment and Immigration addresses the problem of regional unemployment. The report states that decisions on behalf of communities are usually made in larger centres by people who are not familiar with the local needs and conditions. Regional development programs in particular have a dismal record of failure. But the effectiveness of federal training programs has also left the regions with large accumulated training needs.
The report goes on to say that for regions to assume greater responsibility for their own development, it will involve not only the efforts of the community but those of the three levels of government and other major institutions. This process will demand a devolution of power and decision making from the centre to the communities. This will probably encounter considerable opposition from an entrenched bureaucracy but it is a necessary step toward local revitalization.
I would hope, Mr. Speaker, that this is not a situation where yet another advisory council of the government is being muzzled but in fact a situation where a very thoughtful group of senior Canadians is taken seriously about the effects of unemployment, its impact on average, ordinary, working people who want to work and who
February 15, 1990

Adjournment Debate
do not want to be displaced or reconditioned and indeed, who do not believe that this country owes them a living. They want to work for that living.


Mr. Bill Kempling (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, on April 11, 1989, the government released a policy paper entitled, Success in the Works outlining a labour force development strategy for Canada. This paper announced a number of changes in the unemployment insurance program. In August 1989 the Department of Employment and Immigration announced the financial impact of these changes.
The analysis revealed that the reallocation of $1.2 billion within the UI program represents less than 10 per cent of the current UI program expenditures. In addition, it was shown that only 30,000 claimants out of a total claimant population of 2.7 million are expected to be unable to meet the new entrance requirements. In a province like Newfoundland, very few people will be unable to meet the new entrance requirements. This reflects the fact that the changes were so designed as to concentrate the impact on the relatively buoyant regions.
What has happened is that Statistics Canada produced some numbers and those numbers were taken by the CLC and other people and interpreted. We had the representative from Statistics Canada, Mr. Petrie, and Mr. Carin from the Department of Employment and Immigration before the committee. I have several pages of the committee's Hansard showing the hon. member trying to get the department officials to agree with the analysis of the CLC. Time after time they said: "No, that is not the interpretation that we put on those numbers at all".
It should be noted that these impacts do not include the positive effects of the increased expenditures on training and re-employment measures. The hon. member accuses the government of understating the effects on Canadians, and she quotes other impact studies that are more to her liking since they overstate the impacts.
The figures released by Employment and Immigration Canada are the most reliable and accurately reflect what Canadians can expect from the structural changes in the UI program.


SMALL BUSINESS
Alfonso Gagliano: Mr. Speaker, if I rise tonight to take part in this adjournment debate, it is further to the question I directed to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) on December 20, 1989 concerning of course the small business and the GST. It is a major issue of great concern for many small businessmen who will certainly be faced with a nightmare when the times come for them to try and deal with the Minister of Finance's new tax which comes into effect on January 1st, 1991.
As a member of the Finance Committee, I had an opportunity to travel everywhere in Canada and to listen to the various Canadian organizations which made representations to us concerning the various problems associated with GST.
Mr. Speaker, one of the areas which will truly be a source of nightmare is that of food because there are stores which serve coffee, biscuits, donuts and so on. Therefore, it will complicate things. We had insisted with the Finance Department people that something had to be done to remedy the situation.
Tonight, during the short time at my disposal-as a matter of fact, I spent the day trying to make the Minister of Finance understand, but I suggest he is not willing these days to listen to what Canadians have to say.
In the technical paper entitled Goods and Services Tax which he tabled in the House on December 19, 1989, the minister recognized the existence of this problem and stated that two changes would be made to the GST legislation to eliminate these competitive imbalances.
First of all, yogurts, pudings and drinks other than unflavoured milk, sold in individual portions will be taxable. However, when these same products are sold in a package containing several individual portions, they will remain non taxable, because they will resemble more basic groceries.
Mr. Speaker, I am sure you have convenience stores in your riding. Think of the little comer stores. How will they deal with the accounting aspect of this problem? I am sure also that you remember the commitment the government had made that this tax reform would simpli-

February 15, 1990
Adjournment Debate
fy things. I have just referred to this technical paper to show you that it will only complicate them.
When I hear the government suggest that small businessmen agree with the minister-an honourable member opposite may say: If you are against, it is because you sit in the Opposition. He should talk to the people. Personally, I have in mind the pre-budget brief which John Bullock submitted to the Minister of Finance. Mr. Speaker, you will admit with me that this gentleman strongly defended in the past certain economic policies put forward by the Minister of Finance.
This is not someone who always speaks out against the Minister of Finance. I might say he is nearer your right than your left.
Yet, in his brief, he submits that it will be necessary to keep a purchase record for each bill to be able to distinguish between the provincial sales tax and the federal sales tax. Do you realize that small businessmen will be compelled to have sales records simply to identify their goods. They will have to keep purchase journals, cash payment journals, revenue journals, a whole accounting systems they could certainly had done without, Mr. Speaker.
Now, things are getting increasingly complicated. The same organization refered to the GST in this brief to the Finance Minister. In the part which are quoted today, he foresees that the small foodstores will have to close because it will get too complicated.
But the central issue in this report has to be the survey conducted among small businesses after the rate was reduced from 9 to 7 per cent. That is what carries weight, Mr. Speaker. Down from 9 to 7 per cent, yet it did not solve the problems of small businesses. Indeed one such survey indicates that 68 per cent are against the GST. I am referring to an Angus Reid survey carried out on behalf of the Canadian Federation of Independent Business. And even when they point out that the tax rate has been lowered from 9 to 7 per cent, Mr. Speaker, 83 per cent still cry foul. Just changing the rate does not mean anything, because we know this government very well. Even the federal sales tax which was supposed to be killing jobs went up 4.5 per cent over the past five years. Small businesses obviously did not swallow that.
Mr. Speaker, you are signaling that my time is up. In conclusion I want to tell the House and all Canadians that 83 per cent of small business operators are against the GST, and my hope is that when the Minister of Finance wakes up tomorrow morning he will decide to repeal this tax.


William James Kempling: Mr. Speaker, the GST is not an administrative nightmare as the member alleges and the government has not abandoned the small business community. For most businesses the GST is a straightforward system similar to that used by small businesses in almost 50 countries in the world, including England, Japan, West Germany, France and New Zealand.


Alfonso Gagliano: They don't have nine provincial sales taxes.


William James Kempling: In fact, of the world's 24 most industrialized economies, the OECD nations, 19 already have a sales tax system of this kind.
The GST will replace the existing federal sales tax which has been in effect since 1924, which is now outdated and harmful to to the Canadian economy. The purpose of this change is to stimulate economic growth and foster an environment which will benefit every sector and every region of the country.


Alfonso Gagliano: Why don't you check how many have a provincial sales tax?


William James Kempling: You might learn something if you listen.
The existing tax is not a tax on manufacturers, but is a tax on manufactured products. As a result, it impacts on every business in the country, large or small, because businesses buy manufactured products to produce the goods and services they sell. Under the GST the cost of doing business will be less because, while most businesses will charge tax on the domestic sales, they will claim a credit on the tax paid on all their business inputs, the goods and services used in the course of doing business. On the whole, documents used to support input credit claims will be virtually the same receipts and invoices currently retained by businesses for income tax purposes.
As a result, there will be a minimal number of changes in existing business practices for most businesses and the
February 15, 1990

GST will be straightforward, simply the subtraction of tax paid on purchases from the tax charged on sales.
However, the government recognizes that many small businesses have limited administrative resources. Consequently, a number of special measures will be adopted to further minimize the overall compliance burden for them. These measures include a sales tax threshold below which vendors will not be required to register, collect or remit GST; optional annual reporting to reduce the frequency for GST remittances; government assistance to upgrade cash register systems for automatic calculations of GST and provincial retail sales taxes; streamlined methods of accounting to simplify check-out counter procedures for retailers who sell a combination of taxable goods and tax free basic groceries; and a transitional credit of up to $1,000 to help ease the transition of the new system.
I might say, if the hon. member wants to look into it, the procedure required by small business to claim federal sales tax today, the manufacturers' sales tax, is an absolute nightmare. I know. I have run businesses, and I have had to do it for years. I know what you go through. You do not know what you are talking about.


Alfonso Gagliano: I have been doing their books for many years.


JUSTICE
Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary secretary is having a bad night.


William James Kempling: I'm having a good night.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: He is getting good questions, tough questions, but he is not giving good answers. However, I would like to give him one more chance by referring to the question I asked the Minister of Justice as long ago as October 2, 1989. October, November, December and January have gone by.
I will refer to a portion of the answer of the Minister of Justice in a moment. I think it is at least time to get an update on the action promised by the minister in the answer he gave me to my original question.
I was talking about the lack of a sense of urgency on the part of this government in dealing with the drug problem in our country. It is a problem which, at the
Adjournment Debate
level of rhetoric, has attracted a lot of government interest, but at the level of action has attracted a lot less.
I was asking about measures the government brought forward, which we gladly assisted in putting into the law of our country, to permit the law to pursue the proceeds of crime into whatever apparently honest dealings or honest forms they might have taken after the crime was committed.
The legislation went through but I think the government has gotten cold feet. I say that because the legislation has been used very little, and necessary amendments recognized by the government and supported by us have not been brought forward to make the legislation stronger.
We learned, and I think the minister was one of the first to comment publicly, that a lot of municipal police forces are refraining from using this section of the Criminal Code because, as they say, it is an expensive procedure for them to use. If they result in nailing some criminals and extracting the proceeds, those proceeds have to be turned over to the federal treasury.
I rose and asked the minister about the idea of allowing the municipal police forces who get the proceeds, who go to the expense, or the provincial governments behind them that go to the expense of expropriating these proceeds, to keep them. He said: "That is a good idea". And it was a good idea.
Then he added, and this was last October:
As I said, we are looking into the matter. As soon as we have
established the rationale on what action could be taken we will take
that action.

Well, Mr. Speaker, the minister did promise to follow up on this. And now, a few months after he made that commitment, I am asking him what have we got? I am aware that no legislation has been proposed, but is he going to take action soon? In a spirit of co-operation, will he tell the other government levels that they can expect to keep the proceeds of crime, in accordance with the law and Bill C-61?
Mr. Speaker, I conclude by saying that I am not an enthusiastic admirer of the American administration, not really. But they did experience a drug crisis and take action. Right now the President of the United States is risking his life to go to Cartagena in Columbia where he is not particulary welcomed, just so he can keep up the fight against drugs. Whether you approve of his policy or

February 15, 1990
Adjournment Debate
not, you have to admire what the president is doing. I am not suggesting that the Minister of Justice should court danger. No, but I expect him to act on the the promises and commitments he made.


William James Kempling: Mr. Speaker, an act to amend the Criminal Code, the Food and Drugs Act and the Narcotic Control Act, or Bill C-61, came into force in Canada on January 1, 1989.
The law is based on the premise that the best deterrent and punishment for profit-motivated offences associated with organized criminal activity is the confiscation of the illegally acquired assets.
As a result of the amendments, the courts have been empowered to order the forfeiture to Her Majesty of certain proceeds derived from crime.
It should, however, be pointed out that only that portion of forfeited proceeds that exceeds the amounts that may be ordered returned to any victims of the offence, actually accrue to the government since priority will be given to use the property of an offender to make restitution to the victims of the crime.
Under the Criminal Code the surplus portion of the proceeds goes to the provinces under section 723(1) for Criminal Code offences whereas drug proceeds go to the federal government.
Municipal officials have expressed their concern over the disposition of the forfeited proceeds of designated drug offences. They have asked that the proceeds accruing to the federal government be directed to the municipally-controlled police force that assumed the expense of enforcing the law under which the forfeiture was imposed. The Minister of Justice has asked his officials to examine these questions, and they are doing that. The minister assures me he will be reporting in the very near future.
What must be emphasized, however, is that the basic philosophy and deterrent effect of the law, which is to remove the incentive of committing profit-motivated
offences by depriving the offender of the proceeds of such an offence, will be maintained. The impact of the law on the accused will not be influenced by who will receive the benefit of the forfeited proceeds.
The strength of this legislation must not be measured merely by its profitability to one authority or by its global impact on crime. Our government will surely guide its actions on this basis.
I would also like to mention other important facets of the law.
In the absence of the proceeds or where they have been commingled with other property, sentencing courts may impose a fine in an equivalent amount in lieu of the forfeiture. The court will impose in default of payment a term of imprisonment related to the amount of the fine. This period of imprisonment will be served consecutively-
As a protective measure the courts also have the power to order the pre-trial seizure or restraint of proceeds of crimes. Access to income tax information can be made available for drug proceeds investigations.
Protection from civil or criminal liability is extended to persons who disclose to authorities their reasonable suspicion relating to the commission of enterprise crime offences or of designated drug offences.
A new offence of laundering has been created and applies to any person who knowingly deals in the proceeds of specified crimes with intent to conceal or to convert them.
As you can appreciate, Mr. Speaker, this law not only has a practical impact on offenders but also serves as a deterrent to potential offenders. Due consideration will be given to measures likely to improve its implementation.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 6.38 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Friday, February 16, 1990