1991-10-04

Hon. Kim Campbell (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada) moved: that Bill C-30, an Act to amend the Criminal Code (mental disorder) and to amend the National Defence Act and the Young Offenders Act in consequence thereof, be read the second time and referred to Legislative Committee G.

She said: Madam Speaker, on May 2, 1991, the Supreme Court of Canada, in Swain v. The Queen, held that a central provision of the Criminal Code dealing with persons found not guilty on account of insanity was contrary to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms because it lacked adequate procedural protections being arbitrary and potentially indeterminate in nature.
The court gave Parliament six months to enact the necessary remedial legislation. There are approximately
1,100	Canadians being held indefinitely under Lieutenant-Governor's warrants. None of them has been convicted of the crime of which they were accused. Many have never had a trial to determine if they committed the offence alleged. They have been found to have been insane at the time of the offence and therefore not guilty by reason of insanity, or insane at the time of trial and therefore unfit to stand trial.
The situation in which these people find themselves is worse in a number of ways than if they had been convicted of the offence charged. They are held indeterminately and their release depends completely on the discretion of the Lieutenant-Governor of the province in which they reside.
The present Criminal Code provisions permit provinces to create boards to "review" whether these people should be released, but the provisions do not require that a board be created or that the board hold hearings. Even in provinces with a review board which holds hearings, the recommendations made by the board are not binding. No reasons need be given for the board's recommendations nor for the decision of the Lieutenant-Governor. There is no right of appeal from the decision. While the Lieutenant-Governors undoubtedly exercise their discretion wisely in a great majority of cases, the possibility that a person may be deprived of his liberty without a fair hearing is a state of law that should not be allowed to prevail in a free and democratic country like Canada.
The bill which I have introduced is the culmination of years of study and consultation, starting with the 1976 report of the Law Reform Commission of Canada entitled Mental Disorder in Criminal Processes which noted numerous problems and inequities and recommended extensive procedural changes and further studies of existing practices employed by officials directly involved with mentally disordered accused.
These studies were undertaken by the Department of Justice which in 1983 and 1984 carried out Canada-wide consultations first on a detailed options paper and then on a report with draft recommendations.

Subsequently, the 1986 draft bill served as a starting point for consultations with representatives of the provincial and territorial governments and with Health

October 4, 1991
Government Orders
departments, Attorney General departments and correctional, social and community services.
Departmental officials also had meetings with judges at three different levels, with Crown prosecutors, defence counsel, health officials and members of review boards established by the lieutenant-governors. Many non-governmental bodies were consulted, including the Canadian Mental Health Association, the Canadian Medical Association, the Canadian Hospital Association, the Canadian Association for Community Living, the Schizophrenia Society of Canada and the Advocacy Resource Centre for the Handicapped.
Consultations with the Department of National Defence led to proposals for consequential amendments to the National Defence Act, to ensure that offenders suffering from mental disorders, whether they are subject to this Act or the Criminal Code, receive the same treatment, to all intents and purposes.
Under the Criminal Code, courts may order a psychiatric assessment of the offender at various stages in the court procedures, but only for the purpose of determining whether the accused is unfit to stand trial or whether the balance of the mind of the accused was disturbed where the accused was charged with an offence arising out of the death of her newly born child.

The bill expands the range of purposes for which an assessment may be ordered and spells these out. The bill provides that assessments are to be made out of custody unless circumstances require that the accused be held in custody.
We are proposing that the length of time allowed for an assessment vary with its purpose. Assessments for fitness can generally be done more quickly than assessments of the mental state of the accused at the time of the offence, or for the determination of the appropriate disposition. The bill therefore permits up to five days, excluding travel time, for a fitness assessment and a 30 day maximum for the other initial assessments.
In exceptional circumstances, a longer period of time may be permitted or an extension may be granted, but under no circumstance can the total length of an assessment exceed 60 days.
At present there is a risk that incriminating statements made to a doctor during a court-ordered psychiatric assessment may be used as evidence against the accused. As a result, many defence counsels advise their clients to refuse to answer questions during such assessment. This deprives the doctor of a very important source of information about the accused and undermines the effectiveness of the court order.
At the same time, concern has been expressed by prosecutors that completely prohibiting the use of this evidence would deprive the court of important information needed to learn the truth about the accused and the offence.
Our insanity defence is based largely on the M'Nagh-ten rules which were formulated in Britain during the 19th century. For the purposes of liability under the criminal law, section 16 of the Criminal Code states that a person is insane if he has a "disease of the mind to an extent that renders him incapable of appreciating the nature and quality of an act or omission of knowing that an act or omission is wrong".
The majority of those with whom departmental officials consulted agreed that the defence worked reasonably well and the only change needed is to modernize the language in the section. For example, we have replaced the term "insanity" by the phrase "mental disorder" in order to bring it in line with current psychiatric views.
One important change made in this bill is to alter the nature of the verdict from the current "not guilty by reason of insanity" to "the accused committed the act or made the omission but is not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder".
The new verdict is superior to the present one. First, a number of psychiatrists have indicated that persons found not guilty by reason of insanity delude themselves into thinking that they have done nothing wrong, and this presents an obstacle to therapy.
Second, it explains more accurately what the verdict represents. Under the present wording, the public finds it difficult to understand how the accused could be found not guilty despite proof that he committed the offence.
Prior to the Swain decision, the Criminal Code required judges to order the accused into custody after a verdict was rendered that he is unfit to stand trial or was insane at the time of the offence.
October 4, 1991

The deprivation of the accused's liberty was automatic, even in cases where the accused received treatment while on bail pending trial and no longer represented a danger to the community.
This provision was struck down by the Supreme Court of Canada in Swain as being inconsistent with the Charter, subject to a six-month period of temporary validity.
The bill does away with this rigid rule and allows the court to make a non-custodial order where that seems appropriate in the circumstances, pending consideration of the case by the review board. That consideration must take place not later than 45 days after the court hearing unless the court is satisfied that there are exceptional circumstances.
Moreover, the bill gives the court the power to make a disposition itself if the court can readily do so and if it is clear that a disposition should be made at once. This gives judges a range of options including detaining the accused or granting some measure of liberty depending on the facts of each case.

As I mentioned earlier, the Criminal Code does not oblige the lieutenant-governor to establish a review board. However, in provinces where such boards exist, the lack of uniform rules of procedure across the country and the arbitrary nature of some of the boards' practices have aroused considerable criticism.
Another complaint has been that lieutenant-governors exercise powers that are obsolete, including the obligation to look after the mentally handicapped, children and the elderly, which historically has been that of the monarch.
The purpose of this bill is to make considerable changes in the powers of review boards. It abolishes the lieutenant-governor's duties in this respect, makes review boards compulsory and gives them the power to make decisions.
These changes reflect the current situation, because it is the boards that hear the evidence, observe the accused and have the qualifications for making the appropriate decisions.
A review board must have at least one psychiatrist, and if there is only one other member, that member must be either a psychologist or a medical practitioner. The bill thus recognizes that matters submitted to the boards are often multidisciplinary in nature and that the contribu-
Government Orders
tion of other medical professionals to the assessment may be useful.

The bill sets out minimum procedures which courts and review boards must follow during hearings to determine what disposition should be made. The procedural requirements in the bill strike a balance between protecting the right of the accused to a fair hearing and the need to provide flexibility in the details of how a particular hearing will be conducted.
The bill provides that the accused and his or her counsel will have access to all reports and information before the hearing takes place and will be present at the entire hearing unless this could result in serious interference with the accused's rehabilitation or recovery, or in serious physical harm to another person.
In such cases, the information and reports will be withheld and the accused excluded from that part of the hearing unless the interests of justice require that the information be disclosed notwithstanding the anticipated harm.
The bill creates a framework of principles which are to be applied when deciding what disposition should be made. They are the protection of the public from dangerous persons, the reintegration of the accused into society and other needs of the accused.
Another guiding principle is that the disposition imposed initially and subsequently is to be the least intrusive or onerous option having regard to the other principles already noted.
The public and the accused are further protected because the system allows quick action if there is significant deterioration in the accused's condition. Another proposed procedural protection is the right to appeal a disposition based on the facts of the case, the law or both. The legislation provides that such appeals are to be heard by the provincial court of appeal as soon as possible.
At present, there is no power to order a person detained pursuant to a Lieutenant-Governor's warrant to submit to treatment involuntarily. Apart from emergency, there is no power to treat an accused without obtaining consent. We have concluded that the general rule preventing the involuntary treatment of mentally disordered accused ought to be preserved. However, subject to stringent safeguards, the bill permits a court to order involuntary treatment to make the accused fit to

October 4, 1991
Government Orders
stand trial, thereby avoiding a potentially lengthy period of detention.
The present system permits persons detained pursuant to Lieutenant-Governor's warrants to be detained indefinitely, potentially for life. Although in practice most warrant detainees are released after a few years, there is considerable variation between provinces as to the average length of a warrant. In recent years there has been strong opposition to the indeterminate nature of the warrant. It has been argued that warrant detainees are discriminated against as a result of their mental disorder because they are subject to indefinite detention, whereas those convicted of the same offences receive definite sentences.
The bill imposes three outer limits on the length of time an accused can be held as either unfit to stand trial or not criminally responsible.
First of all, for first and second degree murder and for high treason and some military offences in time of war, the maximum is life. Second, for offences involving danger to the person or to the security of the state, the maximum is 10 years or the maximum penalty which could be imposed, whichever is less. Third, for all other offences the outer limit of detention under the authority of the criminal law is two years or the maximum penalty which could be imposed for the offence, whichever is less.
These provisions which we refer to as the capping provisions will apply retroactively to those now detained on Lieutenant-Governor's warrants. Young offenders will also be included in the proposed changes to the law. The maximum for youthful offenders will be the maximum which could have been imposed upon conviction, namely two years for less serious offences and three years for more serious offences and under the proposed new amendments to the Young Offenders Act, five years for murder.
This does not mean that dangerous persons will automatically be released into the community upon reaching the maximum or upper limit. The Attorney General may apply to the court at the time of the verdict to have the accused declared a dangerous mentally disordered accused. If the court is satisfied on the basis
of criteria similar to those used in dangerous offender applications under the existing Criminal Code provisions, it may substitute an indeterminate detention for the normal 10-year limit. The transitional provisions of the bill allow similar applications to a commissioner in relation to mentally disordered accused who are on Lieutenant-Governor's warrants at the time this bill comes into force. The accused would of course still be evaluated by the review board at least once a year.
Moreover, persons released on reaching their maximum may be detained under provincial mental health legislation if they constitute a danger to themselves or to others. Some provinces may wish to amend their mental health legislation to ensure that it adequately provides for commitment of those who are viewed as being potentially dangerous if not detained. I have indicated that these provisions will not be proclaimed until the provinces have been allowed a reasonable time to amend their laws if necessary.
The unfit accused faces an additional potential source of unfairness. By definition, such persons have not yet been tried and may be innocent. As well, if the unfit accused is detained for a long time, the Crown may no longer be able to prove its case against the accused. If the case could not be proven, it is unfair for the criminal justice system to continue to detain the person. The bill provides new protection for unfit accused by requiring the Crown to present proof to the court every two years that it could prove its case if the accused were then brought back for trial. In cases involving unfit youthful offenders, such proof must be provided on an annual basis.
Some accused, though they are not unfit to stand trial, are nevertheless acutely mentally ill at the time of trial. There is no authority in the Criminal Code to order that part of a sentence of imprisonment be served in a treatment facility or a hospital. Judges often make recommendations that the accused receive treatment but they are not binding on correctional officials. Some mentally ill offenders are transferred to provincial mental hospitals under agreements between the government departments involved and others are sent to federally run regional psychiatric centres. However, these centres often have lengthy waiting lists for admission.
October 4, 1991



Madam Speaker, the bill also contains provisions with respect to hospital orders that will allow persons suffering a mental disorder in an acute phase and who have been found guilty, to receive, with their consent and that of the hospital, treatment for a maximum period of 60 days, for the purpose of stabilizing their condition. At the end of the 60-day period, which is considered to be the initial part of the sentence, the hospital and prison authorities may decide whether such persons can go to prison and serve the rest of their sentence or should continue to receive treatment.
Some provinces are concerned about the financial repercussions these provisions may have, even if they only apply in cases where treatment is urgently required.
We believe that the hospital order provisions in the bill will not have a serious impact on the financial resources of the provinces. However, considering their concerns, I have agreed to postpone the coming into force of these provisions for two or three years, so that pilot projects can be conducted in one or two provinces.

This concludes my summary of the most significant points in this bill. There are a number of other subjects dealt with in the proposed revisions to the Criminal Code, such as provisions to facilitate interprovincial transfer of mentally disordered accused and for the arrest without warrant of those who breach dispositions or are unlawfully out of custody.
The bill also provides for the revision of two other acts, the National Defence Act and the Young Offenders Act, to bring them into line with the revisions to the Criminal Code.
I would urge members on both sides of the House to expedite the passage of this humanitarian legislation. The proposed changes will create a more equitable balance between the rights of the mentally disordered offenders and the need to protect the state. It deserves their support.
I would like to move:
That Bill C-30, an act to amend the Criminal Code (mental disorder) and to amend the National Defence Act and the Young Offenders in consequence thereof, not be referred to a legislative committee but be referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and The Solicitor General.
Government Orders


Madam Deputy Speaker:: The House has heard the motion of the Minister of Justice. Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Mr. George S. Rideout (Moncton):: Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise and speak on this particular bill and to assure the minister that we on this side will co-operate as much as possible for the quick review of this particular legislation. We will certainly co-operate to the fullest in light of the Supreme Court of Canada's decision and the fact that we are facing a major deadline of November 2 for new legislation to be in place.
We on this side of the House as well are supportive of the general intent of the legislation. We are looking forward to hearing from different groups and organizations that we are sure will bring new thought and light with respect to the bill and hopefully point out where there may be errors or weaknesses in the legislation.
We concur with the minister's comments that this legislation may require some fine tuning and some adjustments. We look forward to hearing from the different groups and organizations that will come before the Standing Committee on Justice and The Solicitor General.
The present situation really is an unjust situation. I think the Law Reform Commission categorized it very well when it said that a person who is labelled mad and bad is doubly damned. That is what we have seen in this country over the last little while, that people could really lose their rights to have even a trial, to be found guilty or not guilty, and at the same time end up in an institution for an indeterminate period of time and even, although highly unlikely, for life. That really was an unacceptable situation that should have been corrected quite some time ago.
All we have to do is take a look at some of the case histories of people who have been caught in this particular situation. There was recent publicity in some of the media talking about some of the people who have been caught up in the web. One was a Daryl Jones who was classified as a psychopath and found not guilty by reason of insanity of rape, robbery and attempted murder of a young woman in 1974. He has been trying to get into a less confining circumstance. The pros and cons of whether that is right or wrong need not be dealt with at this

Government Orders
particular stage. I might agree with the fact that maybe he should be staying in a maximum security facility.
The problem is that every year his case comes up for review. He has been before the review board every year for approximately 15 years. The latest time was in January and he heard through the grapevine, as these people always do, that he was going to be transferred to the Kingston psychiatric hospital, but the waiting list was long. What is going to happen to this gentleman is that by the time the waiting list gets up to his name, he will probably be back to be reviewed again and will start the process all over again. That is the inequity in this situation.
Another interesting inequity is the fact that about 60 per cent of psychopaths are in prisons serving a definite period of time rather than in hospitals. Therefore that 60 per cent will back out on the street once their time is over and others who are in under a Lieutenant-Governor's warrant may be there for an indeterminate period of time. The unfairness of that is obvious.
Another problem is that we do not really have the facilities, the technology or the wherewithal to study the individuals involved, to give them the necessary treatment or to determine the likelihood of repeat offences of the types of things they have done. Therefore we do see where there are some very serious problems.
Our information is that probably right now there are about 1,100 people across Canada who are held under Lieutenant-Governor's warrants. The detention is supposedly for a cure. The whole idea is that they are in under these warrants because they are going to get help and assistance to correct the medical problem they face and therefore be released into society and be serving and contributing members of society. In actual fact there is no treatment and this is just another form of cruel and unusual punishment with respect to some individuals.
The review boards looking at these types of situations are really overworked and there is a great deal of delay. As a result, most people are finding that they are not released and they are not getting the treatment they deserve.
In this sense we laud what the government is attempting to do in trying to correct this situation. Our main question now is to determine whether in fact it has.
I must be critical of the government for two reasons: first, because that is what we always are on this side of the House and, second, because this time they deserve it.
The Law Reform Commission studied this particular problem in 1976, and the government knew after the Charter of Rights and Freedoms came down that the situation was contrary to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms but again it chose to do nothing.
My information is that draft legislation was ready in 1986. Here we are in 1991 under the gun because the Supreme Court of Canada has done what everybody knew it was going to do, and that is strike down the provisions. Now we have to scramble to try to put together a law that will meet the tests and serve the public. In that sense, I must criticize the government for taking as long as it has. It is about time that we get on with the task.
The legislation itself appears to strike the proper balance. Again we are going to require the input of a number of different organizations before we know for sure. It does create the new category of dangerous mentally disordered persons. It strikes that balance of protecting society, but at the same time trying to get people out of institutions and back as contributing members of society. We will have that category of dangerously mentally disordered persons. At the same time we will have a system which puts a cap on how long these people have to stay in institutions. Hopefully the proper support systems will be put in place so that these people can be rehabilitated and integrated into society.
The Charter of Rights and Freedoms must be for everyone and this legislation will ensure that the Charter of Rights and Freedoms is in fact for everyone.
Under the old system a person could be found not guilty by reason of insanity even before he was tried. As the minister said, he could have been found not guilty in the initial stages and the that trial would not even proceed. However, because he or she is insane, he or she is in an institution. That was an unacceptable situation. It not only offended the charter but was an offence to

fundamental justice because there was a great injustice created by this situation.
At the same time, with the new category of dangerous mentally disordered persons, we will hopefully be able to protect society. Law and order and the proper protection of society has to be one of our overriding concerns.
I happened to be on the committee that examined the parole provisions in the new legislation which the Solicitor General has announced. It provides better controls of parole, early release and the non-early release of dangerous criminals. We are moving in the same area with this designation so that society will be protected, while at the same time those who can be helped will be helped.
The Liberal Party is supportive of the bill going to committee. We have concerns in three or four areas and I would like to highlight them.
Testimony given before the justice and solicitor general's committees on Bill C-67, dealing with detention and parole, indicated there was a lack of facilities and a lack of treatment for inmates. This was in the sexual or psychiatric problem areas. We are going to be following that up. The intent of this bill is to make a fair degree of treatment and facilities available. However, we are concerned that while the bill may be laudable, the gap between intent and reality is fairly large. It is going to require a major commitment by this government to put in place those facilities and those capabilities, with the participation of the provinces, so that what is intended is achievable.
In a lot of cases people will be released into the system and utilize community-based services and a lot of the provincial health care and mental health care systems. We already know that those systems are taxed to the limit. The question is whether the government has a commitment to provide necessary funds to the task and assist provinces in this particular area.
We are going to see a situation in which more people will be released into the system. If we allow these people to fall into the cracks then we are going to be facing a serious problem in the near future. The overall intent of protecting society will be lost because we did not provide the right treatment, the right facilities or staff. There is a heavy onus on the government to move in this area.
Government Orders
Another area which we feel should be looked at concerns the victims and their involvement. We can all appreciate the situation of the victim realizing that maybe this person is going to be back out on the street tomorrow or the next week or whatever.
The victims also have a stake in this legislation and they have a role to play. We should do what we can to ensure that victims have a say in the process and make the process responsive as well to the victims. Then they hopefully will be supportive of what is taking place, or at least have the feeling that they had a say in what is taking place.
It is a pleasure to support the general intent of this legislation. It is a pleasure to be co-operative with the government, as we always are on this side. It has been my experience that we are probably the most co-operative opposition this House has seen. This is another clear indication of such co-operation.
We look forward to seeing this bill before the committee. Despite the government's claims to the contrary, we have been a positive opposition. We look forward to this bill coming before committee and we look forward to hearing from as many people as possible.
It is my understanding, and I hope the minister can confirm it, that the government is requesting an extension from the Supreme Court of Canada so that we do not face a November 2 deadline and have to hurry this legislation through.
We on this side will support at second reading this particular piece of legislation.


Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg Transcona):: Madam Speaker, the member for Port Moody-Coquitlam, justice critic for the New Democratic Party, is unable to be here today. It is unfortunate the government was not able to arrange for this debate to occur when he was here.
In his absence I would like to say that we support the bill. We are anxious to send it to committee where there is work to be done on amendments. There have been many amendments suggested by the Canadian Mental Health Association, for instance, which I think should be considered seriously by the government. I am sure there may be other suggestions which could be considered in committee.

October 4, 1991
Government Orders
We are debating this bill today because in May the Supreme Court of Canada struck down the previous law dealing with the criminally insane and ordered that new legislation be put into effect by November 2. As a result we are in the difficult-but I suppose not insurmountable-situation of having to introduce new legislation by November 2.
There may be the extension which the hon. member referred to. Perhaps we will hear from the minister at some point about whether that extension is being sought and whether she expects to receive it.
We need not have been in this position. There was an intention on the part of a previous Minister of Justice- now the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans-in 1986 to deal with this issue. Those amendments died on the Order Paper and were not resurrected until this very late hour. It is too bad the government did not see fit earlier to address what everyone knew was a problem, what everyone knew the Supreme Court would eventually rule. However, that is so much water under the bridge. We have the bill before us and we are anxious to send it to committee where it can be worked on and hopefully improved.
Under the old system, which this bill seeks to change, people accused of crimes who were deemed mentally unfit were automatically held for indefinite periods on Lieutenant-Governor's warrants. Though the cases were reviewed annually, in theory offenders could have been kept in a mental hospital forever, even for minor offences.
The Supreme Court ruled that this system violated the rights of mentally ill people. It is estimated that about
1,100	people are currently being held on Lieutenant-Governor's warrants across the country. Bill C-30 proposes to match the period of incarceration to the crime. That would mean that someone acquitted of murder by reason of insanity could still be confined for life while someone who committed a minor crime and was willing to undergo psychiatric treatment might be released on supervision. Those judged to be still dangerous after their terms in hospital could be detained for an additional period under provincial mental health legislation.
Madam Speaker, as I said before, there have been many amendments suggested, and some problems raised, with the actual contents of the bill, by the Canadian
Mental Health Association. It is a rather lengthy and constructive criticism that it has put together, and I do not propose to go through all of it.
I would hope that in all the deliberations of the committee, and of the government, we would always be seeking to find that right balance between the protection of individual rights and the public safety, and when a dilemma is involved in this case, that the error would be on the side of public safety while, at the same time, trying to address what are obviously problems in the existing system with respect to the protection of individual rights.
We look forward to having this bill debated and improved in committee, and we hope that the minister might, perhaps on a point of order, answer the question about an extension.


Mr. John Nunziata (York South-Weston):: Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to make some brief submissions on the bill before Parliament today.
I must, however, take the minister and her government to task for putting this Parliament, and the Canadian public, in the position they are in today. We were told by the Supreme Court of Canada in May of this year that we had six months to put a law on the books. Otherwise, there could be some very dire consequences as a result of this government's inaction over the last seven years to deal with this specific problem and, in particular, those who are found not guilty by reason of insanity.
While this minister seems to be more concerned about the words to O Canada, the criminal justice system in Canada is in desperate need of repair and reform.
It took the Supreme Court of Canada to get this minister, and this government, off their collective duffs to get some action in this particular area. In 1976, the Law Reform Commission of Canada made recommendations in this area. That was 15 years ago.
In 1986 this government promised legislation. That was four years ago. This government promised legislation in this area to deal with these significant problems with regard to our criminal justice system. Where has the government been over the last four or five years?
Finally, the Supreme Court of Canada had a case to decide, and it decided in a six to one decision in May of
October 4, 1991

Government Orders
this year that the law was unconstitutional. Where has the government been for the last number of months?
Now the minister has the audacity to come and tell this House, and the people of Canada, that we have to pass a bill that is dozens of pages long in the next few weeks. If we do not, the Supreme Court of Canada has said that the law is off the books, and the Canadian public will have to suffer the consequences.
The minister comes before this House today suggesting that she is blazing the way to criminal law reform with regard to those who have been found not guilty by reason of insanity. The minister has to take some responsibility for the predicament she is putting this House in.
We on this side of the House agree that this bill should go to committee, but we resent the fact that the opposition will have very limited time to hear from expert witnesses right across the country in order to have this law in place before the imposed deadline by the Supreme Court of Canada.
The defence counsel, Clayton Ruby, who acted for the individual who had this case decided in the Supreme Court, put it right when he said that the justice minister should be ashamed that the draft law has not yet been introduced. That was back in May of this year.
The minister should have been on her feet apologizing to the people of Canada for inaction. She seems to be overly concerned about unimportant matters rather than dealing with an issue that is important to people throughout this country. I am not only speaking of this particular aspect of the criminal justice system.
There are a number of different areas in the criminal law system in Canada that need reform. We have been waiting patiently on this side of the House for some of those reforms. People in my constituency in metropolitan Toronto walk around in fear of what is happening to our city and to our communities. This minister is concerned about the words to O Canada, yet she does not appear to be concerned about the fact that in Toronto the murder rate a number of weeks ago had already broken all records. She seems to be unconcerned about the drug problem in our community, and every major urban centre, including her own community in Vancouver.
Rather than dealing with the root problems of our criminal justice system, this minister is content simply to sit there and do nothing. She is a do nothing Minister of Justice. She ought to be introducing legislation every day in this House to deal with all kinds of different matters that the Law Reform Commission has recommended to this government, that the sentencing commission recommended a number of years ago. This government spent millions of dollars on that particular commission to make recommendations with regard to reforming the sentencing system in Canada. She ought to be working with the Solicitor General to ensure that parole reform is brought into place in Canada.
A Solicitor General a number of years ago, just prior to an election as a matter of fact, a Conservative Solicitor General, said that this government is concerned about the parole system in Canada and the mandatory supervision in Canada. We are going to bring in all these wonderful reforms to make sure that the public is adequately protected.
Now we realize that that was only an election ploy in order to garner some cheap political votes rather than taking effective action immediately.
I call on the minister to get her act together with the Solicitor General, with her justice department, to bring in those reforms. People are fed up. She knows about the De Villiers family whose daughter was murdered in Burlington just a few months ago. She knows that just a few days ago the De Villiers family, with the help of my colleague from Hamilton, launched a nation-wide petition, in effect telling the government to start some action, start reforming the criminal justice system. The aggrieved parents of a murdered child have had to become political activists in order to get this government moving.
That is the travesty of this whole situation. The De Villiers family is not the only family out there waiting for some justice because of this government's inaction. We have the Pollington family whose daughter and two grandchildren were brutally murdered 14 years ago. That person now is released on day passes into the community in order to celebrate his birthday, or celebrate Christmas, when that person brutally murdered three people

October 4, 1991
Government Orders
14 years ago. Next year this person has the right under the criminal law to seek a review of the parole eligibility date in his case.
Is it not any wonder that people are fast losing respect for the criminal justice system when we hear about these cases. We heard about the Gingras case in Alberta where a convicted murderer was given a day pass to celebrate his birthday at the West Edmonton Mall. Could you imagine that? A convicted murderer was given a day pass to go to the West Edmonton Mall to ride the roller coaster after having committed a gruesome murder.
What did that individual do? He escaped custody and murdered three other people. He murdered other people as a result of that day pass he was given. Talk about negligence. The family of one of the victims that was murdered after this person escaped is now before the civil courts. Not only did they have to suffer through the brutal death of their daughter, now they have to go through the civil courts in order to get some justice because this government fell asleep at the switch. We had a number of other cases over the last number of years. There was the Melvin Stanton case in Toronto where a young woman was murdered because this person was prematurely released after having committed a murder. The Sweeney case here in Ottawa involved a half-way house worker who was killed by someone released from prison after having committed a murder.
Enough is enough. I may appear to be a little exercised and passionate this morning, but I have just cause because this government is not taking the action necessary in order to ensure that the public is safe out there.
Even the police in metropolitan Toronto are critical of this government for its lack of action with regard to Bill C-67 and the drug problem in metropolitan Toronto. The metropolitan Toronto police, the best police force in my view anywhere in the world, busts its butt to bust drug dealers in metropolitan Toronto and to freeze and seize the assets of drug pushers in metropolitan Toronto.
One would think that the federal government would share the proceeds of that seizure of assets of criminals. This government refuses to transfer back to municipalities assets that are frozen and seized by local police forces across the country. It is a new way of taxation for
this government. This government is living off the avails of drug pushing in Canada.
In 1989, $39 million was seized by law enforcement officials right across the country. In 1990 it was estimated that that figure was over $60 million. Instead of transferring that money back to the police forces across the country in order to combat crime and fight the drug problem in major urban centres across the country, this government is taking the money and putting it into its general revenues.
It is a new form of taxation. The government is living off the avails of drug pushers in this country, and it ought to be sending that money back.
Whereas my colleague was rather generous in his comments with regard to this particular bill, and I agree we will support it in principle and do everything we can to expedite the passage of the bill, it will not be without some very direct criticism of this government for its lack of action in the criminal law area in Canada.
We call on the government to immediately bring in legislation to deal with the parole system in Canada. We call on the government to immediately deal with the problems associated with mandatory supervision in Canada where convicted criminals are automatically released after having served two-thirds of their sentence.
Yes, we have Bill C-60, a bill that will allow detention orders, but under the law in Canada today, one can serve two-thirds of a sentence, then is automatically released, unless the government can show reason why one ought to be further detained.
We call on the government to bring in some reforms in that area in order to ensure that the public is protected. We call on the government to tighten up the immigration laws in this country so that when a landed immigrant is convicted of serious criminal offence, immediate action is taken for that person to be deported.
We call on the minister to amend the legislation in order to ensure that people who are convicted of serious criminal offences are stripped of their citizenship and deported. It is time that this government started getting tough when dealing with people who have as a preoccupation the breach of serious law in Canada.
October 4, 1991

I make my submissions because of the dozens and dozens of calls that I receive in my constituency office and because of what I am told by my colleagues about the numbers of calls they are receiving from their constituents about the concern they have with the crime problem in Canada.
It is not an issue that is discussed or debated often in this House. This minister's government seems to be very preoccupied with the constitutional question. Yes, it is an important question. Yes, the economy is an important issue that ought to be addressed by the House of Commons, but so is the criminal justice system in Canada.
People are fed up. The De Villiers family is fed up. The Pollington family is fed up. The Woodward family is fed up. Victims of crime right across Canada are fed up with this government's attitude toward the criminal justice system. They are calling on this government to take immediate action in order to make sure that people at least have the sense that the government cares about law abiding citizens, innocent victims of crime in Canada, so that people will at least be satisfied that the government is addressing the issue.
We should not be placed in a position where unelected Supreme Court judges are telling this Parliament what to do because this government has negligently failed in its responsibility to legislate in the area of criminal law reform.
Getting back to this particular piece of legislation, the minister is only introducing the bill because a six to one Supreme Court of Canada decision told her to introduce this bill. If it was not for the Supreme Court of Canada and the majority decision, not only telling her to introduce this bill but also telling her how to introduce it and what type of bill ought to be introduced, this minister would still be sitting there concerned about the words to O Canada and whether or not The Star Spangled Banner is a better national anthem than the Canadian national anthem.
The minister laughs, but not only is Clayton Ruby ashamed of this particular Minister of Justice, Canadians across the country are ashamed. I call on Canadians to call the Minister of Justice and their Conservative members of Parliament to tell her and her colleagues to
get off their butts and start getting serious about reforming the criminal justice system in Canada.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: It being eleven o'clock a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 30(5), the House will now proceed to Statements by Members.


STATEMENTS PURSUANT TO S.O. 31
Mr. Jacques Tetreault (Laval-Centre):: Madam Speaker, in early September, the Prime Minister announced in Winnipeg a national strategy for the integration of persons with disabilities. The hon. Robert de Cotret, the Minister responsible for the Status of the Disabled, stated that, on its own, no institution or organization can break down the barriers that prevent the full participation of persons with disabilities in the life of the community, that the co-operation of the provincial and municipal governments, volunteer organizations and many others is required.
Today, Madam Speaker, I want to stress the leadership the City of Laval has shown in 1987 when, recognizing the needs of the disabled, it embarked upon a vast program to provide them access to public facilities and services.
The mayor of Laval, Gilles Vaillancourt, said at the time that "to ensure that persons with disabilities enjoy a quality of life equivalent to that of other citizens is to restore a basic right."
Under the leadership of Monique Gauthier, a member of the town council, an access committee was established which developed an ambitious action plan and already has several achievements to its credit.
For 1991, the city has allocated $200,000 to the "Accessibilite Plus" program.


THE ECONOMY
Mr. Derek Lee (Scarborough-Rouge River):: Madam Speaker, this country is in the midst of a deepening

October 4, 1991
economic crisis, a crisis into which we were led by this government and its masochistic economic policies.
Just yesterday, a multinational corporation in my riding of Scarborough-Rouge River, Philips Electronics, announced that it was phasing out the manufacturing of its high resolution monochrome monitors by mid-1992, leaving 253 workers unemployed.
Why are they doing that? The corporation claims that poor economic conditions in North America have had a negative impact on the personal computer industry.
Canadians these days do expect and accept adjustments in product manufacturing, but this government has pursued economics and taxation policies which have left our Canadian entrepreneurs in a barren desert. A free trade agreement that encourages manufacturers to leave Canada, extraordinarily high interest rates and interest rate spreads, a high dollar that is killing our exports and that is going higher every day and taxation policies and procedures that discourage even the best of our entrepreneurs-


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I regret the time has expired.


RESPIRATORY THERAPY WEEK
Mr. Ross Stevenson (Durham):: Madam Speaker, this is Respiratory Therapy Week, a time for all Canadians to focus on the need for eliminating toxic effects of tobacco smoke and other air pollutants.
Respiratory disease prevention through education means keeping the public aware of serious health problems arising from smoking and other contaminants released into our environment.
Now that Canada and the United States have a joint commitment to improve air quality, Canadians of all ages must make personal decisions about smoking and other factors affecting respiratory health which are within their personal control.
I want to thank the Canadian Society of Respiratory Therapists for their commitment to promoting health of Canadians.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Bob Kilger (Stormont-Dundas):: Madam Speaker, for the past two days in Cornwall 1,200 grade four students from throughout Stormont-Dundas attended the first farm fair of its kind in eastern Ontario.
The students were able to gain first-hand knowledge about the dairy, fruit and vegetable crop industries. These students have shown a keen interest in agriculture. Some of them may wish to go into farming as a career.
However, as Canadian farmers know, the future of agriculture is in serious doubt. Producers are concerned about the continuation of supply management. The government has repeatedly stated its commitment to strengthening article XI at the GATT and now sit by and see it abandoned.
Farmers are questioning the government's commitment to the preservation of supply management under article XI. Supply management enables our farmers to put the best food products in the world on the tables of Canadians for a reasonable price. It is the cornerstone of Canadian agriculture and producers want to see some hope for the future.
I call upon the government not to give in at GATT and sell out Canada's farmers, including the farmers of tomorrow.


REFERENDA
Hon. Alan Redway (Don Valley East):: Madam Speaker, many Canadians are now advocating the holding of referenda on major issues. Both Saskatchewan and British Columbia will have a referendum question on the ballot in the upcoming provincial elections.
Thirty of the United States presently have a provision for referenda. Americans refer to it as direct democracy. The critics of direct democracy say that the ballot questions are usually numerous, lengthy and confusing, that voters are often uninformed or subjected to manipulation by expensive media campaigns which oversimplify or mislead and that professional petition gathering firms charge millions of dollars to get just one question on the ballot.
October 4, 1991

Is that what Canadians really want?


JUSTICE
Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Madam Speaker, what Canadians really want is a federal election right now.
Yesterday the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that Mervyn Lavigne, despite his protests, must pay some of the costs others incurred as a result of his unsuccessful court case.
The National Citizens Coalition has been funding the Lavigne case and they have been running a series of fund raising ads for their own organization based on the Lavigne case.
In other words, the National Citizens Coalition wants to raise funds from secret donors on this issue. They want to be able to spend these funds without reporting to the public how and where this money is spent and they want to force others into expensive court cases, but when the courts rule against their case, they do not want to have to pay the costs.
The National Citizens Coalition, as usual, wants a free ride. What they demand of others they do not demand of themselves. I say to the NCC: list your corporate backers, list your donors, list your expenditures and pay up when you lose.


FISHERIES
Mr. David Dingwall (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Madam Speaker, the needs of Cape Breton fishermen are immediate. The Maritime Fishermen's Union has written and made representations to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans requesting assistance in the form of special programs that will address the catch failure of Cape Breton's inshore longline fishermen. The loss our fishermen have endured has been devastating and the need for assistance is critical. These fishermen have faced a catch failure in waters off the coast of Louis-bourg and Glace Bay to a degree unprecedented since Canada's declaration of the 200 mile limit.
It is only a matter of weeks before winter will be upon us and it is going to be a long, cold winter for fishermen, especially for those with absolutely no income whatsoever. I urge the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans to do the right thing and address the needs of these fishermen and their families so that they can survive the failure of the 1991 fishery.
Their needs are real. I urge the minister to act and to act forthwith.


THE CONSTITUTION
Mr. Jean-Guy Guilbault (Drummond):: Madam Speaker, the proposals on federalism and the economic union, combined with the main proposals for a renewed Canada, make a balanced package. They meet the need for federal leadership to strengthen the economic union we all benefit from as well as the need for all levels of government to work together.
These proposals are not final. They were presented as a discussion paper for the public to discuss and debate. We have the unique chance of building a country to our liking.
Together, we must make fundamental changes to enable Canada to continue to thrive in an ever-changing world, while ensuring that the true aspirations of all Canadians find an outlet and are fulfilled within a united country.
The future of our country is at stake here, Madam Speaker. It has worked for 125 years and we must give ourselves every chance to see that a strong and united Canada can continue to exist.


DISCRIMINATION
Ms. Margaret Mitchell (Vancouver East):: Over the past months I have received a number of complaints regarding the treatment of people of colour at border crossings. For example, an Asian woman said she regularly has her car checked and she feels harassed when she hears comments like "How can she afford such a nice car?" A black man was ordered into the Customs office although he said he had nothing to declare. He noted two other black persons in the office.

October 4, 1991
My assistant and two friends of Chinese heritage submitted a well documented complaint regarding unfair treatment at the border. Their complaint of January 1990 still has not been dealt with.
Why are these kinds of incidents occurring and what can be done to prevent discrimination? First, few if any Customs officers are people of colour. I understand this was not remedied in recent hirings.
I call on the Minister of National Revenue to immediately implement employment equity within his department by targeting racial minorities for future job openings. The minister and his officials must ensure that all people are treated fairly. People of colour-


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I'm sorry, the hon. member's time has expired.


PROPERTY RIGHTS
Mr. Garth Turner (Halton-Peel):: Madam Speaker, the Government of Canada is proposing to restore to Canadians the right to own property, but the importance of this move has been muddied by what has become at times an hysterical debate. Misinformed critics are telling Canadians that the right would somehow supersede the rights of society. Today's myth is that bestowing property rights on individual Canadians would give them the right to acquire any property, including restricted firearms.
Absolutely not, Madam Speaker. The individual's right to own property would not wipe out society's right, or Parliament's right to ensure that we have effective gun control. All individual rights that the Charter gives Canadians do not supersede society's rights.
The Charter guarantees us the right to security of the person, for example. But that does not give us the right to carry weapons to protect that security. The Charter guarantees us the right to liberty, but that does not give us the liberty to do something restricted by the Criminal Code.
In a democracy the state can do nothing better than ensuring its citizens have as many rights as possible, and restoring this right is a major contribution to democratic freedom in Canada.


PUBLIC SERVICE
Mr. Eugene Bellemare (Carleton-Gloucester):: Madam Speaker, I wish to express the deepest discontent concerning the statement made yesterday by the President of the Treasury Board on the bonuses that senior civil servants and Crown corporation executives will receive.

During debate on Bill C-29, the infamous back to work legislation, I called on this government to treat its employees fairly and to set an example by limiting the salaries of members of Parliament by the same zero percentage from the same date. By accepting a salary increase which we as members received, we have signalled to our employees that the playing field is indeed unequal.
I reiterate today that the government is treating its Public Service employees unfairly by forcing them into zero per cent salary increase legislation while at the same time paying its senior managers exorbitant bonuses on top of their already substantial salaries.

If we are to believe this government when it says that everyone will be treated equally, I say, "Do it." On behalf of average public servants, I demand that the government-


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I am sorry, but your time has expired. The hon. member for Wild Rose.


GUN CONTROL
Mrs. Louise Feltham (Wild Rose):: Madam Speaker, 97 per cent of all Albertans want a safer world with more gun controls in place. A large number of my constituents are in favour of stricter gun control, especially in the areas of storage, safety and education, also greater restrictions on the accessibility of paramilitary weapons.
However, most feel that adequate laws are in place now if they were adhered to. They are asking the government to put greater pressure on all provinces to
October 4, 1991

ensure that all gun offenders are prosecuted and that gun offences are not used as a bargaining tool.
They have also requested that any future proposed changes to our gun laws be dealt with in an open process, allowing for public input. That the Governor in Council could make gun law orders without public knowledge is a major concern to all.


EUROPEAN COMMUNITY
William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Madam Speaker, I would like to call the attention of the House to a background paper released yesterday by the government called The European Community, a Political Model for Canada.
I had an opportunity to read through this last night. Unless I missed it, one of the things that struck me as profoundly inadequate in this analysis of the European model, is that there is absolutely no mention anywhere in this paper of the social charter that has been adopted in Europe as integral to the single market which is to be adopted in Europe in 1992.
I say to the government: If you want to have an intellectually honest discussion about the European community as a model, and this paper is otherwise a good paper, raising some serious questions about that model, to have published as a background paper something that does not even acknowledge the social charter-


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I apologize. The hon. member's time has expired.


EID-MILAD-EL-NABI
Mrs. Beryl Gaffney (Nepean):: Madam Speaker, last Sunday I had the pleasure of attending Eid-Milad-El-Nabi, an annual event hosted by the local Ismaili Muslim community to commemorate the birthday of the prophet Mohammed.
Messrs. Diamond Lalani and Abdul Khanani were instrumental in the organization of the celebration, which is of particular significance to the Muslim community at large.
The Ismaili Muslim community is well established throughout the nation's capital, as it is throughout
Oral Questions
Canada. A principle of this community is to be concerned with the quality of life of all those among whom they live and who are in need.
The community of Nepean has benefited enormously from their hard work over the years. The Ismaili community has launched several fund raising drives for charities, including the Kidney Foundation, Heart and Stroke Foundation, Children's Aid Foundation, the Canadian Cancer Society, to just name just a few.
It gives me great pleasure to rise today to pay tribute to the Ismaili Muslim community.


CANADIAN ASSOCIATION FOR COMMUNITY LIVING
Mr. Greg Thompson (Carleton-Charlotte):: Madam Speaker, last evening, members of Parliament from all sides of this House met with the Canadian Association for Community Living. That organization is holding its annual meeting in Ottawa this weekend. Many members of Parliament went last evening to say hello and to informally pass information and express our thanks to those people for the fine work they do from one end of this country to the other. The Minister of Finance was there as well.
I want to thank these people for the fine work they do. We appreciate it very much. They go about their work very quietly but very effectively, doing the types of things that all Canadians are pleased to see happening in their own ridings. They do it very quietly, very effectively, and I am very pleased that many of these people in my own riding are here with us today. I thank them for coming to Ottawa and I thank them for the very, very fine job they do in all parts of this country.



ORAL QUESTIONS


Ms. Sheila Copps (Hamilton East):: Madam Speaker, in the absence of the President of the Treasury Board, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. Last week, the President of the Treasury Board told the House this about the famous bonuses: "Since the bonus comes at the end of the year, when it will be given, it will

October 4, 1991
Oral Questions
be in the amount of 0 dollars and 0 cents." Why did the minister make such a statement to the House when he knew that it was not true?


Hon. Harvie Andre (Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons):: Madam Speaker, when the budget was presented, it was announced that for the pay period starting after the budget, everybody would get zero per cent increase. There was zero amount available for increases in salary. There was no mention of retroactivity. There was no intention to be retroactive with anybody.
The system in place put in by the Liberal government in 1981 is that senior salaries have a bonus which is averaged between zero and 10 per cent in the last few years, which is decided upon after recommendations by a board of directors. These senior civil servants have not received the bonus for the pay period that preceded the budget.
Is the hon. member suggesting we go retroactive in deductions for everybody else who receives federal funds?


Sheila Maureen Copps: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister.
One thing that Canadians do value is fairness. I ask the Deputy Prime Minister whether he believes that it is fair that hot on the heels of the largest back to work order in the history of the country we find out that while government secretaries and clerks will not receive one penny of increase this year, top level appointees of the Prime Minister are eligible to receive Christmas bonuses this year of tens of thousands of dollars.
Does the Deputy Prime Minister believe that these Christmas bonuses for the big cheeses are fair?


Harvie Andre: Madam Speaker, it is false and misleading to describe these as Christmas bonuses. They are not Christmas bonuses in any way, shape or form.
The government of the party she supports introduced this system a number of years ago. An independent outside committee evaluates the salaries and has recommended this procedure.
If the hon. member is suggesting another procedure should be used, we would welcome her suggestions and consider them. I think it is patently unfair and dishonest to try to confuse the people of Canada by suggesting there are Christmas bonuses and that we should act in that way.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Madam Speaker, what is patently unfair and dishonest was the statement made in the House last week, and I quote: "It will be zero for salary increases and it will be zero dollar bonuses for all these people".
That was a statement made by the President of the Treasury Board to justify the largest back to work order in the history of the country.
I ask the Deputy Prime Minister, on behalf of the government, if he thinks it is fair. Does he believe that the Canadian people think Christmas bonuses for the fat cats and nothing for the secretaries is fair?


Harvie Andre: Madam Speaker, let me repeat again slowly.
For the pay period after the budget, 1991-92, the increases and the bonuses are zero, zero. That is simple enough to understand.
For the pay period prior to the budget, the same pay period for which she and I received our 3.78 per cent and for which PSAC received 4.7 per cent, the total remuneration package has not yet been decided and will be evaluated.
To call that a Christmas bonus is misleading and is not helping the quality of public discourse in this country.


Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Madam Speaker, they are not Christmas bonuses. They are bonuses paid at Christmas.
I want to ask the question as well of the Deputy Prime Minister about this fairness. This year the janitor who cleans the building where the Deputy Prime Minister works will have received zero per cent increase and a zero bonus and will not have any money to buy presents to put under the Christmas tree for his children.
Does the Deputy Prime Minister think it is fair that the president of CN Rail will get an $87,000 bonus under his Christmas tree, courtesy of the Government of Canada? Is that Tory fairness?
October 4, 1991


Harvie Andre: Madam Speaker, the hon. member must have a particularly skilful teacup reader to tell him what decision the government might take when it receives recommendations which it has not yet received. That figure is totally false.
Let me repeat again. The hypothetical janitor last year received a 4.7 per cent increase. The hon. member received a 3.7 per cent increase. The final remuneration package for senior managers for last year has not been decided upon because the recommendations have not yet been made.
For the period 1991-92 there will be a zero per cent increase for senior management and a zero bonus. I think that is simple enough for even the hon. member to understand.


Don Boudria: Madam Speaker, let me quote from Hansard at page 2929. It reads:
-when comes the time for the bonus at the end of the year they will receive a cheque for the amount of zero cent, zero dollar.
That was said on September 30.

Madam Speaker, Canadians want to know why this injustice from the government? Why nothing for workers who earn $15,000 a year and an $87,000 Christmas bonus for the President of CN Rail?


Harvie Andre: Madam Speaker, the hon. member's repetition of that figure for the CNR chairman is just as wrong in French as it was in English. I wish he would stop misinforming the public.
Let me repeat again, as the President of the Treasury Board said for the fiscal period 1991-92 which followed the budget it is completely consistent with what was said in the budget and said by the President of the Treasury Board in the House. The increase is zero. The bonus is zero.
Why cannot that simple fact be accepted? How does the opposition find it of value to the quality of public
Oral Questions
debate in this country to continue to try to misrepresent our position?


Rodney Edward Murphy: Madam Speaker, the fact remains that a number of senior people, a number of political appointees, received a pay increase in March. These same people will receive another pay increase in December. In other words, the government is both the Easter Bunny and Santa Claus for those people.
My question is for the Minister of Finance. He is always concerned about the deficit. The Public Service strike is over. If this government is so concerned about the deficit, why can it still afford to put expensive ads in a national paper against the Public Service strike? Why is this ad still in the paper after the workers are already back at work?


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance):: Madam Speaker, it is just simply to convey to the public the information in a correct and factual manner.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Madam Speaker, I have a serious question for the Minister of Finance and Deputy Prime Minister.
How can the government afford expensive ads? How can it afford Christmas and Easter bonuses? How can it afford not to do what the Auditor General said with regard to the $5 billion a year in contracting out? How can the government afford to do that without the independent evaluation that our Auditor General has called for? Why not do that?


Harvie Andre: Madam Speaker, there is an independent evaluation of the remuneration for senior managers. It is a system put in place in 1981. If the hon. member has a better system to recommend to the House, we would be pleased to hear it.
As for his suggestion of Christmas bonuses and Easter bonuses, it is just as inaccurate when coming from that party as coming from the Liberals.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is for the Minister responsible for the Status of Women.
Will the Minister responsible for the Status of Women please explain to the women of Canada why the govern-

October 4, 1991
Oral Questions
ment can afford hefty bonuses for government appointees but cannot afford to pay its women public servants a decent working wage? Will she explain, please?


Hon. Mary Collins (Associate Minister of National Defence and Minister responsible for Status of Women):: Madam Speaker, I can assure the hon. member that the women in the Public Service are paid equitably and fairly.
In fact it is interesting to note the wage gap in the Public Service is much less than in the private sector and that we have made significant advances in terms of promotion of women. We have doubled the number of women in our management categories. We have increased significantly the number of women in professional and scientific categories.
We are the only government that has implemented pay equity, which involves increasing salaries for many of the lower paid women in significant amounts as well as the $500 signing bonus they will receive for those earning less than $27,000.


Mr. Paul Martin (LaSalle-Emard):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. Can the minister tell us at what level the Canadian dollar should trade in relation to the American dollar and the Mexican peso for the Canada-United States-Mexico Free Trade Treaty to be beneficial for Canada?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Madam Speaker, as I have indicated in the House before, the value of the dollar is set in the international marketplace. What is encouraging is the fact that interest rates in Canada have dropped to a four-year low.
As further evidence that the economy is improving today it has been reported that the composite indicator, which involves some 10 leading components in the industrialized sector of Canada, has shown a further increase of 1.2 per cent. That is an increase of 1.2 per cent over the previous month of .9 per cent. Further, what is more encouraging is the fact that this is the first time in six years that all 10 components have risen together. I think it clearly demonstrates that we are on
the right track toward sustainable growth and sustainable recovery with price stability. I think all Canadians should be encouraged that that has occurred.


Paul Edgar Philippe Martin: Madam Speaker, the House leader for the government makes a big point about the quality of debate in this House. It is not helped by this minister constantly reading a set piece answer from a child's primer on economics.
The high dollar, following upon the American agreement, decimated our industrial base; but going into the Mexican agreement it is crucial that this government remove the shackles.
Is this government going to throw Canadian workers to the wall or is the government-


Mr. McDermid:: Wolves.


Mr. Martin:: Wolves, you've got it, baby. It was yours. Or, is the government going to give us a strategy to lower the Canadian dollar so that we can compete in a very different economy? Don't read me something that you have already had prepared.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Madam Speaker, I am sorry that the hon. member gets so disturbed with good news. This is information that was just released this morning. It wasn't contained in the primer. Maybe, if the hon. member had received the information, he would have prepared his question a little differently.
I will give the member a little more good news. Automobile sales are up by 10 per cent. Truck sales are up by 17 per cent. That is another solid indicator. Interest rates, the key to growth in the economy, the key to job creation, the key to economic activity, are at a four-year low and the hon. member should be applauding that rather than criticizing it. Why does he not get on board and be a little more optimistic?


DE HAVILLAND
Mr. Sergio Marchi (York West):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Acting Prime Minister. It relates to the fate of de Havilland.
Yesterday not only did the government not commit itself to securing the future of Canada's leading aircraft manufacturer, but the federal minister of industry sug-
October 4, 1991

gested that the only initiative should come from the province.
How can the federal government possibly divest itself from this country's aerospace industry and be so indifferent to the number one aircraft producer which directly employs 4,900 Canadians in Toronto and thousands of other Canadians in the province and across the country? Why give Canadians another Avro Arrow disaster?


Hon. Tom Hockin (Minister of State (Small Businesses and Tourism)):: Madam Speaker, the hon. member forgets the tremendous involvement of the federal government in helping de Havilland over the years through DIP grants.
As a matter of fact when this particular company was sold it had 3,600 employees. It now has 4,900 employees. Even more important than that we are disappointed, as I am sure the hon. member is, the arrangement that was being worked on did not work out. I gather Boeing has other options. We stand ready to help in any way we can.


Sergio Marchi: Madam Speaker, my question is again for the Acting Prime Minister.
This morning Boeing announced that starting next year 1,100 jobs will be cut at de Havilland, one-quarter of its work force.
Given that Metropolitan Toronto is reeling from double digit unemployment, that its manufacturing base is eroding at an alarming rate, and that thousands of permanent jobs have left the city, how can Canadians have any confidence in this government that it is serious about curing these serious economic ailments when it is prepared to wash its hands of de Havilland which only happens to be the leading industrial employer in all of Metropolitan Toronto?


Thomas Hockin: Madam Speaker, the hon. member clearly did not listen to a word I said.
We have expressed our interest to help and we of course will be there as we have been in the past. Metropolitan Toronto certainly is going through an economic crisis, and we had the Canadian Federation of Independent Business yesterday tell us why: that 94 per cent of small business people in Ontario feel as a result of the NDP budget that the climate for starting a business and growing a business in Ontario was not as strong as it was before.
Oral Questions
We as a federal government are very proud that we have put in place the lowest corporate rate for small business in the OECD. We are very proud that we got rid of the manufacturers' sales tax. We are there to help the business community, not to attack it.


Mr. Steven W. Langdon (Essex-Windsor):: Madam Speaker, the Ontario government in fact is the only government which has said that it will support and back up de Havilland in these tough times. It has said that it will keep de Havilland operating in so far as it is possible for it.
We now have 1,000 jobs cut today. What is this government going to do to get this important part of our industrial structure back on its feet? What are you going to do for those jobs?


Thomas Hockin: Madam Speaker, the hon. member should be reminded of how many jobs have been created in de Havilland since the federal government took its action to sell it a few years ago. We had been there with a number of grants in the past.
I am also reminded that the French group, Aerospatiale, said yesterday, I think it was, that it might appeal against an EEC veto on its takeover with Italian partner, Alenia, of Canadian aircraft manufacturer de Havilland. "There must be a change in Brussel's policy and, if an appeal would help achieve that change, we will do it", its president said.
We have that appeal going on and we have the record of the federal government standing behind this company, and we will continue to stand behind it.


Steven W. Langdon: Madam Speaker, I may just shift to another area of "good news", such as the Minister of Finance talks about, like this
1,100	job loss that is taking place today.
I want to ask a question of the Deputy Prime Minister. Farm leaders have asked to meet directly with the Prime Minister in Winnipeg today because, as this letter from corn producers shows, they reject the government's claim that help is being provided that is even close to what the government promised in March.
I want to ask the Minister of Finance if he will make a commitment today that the help he promised when he was Minister of Agriculture will actually be provided.

October 4, 1991
Oral Questions
That means a billion dollars for the 1990-91 crop year. Yes or no.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Madam Speaker, the Prime Minister will be meeting with representatives of the farm community in Winnipeg today and he will be advising them that commitments made while I was agriculture minister will in fact be delivered. The cheques are now being processed and are being sent in the mail. He will be telling them they will be receiving up to $1.5 billion before the end of this year and a further $1 billion plus in the period January to June 1992.
If $2.5 billion is nothing then his description of $1 billion and mine are quite different. I know that the farmers of Canada will recognize $2 billion when they see it.


IMPORTED CARPETING
Jean-Guy Guilbault: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Revenue. On August 6, an anti-dumping investigation was launched on carpeting produced by tufting machines made in or exported from the United States of America.
The complaint maintains that the share of the Canadian market held by imports from the United States rose from 8 per cent in 1988 to 28 per cent in 1990. The industrialists who approached me said that dumping accounts for up to 91 per cent of the distribution market.
Can the minister tell us whether he intends to speed up the investigation of this issue, given that serious harm is being done, 1,000 jobs were lost in 1989 and 1990 and plants are threatened with closure?


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I am sure that the hon. member has a question. It would be time to ask it.


Hon. Otto Jelinek (Minister of National Revenue):: Madam Speaker, I understand very much the hon. member's concern on this veiy important matter. I can confirm that an investigation into the matter did begin on August 6 of this year. It is proceeding in its normal
expedient and efficient way. These investigations do reach conclusions that are satisfactory to the industry as they have done most recently in British Columbia in the beer war with the Americans in the anti-dumping areas.
The investigation is proceeding in its expedient fashion, and we would hope that a decision will be reached at the earliest opportunity which of course will be made public for the benefit of the industry.


THE ECONOMY
Mr. John Manley (Ottawa South):: Madam Speaker, when the Minister of Finance addressed the OECD in Paris in June he said, and I quote:
Those who lose jobs during periods of economic slowdown such as
we are now experiencing may well find their new positions in different
industries, occupations or regions.
Would the minister explain to the House what industries, occupations or regions of Canada he thinks Canadians are likely to be leaving?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Madam Speaker, unfortunately we have had some pretty clear evidence coming from the province of Ontario, largely as a result of the economic policies of the provincial government of Ontario. What is interesting is that 36 per cent of small business owners are contemplating relocation. That figure is from a survey of 3,539 small and medium-sized businesses and is a rise from about 20 per cent in March.
What is interesting is that this is directed toward the budget and the economic policies of the government of Ontario. Eighty-six per cent of the small business sector in Ontario said that they consider the business climate in the province as being unfavourable. Only 3 per cent view conditions as being favourable for business. Ninety-four per cent of the survey respondents saw the Ontario budget as being irresponsible; 2 per cent believed that it was responsible.
I think that what you have is a shift and a restructuring and an adjustment process going on. The hon. member knows that the high tech information based economy is one that is upon us and there will be shifts in the economy based upon that reality.
October 4, 1991


John Paul Manley: Madam Speaker, I am sorry I did not ask the minister the question for which he had a briefing note.
Given that perhaps Ontario is one region he expects people to leave, what other industries and occupations and what policies or programs does he propose to help the people who are going to go through this period of adjustment?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: The hon. member is quite familiar with the realities of the marketplace and the economy and knows very well that there has been a shift into the high tech information based sectors of the economy, and a bit of a downplaying in the manufacturing sector. That is not to say that the manufacturing sector is going to disappear, but it does mean that there will be greater emphasis on the service sector, the high tech sector and the information based sector. The fact of the matter is that we are in a globalized economy and have to find our respective market niches within that globalized economy and be competitive and productive if we are going to survive.


EMPLOYMENT
Mr. Douglas Young (Acadie -Bathurst):: Madam Speaker, the Minister of Employment and Immigration knows northeastern New Brunswick very well. I know that he is aware of the very difficult economic situation resulting from the recession and the disastrous herring fishing season. Could the minister tell us and the workers of that region today whether his government will set up job creation programs this fall to help those affected by this economic crisis?


Hon. Bernard Valcourt (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Madam Speaker, the government has already indicated, and I have mentioned in this House, that we, along with the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, were trying to get a clear picture of the situation. We know that there has been a considerable decline in the volume of fish caught. In fact, we are in the process of determining what programs to implement to help those people. I suggest that the hon. member subjunctive stay tuned, as we say. The Minister of Fisheries and Oceans is
Oral Questions
scheduled to make a statement this afternoon on this subject.


M. Douglas Young: Madam Speaker, I thank the minister for his answer. He knows the urgency of the situation. If the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans is going to make a statement this afternoon, I hope that the Minister of Employment and Immigration will also adopt a progressive approach to this issue, because fall is a very short season in New Brunswick and winter is fast approaching. Can we expect an answer from his department, perhaps in cooperation with the Department of Fisheries and Oceans?


Bernard Valcourt: Madam Speaker, the hon. member knows that Employment and Immigration already has programs to help people in such situations, for instance in the Acadian peninsula in New Brunswick. Those programs are in place and if additional resources are needed to deal with the particular situation in the peninsula, the hon. member can be assured that the Department of Employment and Immigration will be there to help the people.


SHIPBUILDING
Mr. Iain Angus (Thunder Bay-Atikokan):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the minister responsible for shipbuilding policy. One of the 1984 promises of this government was to adopt a national shipbuilding policy as a top priority. Instead this government has presided over the decimation of yards from coast to coast.
This week's decision on the coastal patrol vessels, while good news for shipyard workers in Halifax, left the two remaining yards on the Great Lakes with an uncertain future.
I want to ask this government what action it is prepared to take to ensure that both Port Weller and Portship can survive.


Thomas Hockin: Mr. Speaker, the answer of course is yes. This particular industry is in a period of rationalization. It is also in a period of revitalization. The Government of Canada has worked very hard in the last three or four years to rationalize shipyards to make sure that we can

October 4, 1991
Oral Questions
have a proper regional distribution of the activity and we will continue to do that.


Iain Francis Angus: Madam Speaker, I am not sure if the minister was actually answering my question. I want to know what specific action this government is going to take to assist the yards at Port Weller, at St. Catharines, the yard at Portship in Thunder Bay, as well as the yards on the west coast. It is one thing to say rationalization. The workers in these communities want to know if they have a future in the shipbuilding industry and, specifically, I am wondering if the government is prepared to re-establish a subsidy program so that we can get back to the business of building commercial ships in Canada to be purchased by Canadian ship companies.


Thomas Hockin: Mr. Speaker, a few days ago it was announced that Port Weller would be receiving some additional work and the government may be in a position to help retool to do this work.
However, this government does not believe in massive subsidies any more than it believes in massive tax increases.


Garth Turner: Madam Speaker, Canada's unions are continuing to punish Canada's farmers. We have just seen the end of the disruptive PSAC strike which had the devastating effect on farmers of withholding grain shipments. Yesterday 700 grain handlers in Thunder Bay walked off the job.
Canadians are completely fed up with this level of labour strife and farmers cannot take it any more. My question is for the Minister of Labour.
Can the minister please give us an update on this mean-spirited and ill-timed strike?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Madam Speaker, this is an outrageous situation. Quite frankly the government hopes that the six grain companies and the union involved will get together, get back to the negotiating table and work out a satisfactory arrangement.
It is absolutely unforgiving to allow this kind of situation to hold the farmers to ransom. They are having enough difficulties as it is because of depressed prices, and to see this deliberate disruption occurring not only on this occasion but on other occasions as well is totally unacceptable and intolerable.
I would hope, Madam Speaker, that all parties will get together, sit down at the negotiating table and get this situation resolved. Of course the Department of Labour will be in a position to provide mediation services to ensure that that process is facilitated.


FERRY SERVICE
Mr. Lawrence MacAulay (Cardigan):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State for Transport. The government recently called for tenders for a new ferry for Wood Islands, P.E.I. and is calling for specific proposals for a fixed link.
In a letter the minister told me: "I am unable to make a permanent commitment for the continuation of the Wood Islands-Caribou ferry service".
Will the minister explain why she will not make a permanent commitment to a separate transportation service to eastern Prince Edward Island?


Shirley Martin: Madam Speaker, I know that transportation in the Atlantic provinces is very key and ferries certainly are-yes, I have been there. I spent several weeks this summer in the eastern part of this country looking at the problems they have and working toward finding answers.
I know Wood Islands ferry is very important. We will continue to look at it. If there is a possibility to answer the member's concerns on this, we certainly will do so.


Lawrence MacAulay: Madam Speaker, the new ferry for Wood Islands crossing is already two years behind schedule and will not be ready until probably 1994.
The people of eastern Prince Edward Island want to know that this government is committed to their ferry service. Will the minister and her government give the House and the people of eastern Prince Edward Island
October 4, 1991

the assurance of a permanent ferry service from Wood Islands, Prince Edward Island?


Shirley Martin: Madam Speaker, this government and myself as a minister will look into the situation. I will not make a permanent promise of this. I promise I will look into it. If at all possible, it will be done.


Mr. Rey Pagtakhan (Winnipeg North):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Health and Welfare.
The sleeping pill Halcion was banned in Britain earlier this week because it produces serious adverse effects. Two days ago, the minister said his department "is equipped to move very quickly within hours," if just cause were found to ban it in Canada. Can the minister tell the House today what decision he has made?


Hon. Benoit Bouchard (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Madam Speaker, I thank the member for the question.
I think it is important to determine exactly where we are with the drug Halcion. On October 2, we requested from Upjohn, the manufacturer of Halcion in the United Kingdom and in Canada, what was the basis for the decision made in the U.K. to withdraw the drug from the market.
We have somebody from Great Britain working with the officers of my department today, giving them the information about why that drug was withdrawn. The United States is doing exactly the same thing. We expect that all countries where you can find the drug will do exactly the same operation.
I can say to my colleague that we have to obtain the necessary information on the drug. If the information provided is sufficient to believe that it should be done, as I said yesterday, the day before and I repeat today, it will be done immediately.
I believe that we have to be very conscious of the fact that we cannot withdraw a drug from the market if we do not have the scientific evidence that it should be done.


Rey D. Pagtakhan: Madam Speaker, since Halcion is known to cause acute withdrawal
Oral Questions
symptoms when taken away from the patient, and since patients on their own following the news media may stop the medication, I ask the minister to immediately send a health directive to pharmacists and physicians across the country to advise them on this issue.
Does the minister agree?


Benoît Bouchard: Madam Speaker, of course we will be in touch with the doctors' associations and we are asking patients using the drug to be in touch with their doctors and pharmacists.
Once again, I repeat what I said. At this time our scientific experts do not have any evidence that the drug should be withdrawn from the market. That is why we are in touch with U.K., to determine the reasons why it was done in Great Britain.
We are in touch with the United States and will be with other countries to see, but once again, the gap is very tiny between the fact that we can cripple a company over something when there may not be a problem.
That is why I can assure the member-I know the question is very relevant-that we are in touch with everybody: the press, the doctors and the pharmacists, to be sure that if there is any problem, action will be taken immediately in the direction that it should be taken.


CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. It has to do with a question raised yesterday about the future of the CBC in Winnipeg.
Winnipegers were not reassured yesterday by the answer of the Minister of Communications to the hon. member for Churchill, or by statements made by Mr. Watson yesterday that no decision had been taken.
What we want to know, Madam Speaker, is not that no decision has been taken, what we want to know is that no decision will be taken with respect to the maintenance of full regional service in Winnipeg.
I know the government likes to talk about its arm's length relationship, but the mandate of the CBC is the business of the Canadian government. Will this mandate be respected because in our judgment, having full regional service in a place like Winnipeg is part and

October 4, 1991
Oral Questions
parcel of what it means to have a national broadcasting corporation.


Harvie Andre: Madam Speaker, as the Minister of Communications said yesterday, and it happens to be the truth, these decisions are taken by the CBC. We cannot anticipate what its decision might be until it makes it.
The CBC, like every other arm of government, everybody included, has to operate within the fiscal restraints. If in order to meet all the expectations of the CBC, of the people of Winnipeg, the people of Calgary and so on, we have to increase taxes to do so, then I am sure the support of the hon. member for that increase of taxes would be something we would bear in mind.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Madam Speaker, the Government House Leader would like us to believe that these kinds of decisions are not political. They are political in the same way that the VIA Rail cuts were budget decisions, political decisions taken by this government. We are asking the government not to hide behind the arm's length relationship it claims to have and which, indeed, it should have, except when it concerns the regional and national mandate of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation.
I ask again for assurances that the full regional service which now exists at Winnipeg will not be removed.


Harvie Andre: Madam Speaker, the hon. member mentions VIA Rail. It would require about $1 billion a year subsidy to maintain it at the former level.
Will the hon. member say that he is in favour of increasing taxes by $1 billion a year to pay for VIA Rail? That is what needs to be said to put the issue in its proper perspective. It is increasing taxes or live within our means. The CBC has to live within its means.
I do not know what the decision is. The Minister of Communications does not know what the decision is. The CBC does not know what the decision is because it has not taken it yet.


Mr. Robert D. Nault (Kenora -Rainy River):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. As the Minister is well aware, the Thunder Bay grain elevator workers took to the picket lines yesterday. The workers have stated that the company is refusing to return to the bargaining table and bargain in good faith.
I would like to know from the Deputy Prime Minister what his government is going to do to ensure that the companies involved will get back to the bargaining table as quickly as possible.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: As I indicated in response to an earlier question, the government is pleading with the parties to get back to the bargaining table to negotiate a satisfactory settlement.
Maybe the hon. member may have some influence, because on many occasions we hear in the House very legitimate representations from members on this side and the other side of the House to the effect that there is not enough business going through Thunder Bay. We have lots of business there that is available now and into the future, but to have this kind of a labour disruption certainly is not good for the farmers who are in desperate straits. It certainly is not good for the future of Thunder Bay and it certainly is not good for the St. Lawrence Seaway. So I ask the hon. member to help us in this regard.


Robert Daniel Nault: Madam Speaker, my supplementary is for the same minister. When the Vancouver grain handlers were locked out in June, it took this government only five days to introduce back to work legislation. Union leaders fear that companies will now refuse to negotiate in good faith because they believe the government will come to their rescue.
Will the minister assure all workers in Canada that collective bargaining is still the preferred option, and will he guarantee that the rights of workers are protected in this way.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Madam Speaker, I think in the case of the Vancouver situation, the positions were so firmly entrenched it appeared obvious that there could be no settlement. The situation is somewhat different here.

I would ask the hon. member once again to plead with his union constituents to come to the bargaining table and we will certainly be doing the same thing with the six grain elevator companies which are the operators there, because therein lies the solution. It is high time that farmers no longer be held to ransom by this kind of activity. It is time to get the grain moving because commodity prices are low. We have made sales and there are more sales that can be made. Let us get on with it. I ask the co-operation of the hon. member.


QUEBEC'S ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Alfonso Gagliano (Saint-Leonard):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare who is also responsible for economic development in Quebec.
I would like to know whether the minister has read the proposals made at Rendez-vous economique 91 two weeks ago in Quebec, and whether he is prepared to support proposal No. 8, which received the full support of all economists and all economic partners in Quebec and recommended a monetary policy that would maintain the dollar at around 80 cents?
Will he talk to the Minister of Finance so that we can have a monetary policy that will help our exports, not only in Quebec but across Canada?


Benoît Bouchard: Madam Speaker, obviously, I talk to the Minister of Finance every day because he is an excellent minister and supports excellent policies.
However, Madam Speaker, I would like to say just this. On many occasions, the Minister of Finance has explained here in the House the facts of the government's monetary policy. All I know is that in one year-the hon. member cannot deny this is true-interest rates in Canada have gone down 500 points. In other words, nearly 5 per cent.
The Minister of Finance said a few minutes ago that the recovery-


Mrs. Maheu:: What about Montreal!
Points of Order


Benoît Bouchard: Yes, Montreal. Today, it was announced in Montreal that the unemployment rate had gone down 1.2 per cent because the number of jobs had increased.
Madam Speaker, the hon. member took the words out of my mouth.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Saint-Leonard, for a very short supplementary, please.


Alfonso Gagliano: Madam Speaker, as I was telling the minister, I think that the Rendez-vous economique was the first time we saw all partners together.
Will the minister responsible for economic development in Quebec ask the Minister of Finance to do something? He must consider the present situation, because it is really very bad. Something has to be done. We must change our monetary policy. Will he defend the interests of Quebec?
Hon. Benoit Bouchard (Minister of National Health
and Welfare): Madam Speaker, I will repeat what I said earlier.
The policy supported by this government is one based on permanent solutions. In 1980, 1981 and 1982, you tried temporary measures, and we know exactly what that did to this country. I realize the hon. member shares my concerns about economic development in Quebec, and especially in Montreal.
In any case, various types of action are being taken constantly, a number of measures have been announced, and more will be announced in the future. Once again, I fully support the policy of my colleague, the Minister of Finance, because I believe it will provide lasting solutions, Madam Speaker.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I have received notice of a point of order. The hon. member for Churchill.


POINTS OF ORDER
Rodney Edward Murphy: Madam Speaker, my point of order relates to the questions concerning the grain handlers' strike raised during Question Period.
The Minister of Labour is now in the House. Representatives of our caucus met with him prior to the House convening this morning. Will the minister assure us and

October 4, 1991
Points of Order
the House that he will be taking action this weekend to ensure that the negotiations resume?
Also, will he assure the opposition parties that they will be kept informed of the progress throughout the weekend?


Madam Deputy Speaker:: The minister may reply, but this is an extension of question period. If he wishes to reply, I will of course recognize him.


Hon. Marcel Danis (Minister of Labour):: Madam Speaker, I will respond if the House will allow this Question Period to extend for one more question. During Question Period I was on the phone in the lobby with both parties in the dispute. I made known to them the concerns of the government and asked them to return as quickly as possible to the bargaining table. At the same time I offered to both parties the help of a mediator.
Of course I will let members know of developments in this strike. I impressed on both sides that such work stoppages were not acceptable to the farmers. I made my point known to them in a quite clear manner and we had a full and frank discussion. They are aware of the government's position. We hope there will be movement by both sides.


COMMENTS DURING QUESTION PERIOD
David Charles Dingwall: :
Madam Speaker, I wish to draw to your attention the provisions of Standing Order 18 regarding disrespectful or offensive language. I am sure it was inadvertent but during Question Period the Minister of Supply and Services, as well as the government House leader who has been a model of respect and dignity for everyone in the country to view, slipped up and returned to the ways of an earlier time of debate in the House of Commons, primarily 1980 to 1984.
Would Madam Speaker take it under advisement to review the "blues" from Question Period and bring to the attention of all hon. members, particularly those who are advocating reform of Question Period, how they might be able to improve their behaviour in this House?


Harvie Andre: Madam Speaker, in the jargon of the street that would be referred to as a cheap shot. I did hear the remark of the member for LaSalle-Emard who said something like: "Oh, keep it under control, baby", or words to that effect. I interpreted those words in the way they ought to be interpreted and that is with no malice or forethought.
What we are talking about in that provision is the use of words which have been used too often in this House. This arose out of a period when the rat pack was in full form. I congratulate the hon. member for having brought the rat pack under some semblance of control. From time to time it does get out of control. The general admonition that this kind of language should not be used is one I accept entirely. I look forward to the day when the rat pack has completely disappeared from the floor of the House of Commons.


David Charles Dingwall: Madam Speaker, I want to thank the government House leader for his apology. It is well received.
Perhaps while the government House leader is reflecting upon his remarks he might wish to speak to the Minister of Supply and Services, whose surname is appropriate in the circumstances, so that perhaps in the future he will refuse-


Harvie Andre: Point of privilege, Madam Speaker. That is a classic example which he must withdraw.
Madam Speaker, the House leader of the Liberal Party in making derogatory malicious and sexual, if not sexist, remarks about the last name of the Minister of Supply and Services is committing the sin which has brought disrespect on this House. That is the kind of rat pack behaviour I was talking about.
I would ask him to show that he is sincere about his earlier comments and withdraw and apologize to the Minister of Supply and Services.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I would like to assure the House and hon. members that my knowledge of English colloquialisms is good enough to understand that kind of reference. I am sure that the hon. member will want to withdraw that reference which does not do anything good for this House at a time when we are all trying to do a better job for the people of Canada.
The hon. member.


David Charles Dingwall: Madam Speaker, in accordance with your wishes and your directive, I would gladly withdraw the remark.
I raised the provisions of Standing Order 18.1 brought to your attention the remarks by the government House leader and the Minister of Supply and Services who during Question Period continually made cat calls about the quality and substance of the questions, inferring each and every time that members were being dishonest.
That is impugning the motives of members on this side. I know that Madam Speaker will want to take the time to review the transcripts and perhaps watch the tapes to determine whether the provisions of Standing Order 18 have been breached by the government House leader and the Minister of Supply and Services.


Hon. Paul Dick (Minister of Supply and Services):: Madam Speaker, I understand the reference which the Liberal House leader made to my name. It is something I have been used to since I was about seven years of age. It shows that he has a mentality of about a seven year old. I appreciate that. It is the truth and he shows it.
He complains about cat calls directed to the hon. member for Hamilton East. She believes she has a separate licence from anybody else in this place and makes more cat calls than the rest of the place put together.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: When the hon. House leader for the Official Opposition first rose on a point of order and asked the Chair to review the "blues" and, if necessary, the tapes I certainly agreed to it. I have listened to everyone else who wished to participate in different points of orders. Obviously the hon. Minister of Supply and Services wishes me to review the "blues" and watch the tapes, which I will do, as he has not seen fit to withdraw any of the comments.
At this end of the House it is very difficult to hear everything that is being said when everyone is talking at the same time. I left it to the minister. He made his statement. I will review the "blues" and come back to the House, if necessary.
Routine Proceedings



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Hon. Thomas Siddon (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Madam Speaker, I have the honour today, pursuant to Standing Order 109, to table in both official languages the government response to the Fifth Report of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs.


SECURITY INTELLIGENCE REVIEW COMMITTEE
Mrs. Monique Tardif (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor General of Canada):: Madam Speaker, on behalf of the Solicitor General of Canada, the hon. Doug Lewis, I have the honour to lay upon the Table, pursuant to Standing Order 32(2), the report of the Security Intelligence Review Committee. This report is to be referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Solicitor General.


HOUSE MANAGEMENT
Alfonso Gagliano: Madam Speaker, I have the honour to present the eleventh report of the House Management Committee pursuant to Standing Order 114(2)(d). With leave of the House, I intend to move for concurrence in this report later this day.
[.Editor's Note: For above reports, see today's Votes and Proceedings. ]

October 4, 1991
Routine Proceedings


MISCELLANEOUS STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 1991 MEASURE TO AMEND
A. Kim Campbell: for leave to introduce Bill C-35, an Act to correct certain anomalies, inconsistencies, archaisms and errors in the Statutes of Canada, to deal with other matters of non-controversial and uncomplicated nature therein and to repeal certain provisions thereof that have expired or lapsed or otherwise ceased to have effect.


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

Louise Feltham: for leave to introduce Bill C-308, an act to amend the Canada Post Corporation Act.
She said: Madam Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to provide for the establishment of a system allowing persons who do not wish to receive direct mail advertising, or mailing of printed matter, without further address than "householder", "boxholder" , "occupant" or "resident" to notify the Canada Post Corporation accordingly-


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

Louise Feltham: for leave to introduce Bill C-309, an act respecting the calculation of interest on credit card accounts.
She said: Madam Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to limit the application of interest relating to credit card accounts to the outstanding balance as it stands after the due date.


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

Alfonso Gagliano: Madam Speaker, with leave of the House, I move, seconded by my colleague the member from Kingston and the Islands, that the eleventh report of the Standing Committee on House Management tabled today be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mr. Len Hopkins (Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke):: Madam Speaker, I have a petition which I wish to present to the House and to the government with respect to adoptive parents.
Adoptive parents across Canada feel that Bill C-21, the government's unemployment insurance legislation, was discriminatory toward their situation. The adoptive parents' leave was reduced from 15 weeks, while at the same time the time for biological parents was increased to 25 weeks leave at the time of birth.
Bill C-21 is a discriminatory step backward from previous legislation in 1983, when the House of Commons explicitly amended the UIC Act to end discrimination of adoptive parents and recognize the needs of adoptive parents.
Their key position here in this petition is that the new unemployment insurance legislation disadvantages and discriminates against adoptive children by reducing the amount of time their new parent can be home with them at a time when they most need time together for the bonding process.


Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre):: Madam Speaker, whereas Canada wants to remain competitive at the international level and maintain its status as first-ranking nation; whereas Canada wants competent and well-trained workers to maintain this country's competitiveness; whereas Canada wants to reduce the rate of functional illiteracy in the country, which is presently around 38 per cent, in order to be able to better train its labour force; therefore, Madam Speaker, the under-
October 4, 1991

signed, call upon Parliament to urge the government to promote and encourage national education standards, in conjunction with provincial governments, education professionals, management and labours, parents, youths, voluntary organizations and ordinary citizens.


Mr. David Kilgour (Edmonton Southeast):: Madam Speaker, pursuant to the same section, it is my honour to present a petition signed by several hundred residents of eastern Ontario with respect to the self-exile program. They point out that eastern Europeans entered Canada legally, in good faith, for example. They were informed by the Government of Canada that their applications would be processed expeditiously. They call on the government to speed up the processing of any outstanding self-exile applications, remove the quotas which appear to have been implemented, and other things which they feel would make it easier for self-exiles from eastern Europe and the Soviet Union to be admitted as landed immigrants in our country.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. Charles A. Langlois (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Industry, Science and Technology):: Madam Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 53, 62, 76 and 90.


Mr. Wappel: Within the past 4 months, has there been a change of staff at the Canadian consulate in Port of Spain, Trinidad and, if so, (a) what was the extent of the change (b) when did this change occur (c) what were the reasons given (d) was any staff (i) laid off (ii) transferred (iii) terminated?
Routine Proceedings


Hon. Barbara McDougall (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Staff changes between February and May 1991 in Port of Spain were as follows:
-one locally-engaged staff rejected on probation, for unsatisfactory attitude and quality of work;
-two locally-engaged staff hired to fill two new positions;
-one locally-engaged staff hired temporarily to fill behind locally engaged acting in higher level position:
-one Canadian based staff departure (routine end of assignment).


Ms. Hunter: 1.	What is the mandate of the Canadian Unity Thsk Force?
2.	(a) Which persons have been assigned duties under this mandate (b) what are their duties (c) what are their salary designations (d) who is the chair of the task force (e) when is the task force expected to report?
3.	(a) What is the grants and contributions budget for the task force (b) which individuals or organizations have received contracts (c) what is the reporting date of these individuals or organizations?


Right Hon. Joe Clark (President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada and Minister Responsible for Constitutional Affairs):: 1. The "Canadian Unity Task Force" does not exist in the sense of a task force and has no mandate. It represents resources that the government has approved to be devoted to Canadian Unity.
These resources are at present deployed within FPRO but, for administrative reasons, appear in the main estimates of the Secretary of State department.
2. a) & c) See Appendix I for the list of personnel whose salaries are being charged to the task force.
b) In general, the public servants are working on FPRO's activities related to Constitutional Development, and in support of the Cabinet Committee on Canadian Unity and Constitutional Development.
Generally, of these resources, one third is destined for salaries, and two thirds for operational costs such as travel, professional service contracts, research and consultations. The resources are not a permanent increase. They will sunset at the end of the fiscal year 1992-93. The funds consist of some $17M over three years. ($2.75M in 1990-91, $7.09 in each 1991-92 and 1992-93.)
d) & e) There is no Canadian Unity Task Force. There is therefore no chairperson nor will there be a report.

October 4, 1991
Routine Proceedings
3. a) As part of the resources allocated by the government, $1M in each of 1991-92 and 1992-93 has been allocated for grants and contributions. To date no individual or group has received resources as the program terms and conditions are in the process of being developed for Treasury Board decision.
b)	& c) See Appendix II for the list of individuals and organizations who have received contracts and the termination dates.


[Stage Direction]
CANADIAN UNITY TASK FORCE Name	Salary Range
ABRAMS	M.	69,400	125,100ADAMS	C.	16,895	33,899ANDERSON	B.	20,000	79,367BERGERON	J.	16,895	33,899BESNER	S.	31,172	72,817BOYD	H.	69,400	125,100BRADFORD	M.	69,400	125,100BREEN	G.	69,400	125,100CHARBONNEAU	L.	16,895	33,899CHARETTE	J.	20,000	79,367CYR-HICKS	R.	31,172	72,817DONOVAN	J.	31,172	72,817DUPONT	G.	16,895	33,899HEWETT	C.	69,400	125,100KENT	J.	69,400	125,100KING	M.	28,701	72,817LAUZON	S.	61,500	72,100MERCIER	G.	16,895	33,899O'HARA	K.	69,400	125,100PEARSON	H.	69,400	125,100SPURLING	B.	61,500	72,100ST-JACQUES	R.	69,400	125,000THERRIEN	M.	61,500	72,100THOMPSON	W.	16,895	33,899VALIQUETTE	G.	69,400	125,100WATTS	R.	69,400	125,100
September 8, 1991


[Stage Direction]
Contracts issued to individuals and organizations as of September 10, 1991
Names	Termination dates	Contract No.Ashras, Hossain	August 22, 1991	PS3555F1Barber, Tim	April 19, 1991	PS3555F0Brad Mann Communications	May 28, 1991	PS3535F1Carter, F.A.G.	December 31,1991	PS3607F1Collins, R.J.	July 12,1991	PS3560F0Corporate Strategy Group	August 1, 1991	PS3557F1David Milne	July 5, 1991	PS3552F1Dillmann, Thschereau & Associates	July 31, 1991	PS3551F1Doyle Communications	July 1, 1991	PS3568F0Environics Research Group	April 5, 1991	l-ILA/05Environics Research Group Ltd.	April 5, 1991	ILA/04Farrington, L.	December 31,1991	PS3511F1Forbes, Nicole	March 31, 1991	PS3547F0Gervais, Gagnon et Associes	December 20, 1990	PS3546F0Gervais, Gagnon et Associes	December 20,1990	PS3542F0Gibbins, Roger	August 31, 1991	PS3542F1Haney, William	December 31,1991	PS3608F1Ian B. Cowie & Associates	August 27, 1991	PS3606F1Institute of Intergovernmental Relations-Queens University	March 28, 1991	PS3569F0Institute of Intergovernmental Relations-Queens University	March 31, 1991	PS3570F0Institute of Intergovernmental Relations-Queens University	April 15, 1991	PS3571F0Lemmex and Associates	March 31,1991	PS3715F0Leslie, Dr. Peter	September 2,1992	PS3611F0Lian Public Affairs	August 10, 1991	PS3505F1Meggs, A.M.	February 20,1991	PS3543F0Phillips Group of Companies	November 15, 1990	PS3534FOPurvis, Douglas M.	August 31, 1991	PS3553F1
October 4, 1991
[Stage Direction]
Ralph Hedlin
Associates Ltd.	May 1, 1992	PS96210F10XSchryburt, Guy	July 15, 1991	PS3506F1Schryburt, Guy	February 28,1991	PS3548F1Seale, Lewis A.	December 10,1990	PS3551FOSwinton, K.E.	August 31,1991	PS3540F1Thit, Richard	September 30,1991	PS3610F1University of Ottawa	May 15, 1991	PS353107F0Valiquette, Gerry	March 16, 1991	PS3545F0Valiquette, Gerry	May 28, 1991	PS3535F1
Mr. Gardiner: With regard to 1992 Celebrations planned by the government a) how many contracts have been issued to plan or help organize these events b) for what amounts are these contracts c) has a budget been set yet, and if so, how much for celebrations in 1992 d) how many staff by department have been assigned duties for 1992 Celebrations e) has the government prepared a list of themes and/or possible events to celebrate in 1992 f) what are the events g) has the government prepared a study on funding that was provided to projects in the 1967 Centennial year and, if so, what were the results?


Charles Joseph Clark: As stipulated by the 400 participants in the 1989 national conference entitled "Vers 1992 (toward 1992)", the government has set up the Canada 125 Committee, whose two co-chairs have decided to create a non-political and independent non-profit corporation to take responsability for the general management and co-ordination of the activities of the 125th anniversary of Confederation.
Thus far, the government has contributed $2.3 million to the corporation to prepare the 1992 programming in the coming months. The corporation will now make every possible effort to obtain the greatest financial and organizational participation it can from the private and volunteer sectors. Additional financial participation by the government in these activities remains to be determined.
Moreover, each department has identified a co-ordinator responsible for federal projects under the 1992
Routine Proceedings
activities program. These co-ordinators will, in addition to their regular duties, maintain liaison between the Department or Crown corporation that they represent and the CANADA 125 corporation to ensure the convergence of everyone's efforts for 1992.
The CANADA 125 corporation has already announced the composition of its board of directors and formulated its objectives. It has assured the government that it will soon announce the theme, certain national projects and the direction of its local programming.
For any information regarding the contracts awarded before March 3, 1991, please contact the Department of the Secretary of State, which is responsible for any matters relating to this subject.



STABILIZING CARBON DIOXIDE EMISSION LEVELS BY THE YEAR 2000

Mr. Harvey: Has the government made a committed to stabilizing carbon dioxide emissions at 1990 levels by the year 2000 and, if so, (a) have targets and timetables been developed (b) have regulations been developed (c) have resources been allocated to implement this goal and, if so, what are they?


Hon. Pauline A. Browes (Minister of State (Environment)):: (a) The government is committed to stabilizing emissions of carbon dioxide at 1990 levels by the year 2000. The proposed National Action Strategy on Global Warming which was released for public consideration by the Canadian Council of Ministers of Environment in November 1990 provides the strategic guidance for all orders of government, business, industry and individual Canadians to take the actions necessary.
(b)	No new federal regulations have been developed as yet; Canada's Green Plan indicates the actions the federal government is planning to take to limit net emissions of greenhouse gases.
(c)	Under the Green Plan, an additional $575 million over six years has been allocated to achieving global environmental security which includes dealing with the problem of global warming; announcements on resourcing levels for specific Green Plan global warming initiatives are anticipated over the next several months.

October 4, 1991
Government Orders


Madam Deputy Speaker:: The questions listed by the hon. parliamentary secretary have been answered.


Charles A. Langlois: Madam Speaker, I suggest that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Shall the remaining questions stand?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Ms. Campbell (Vancouver Centre) that Bill C-30, an act to amend the Criminal Code (Mental disorder) be read the second time and, by unanimous consent, referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Solicitor General.
Derek Vincent Lee: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to have an opportunity to address this important piece of reform legislation.
A little bit of background. This is not the first time in this House that we have taken note of the fact that our Criminal Code in many areas is vastly out of date and, in some cases, our Criminal Code has become crippled by reason of outdated concepts and procedures that have sat on the books over time and not been updated to take account of changes in the modem world and changes in conditions.
An example of that was an amendment last year to the arson provisions. Prior to that amendment, police and people in the private sector, investigators, and the insurance industry were having increasing difficulty convicting and laying charges successfully against arsonists.
One of the reasons for that is that when the current arson provisions were developed many years ago, almost as long ago as Canada itself, I suppose it is fair to say that perhaps the world did not even know exactly what fire was. There were elements of combustion not known to us then, facets of that physical and chemical reaction, consequently, we had in the Criminal Code really what
was a layman's reference to setting of fires, and it referred to things like setting fire to standing crops and things like that.
Today we have crops that are in barns, in process, and we have many new ways to start fires, and we have many different types of fires. Consequently, a lot of the bad guys were playing a lot of games. Crown attorneys and police had a lot of difficulty.
Finally, after many years, and I know the initiative began long before I came to this House, that was put to bed and amended. That raises an issue about general criminal law reform and I would like to address that later in my remarks.
In any event, now we have an alteration to the wording governing procedures and definitions of the insanity plea, insanity procedures in criminal trials. I want to point something out here.
We have an alteration to the wording but not so much an alteration to the concept. There were certainly people in Canada who reacted when this bill was first introduced in the House. They reacted out of a fear that the provisions, as being proposed, were less strict and less secure from a public safety point of view than the provisions that existed before.
In my view, in terms of the definitions that is not the case. The proposals to restate what is insanity simply is a restatement in more modern language, more precise language, of what we all meant by insanity many decades ago.
To go back to what I referred to earlier, the concept of insanity in the 1800s was very ill defined. There was a judicial definition proposed, adopted and used over the years, but back in the 1800s we really did not even know all the diseases of the mind that existed. We are still learning but we know infinitely more now than we did then. We are much better able to define, to analyse and to know precisely what disease of the mind is in discussion when insanity pleas are raised.
I want to point out that this issue is not new, this issue of the insanity plea. I want to give credit to the Law Reform Commission of Canada for raising it clearly, crisply and forthrightly as far back as 1976.
It has been a long time since the matter was raised. We have coasted along for 15 years knowing that change had to be made. It has taken us this long, I do not know why, actually to address it and implement it. I am pleased that it is now before Parliament.
October 4, 1991

What gave rise to this now was not what happened 15 years ago but a Supreme Court of Canada case. It was in fact a Supreme Court of Canada charter case that triggered the justice ministry's initiative now to implement changes.
Let us therefore give some credit to the charter for pulling the trigger. The charter has been a great asset. It has been a bit of a burden but our rights should be regarded as assets to all of us. If it takes a bit of work to uphold them and make them real, viable and effective then that is a price well worth paying in our democracy.
The difficulty with the old insanity provisions and procedures revolved principally around the fact that when someone was found to be insane, the disposition and incarceration that followed a finding of "not guilty by reason of insanity" was indefinite. It was discretionary later on and in fact arbitrary.
If an individual was found "not guilty by reason of insanity", the person was regarded as ill, insane, and was confined to an institution at the pleasure of the Lieutenant-Governor of the province.
That sounds relatively safe for the public but for the individual who is confined once you go in, whether you are sick for a day or mentally sick for a year, you are there forever. It was indefinite confinement. It was based on the discretion, usually well-advised but who knows what advice was given, of Lieutenant-Governors from time to time in all of our provinces, and it was arbitrary.
Somebody, not specifically delegated by a statute of this House with specific criteria and procedures for making a judgment, but an ad hoc body that developed under this whole procedure, would decide whether the individual, male or female, young or old, would be released from these institutions. That was a problem recognized some years ago, as I mentioned and it took a charter case. The charter case might have had some public funding behind it. After looking at the facts of the case I will make that guess. There was a lot of interest in it and it was pursued up to the Supreme Court level. That was the trigger that finally caused the Minister of Justice to do something after 15 years. I will give credit for the doing but not for the delay.
What are the issues of concern to the public here? I think there are two. I have referred to the issue of indefinite confinement. It is simply not right to confine
Government Orders
indefinitely a person who steals a candy bar while indefinitely confining a person who has killed. That is wrong. We recognize that.
This bill proposes confinement periods that match as best we can the confinement periods if the person had been convicted of the offence. For example, the theft of a candy bar is what would be called "a theft under". "A theft under" receives the low threshold of punishment. I do not think we confine people any more for a first offence theft of a candy bar.
Under the old law of insanity if a person was insane at the time they stole the candy bar, they could be institutionalized in theory forever or until someone made a decision that they should not be there.
There are three categories of confinement. There is the life sentence for murder category, the danger to public safety category with a maximum confinement period of 10 years,and for all other offences there is a maximum confinement period of two years. Therefore the candy bar thief who is insane-I am using the old term here because we have now proposed a new term- cannot be confined to an institution for more than two years.
The second issue of concern is public safety itself. I do not want to underestimate that. Perhaps I should have mentioned it first. It is not a conceptual issue. It is a real issue. There is real fear on the part of citizens in Canada. It has been communicated to me and it has been communicated to my colleagues in the House. We are very aware of the fear on the streets of Canada that the judicial, correction or criminal justice systems are not serving the needs of public safety. The people at risk are innocent Canadians across the country who may fall victim to an individual who really should not be on the street at the time.
There are a lot of examples. Unfortunately there are too many. One is too many. There are instances of people who were part of the judicial process, the corrections process, or the judicial interim release process who killed innocent Canadians while they were supposed to be a part of that process.
There is the case of Daniel Gingras in Edmonton about four years ago, the Conter case in Toronto, and recently the de Villiers case in Burlington. The last one did not involve a corrections matter, a person who had been convicted of a serious crime, but it did involve a person who was apparently relatively free, doing whatev-

October 4, 1991
Government Orders
er he wanted, while he was on bail after having been charged with another less serious offence.
The real question related to this bill is public safety. We accept the charter rights of these individuals who have been found to be sick. However, the public spends the money to put in place a criminal justice system, not to play games with the charter, not to have lawyers debate in courtrooms. It is not a make-work program. The justice system is there to protect society. That has to be the first priority.
I am sure most reasonable Canadians would accept the balance involved. When a person is not convicted there is a right to freedom before conviction, but there is also the question of public safety.
There is a grey area. There has to be a balance. I am sure most Canadians will accept that until a person is convicted they are presumed not guilty. In all of that decision making in courts in Canada every day we have to consider public safety.
However, after a conviction the rights of the person who has been convicted have to take second seat to public safety. That is why the system is there. That is why we have a Criminal Code. That is why we have punishment. That is why we have institutions.
Canadians are insisting on that and I want Canadians to know that we on this side of the House are very concerned and sensitive to that. I know there are members on the other side of the House who feel likewise. They want a system in place they regard as fail-safe. They cannot afford mistakes. We cannot afford mistakes. When we create electrical power in a nuclear generating station, we have many systems in place to protect the public and ensure physical safety. That is how we ought to regard dangerous offenders in our criminal justice system. They are more dangerous than a small piece of nuclear fuel and they can do a lot more damage.
We want systems in place that treat Canadians with as much respect and with as much concern for safety and concern as we do radioactive rods in a nuclear reactor. Canadians ask for that and we can give them no less.
In this bill we have created a new label for people we used to call insane. It was proposed that out of concern for this public safety issue we create a category called dangerous mentally disordered persons. That is a label
required by the public safety issue we have been addressing. We must find a way to label and categorize some of these ill people as dangerous mentally disordered persons. That is what the new bill will do.
At present in Canada there are approximately 1,100 persons being held under the warrants issued by courts when they were found not guilty by reason of insanity. That is a fairly large number. One issue that concerns me is what protections are there in place for the public in dealing with these 1,100 cases as we move from the old system to the new. It is an issue I am not able to discuss in depth here in the House because it has not been dealt with at committee.
We on this side of the House will support this bill at second reading so that it can go to committee and these matters can be addressed. We need a detailed discussion, commitment, and procedures to ensure that as we go through a transition period the people held on warrants are treated with respect, are accorded the rights due to each of them under the charter, and that there are no undue risks associated with their release. I might say that in theory each of those individuals might have the right now to go to a court and demand that they be released, that is on the assumption that they could find someone who would advocate for them. I do not know whether it is possible for someone who is ill and declared to be ill, in that state, actually to go individually to a court. Certainly they have next friends and legal representatives who could do that for them. We have to make sure this transition is properly handled.
I want to point out that the public safety risk issue is very much before the House now. It is certainly before the justice committee. I take note that it is the intention of the government to refer this bill, after second reading, not to a legislative committee but to the justice committee.
Although I have sat on the justice committee and continue to, there is an awful lot of work there that I think is an appropriate disposition. The justice committee for approximately five or six years has been following this issue very closely. It is probably true that most of the individuals on the justice committee now are well equipped. They have been brought up to speed to deal with this issue.

It is not just this Parliament. I take note that there was a report of the justice committee tabled in this House in 1987 or the early part of 1988 called "Thking Responsibility". It was a very comprehensive, detailed investigation and report on the matters involving Corrections Canada and criminal convictions.
The government was unable to reply to that report because we went into a general election in that year. After the election the new justice committee on which I sat cared so much about that report that we re-adopted it, and that is a very rare occurrence. Those who discuss the details and fine tuning aspects of parliamentary law might question whether or not that was appropriate, but the current committee felt so strongly about the need of the government to respond that it was re-submitted and tabled in this Parliament. We are still waiting for a reply.
However, I am told and I understand that the government is, albeit very late in the day, coming through with responses to those things. Just yesterday the government replied to the justice committee's hearings on the three-year review of the gating provisions of the Criminal Code and Corrections. This also involves the Parole Act. These are the provisions that enable the corrections system to prevent the parole of an individual who would otherwise be entitled under the existing law to that mandatory supervision portion of his or her sentence. I am pleased to note that the government had accepted virtually all the material provisions of that justice committee report.
Let me wrap up by chastising the government for foot dragging. We have 15-year delays, 10-year delays, 5-year delays. We hope to revisit as well the bail provisions of the Criminal Code at an appropriate point in time. I intend, in my area of activity, to make very sure that the public safety and risk issues are dealt with properly in this bill and in other legislation hopefully to come before the House.


Leonard Donald Hopkins: Madam Speaker, I rise to speak on this debate this afternoon because I feel, as I am sure everybody in this House does, that this is one of the most fundamental problems of our present day society. A society that cannot live without a state of fear is not a free society.
It has been discussed here before today that this bill is the response by the government through the Minister of
Government Orders
Justice to the striking down by the Supreme Court of Canada of Criminal Code sections that dealt with mental disorder.
It is certainly unusual for the Supreme Court to have made the decision or to have given the Government of Canada six months to bring in a new law or risk judges releasing all those persons found not guilty by reason of insanity. As one person noted, this could include those who may well be a danger to the public. That is the crucial point of this entire bill.
The part of the Criminal Code that was struck down should be put on the record here so that the purpose of it is fully understood. That is section 614(2) of the Criminal Code which reads: "Where the accused is found to have been insane at the time the offence was committed, the court shall order that he be kept in strict custody until the pleasure of the Lieutenant-Governor of the province is known". In particular, with this section the Supreme Court of Canada decided that Lieutenant-Governor's warrants were unconstitutional.
There are a number of other reasons dealing with this, but I will go to the final one: "The decision indicates that the old law failed to distinguish between those who are still dangerous to society and require hospital treatment and those who could be safely released to the community".
In other words, they are all being put in the same category. The challenge that this legislation brings in is to separate those who are in fact very dangerous and require hospital treatment from those who could safely be allowed to be in the public domain.
The purpose of this bill is to ensure that mentally disordered persons are not deprived of their charter rights by being confined for a mental disorder without a fair hearing and a regular review of their case. In other words, once persons are sentenced they cannot be expected to be there for life if indeed their health improves.
The second point was to create a wholly new category of dangerously mentally disordered persons and to protect the public from those who come in conflict with the law.
With regard to the new charter of rights amendments, the first point was to give the provincial review boards some teeth. The boards will make case-by-case decisions

October 4, 1991
Government Orders
on care and detention provisions. Another very important one would be to replace indeterminate custody with maximum detention periods that are applicable: for example, murder, for life; danger to public security or the security of the state, 10 years; and all other offences, 2 years.
There are some concerns here. Whenever we pass a new law, we are all fully aware that if we do not have the facilities in place so that that new law can be practised effectively then the legislation is in danger of not succeeding with the intent that it brought in, in the first place.
For example, there was testimony before the justice committee on Bill C-67 respecting the detention and parole provisions. Review consistently indicated the lack of facilities and treatment for inmates with sexual or psychiatric problems. There is a lack of facilities and there is a lack of staff. The intent of the bill may be laudable but there is a gap between intent and reality with relation to this particular bill that we are studying today.
The government has consistently attacked our social programs and has been throwing the burden to already overstressed provincial systems. Will this bill add to the burden? That is the question.
Then there is the area of public security. The general intent of the bill is to release as many persons as possible to community based programs and services. However, if the preventive and security measures in the bill fail, the ramifications of failure can be death. Then we must have the facilities in place to handle these people effectively and fairly so that the justice system itself will not fail. The Young Offenders Act will be amended to reflect the special needs of youth in placement and disposition.
This is a very important piece of legislation that we are dealing with here today with regard to public safety. I just want to say in general terms about this bill and the circumstances surrounding it, that we are veiy familiar with the fact that drugs in Canada have been one of the root causes of many people's mental disorders. We must support the law enforcement agencies of this country, whether it is within our own community, or whether it is in the nation as a whole. Our law enforcement agencies
have got to receive public support in this country if we are going to expect them to do a job.
In today's society where we have so many criminal activities going on, where we have major operators in the drug business, where we have them utilizing students in high schools and yes, elementary schools as peddlers, and where we have people roaming the streets who pretend to be the epitome of honesty and integrity and some of them end up to be drug peddlers, there is nothing more important to a free society than to have a legal administration in place to support a law enforcement agency and agencies, to bring about law and order within our country.
Indeed, this bill, if we want to carry the ramifications further, goes right through to the international drug trade because that is where it all begins, the smuggling of drugs and getting them into the system.
The public of Canada should be outraged at some of the things that are going on and should come forward to support the law enforcement agencies in their communities. They should find out what they can do to help.
We have block parent communities where we support people when they are in trouble or in danger. We have got to extend that to a more effective way of helping police authorities in this country with any information that we find out about who is peddling drugs or working with drug peddlers in the community. That is very important.
When we are doing that, we are not tattling. We could be saving several people's minds from the effects of drugs which will give them a mental disorder for the rest of their lives. As far as I am concerned, no punishment is great enough for those people who want to perpetrate that on any citizens in a free society.
We can only have freedom, as I said before, and it can only be enjoyed by everyone if everyone respects the other person's right to live in a free society with the absence of fear. The same thing pertains to this very finite decision, very precise decision that this bill requires of medical knowledge and that is, which criminals get off because of insanity or which people are charged and get off because of insanity belong in a hospital and which ones are free to go out on the streets. It places a big load on medical judgment and it is one that is going to have to be handled very precisely.
October 4, 1991

So, Madam Speaker, while we congratulate the government for bringing in this bill, the subject matter requires that this Parliament deal with it quickly and effectively and that the concerns in it be discussed in committee stage. However, it is important to get this bill in place. Indeed, we should not end there, but it will undoubtedly be looked upon as an experimental bill and there may well have to be amendments to it in the not too distant future. If that is the case, that is what Parliament is here for but it is urgent we move forward at this time.
Madam Speaker, I want to thank you and the House for giving me the time to express some views because I think there are far more ramifications out there than just this bill itself. We have got to look at the causes that create these things in our society.


Mr. Jesse Flis (Parkdale-High Park):: Madam Speaker, I would like to make a brief comment on what the hon. member for Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke said. He said, and very accurately, that many of our mental disorders are caused by substance abuse. That reminded me of a recent call I received from a constituent, a father in his 60s. He is looking after his son who is in his 40s. His son was caught for drug peddling 10 years ago. He got a very lengthy sentence, served his sentence and the father admits his son did wrong, his son paid for it, but the tragedy of the incident is that the son is now at home. In the almost 10 years that he was in prison they did not teach him or assist him with any skill. So here is a person with very severe brain damage who cannot go and work. His father is very worried because he is in his 60s. He says: "I am not going to be here too long, who is going to look after my son who is in his 40s and is not trained for any kind of employment?"
So in all of our debates, I hope we will remember the importance of rehabilitation. We cannot stress that strongly enough.


Mr. Peter Milliken (Kingston and the Islands):: Madam Speaker, very briefly, I simply want to say that I am pleased the government has finally moved on this matter.
The government issued a white paper for discussion purposes on this subject some years ago. Because noth-
Government Orders
ing was being done and the subject was clearly one that was important, I introduced a bill in this House, Bill C-295, on April 11, 1990 in the second session of this Parliament. Unfortunately the bill, being a private member's bill, never proceeded because I never won a draw until last week and that was on a motion, not on a bill.
I reintroduced the bill on June 10 of this year in an effort to spur the government to action, the same bill, Bill C-228, which is standing on the Order Paper. I just want to indicate that when this bill is adopted by the House, as I assume it will be, amendment or otherwise, I will withdraw the bill that I have on the Order Paper.


Mac Harb: Madam Speaker, I just rise to make a few comments. I understand that the minister is quite anxious to get this bill through the House.
As my colleague indicated on behalf of our caucus, we are supporting this bill in order to get it into a committee, but I have a few comments to make on it.
I think the minister as well as the government should look at the aspect of prevention as a very important component of any legislation that is introduced at the federal level, especially in light of the fact that we have a constitutional discussion where the provinces are finding themselves more and more taking on responsibilities that the federal government in the past was responsible for.
There is the whole question of the mentally disabled or the otherwise able person who gets into trouble. Madam Speaker, if you would just give me a second to tell you something about a gentleman in my area of Ottawa Centre who made a comment about the homeless last year, the people he received as clients. When he was asked, he said he gets a whole range of people caught in the cycle of poverty. They have addictions, drug or alcohol, they are unemployed, they have learning disabilities, they have been victims of spousal abuse. Many have psychotic illnesses.
These are some of the people who go to shelters in my area of Ottawa Centre. These are people who go to shelters all across Canada. In fact, there are in excess of
200,000	people in our country who are considered to be

October 4, 1991
Government Orders
homeless. Many of those people fit within the definition of this gentleman who defined the people as his clients.
Many of those people go to the shelter for one or two nights and then eventually they move on to another shelter. In any event, one finds them sleeping on the streets, in shopping centres, in garages, abandoned cars. In many cases the weather could be as cold as minus 40 degrees.
Some of those people get so desperate that they get in trouble. Many of those people, especially the mentally disabled, who end up in those shelters are coming from an institution that probably had looked after them for a given period of time and eventually they found themselves on the street.
I want to give one example. In the Ottawa area, we have the Royal Ottawa Hospital where patients are admitted to the hospital for a short period of time so a physician might assess them, and they would have options. Either they would be sent to a regular hospital and/or they would be sent to a hospital nearby, in this particular case in our area to the Brockville Psychiatric Hospital.
Those patients might stay in the Brockville hospital for a month or two, serve their term, and eventually they are sent back home. Between the Royal Ottawa Hospital and the Brockville Psychiatric Hospital there is absolutely no mechanism to support those people. Therefore, when they are out on the street, there is no mobile system that works with the shelters in my area in order to provide them with the kind of assistance they might need, the kind of counselling they might need.
Many of those people get in trouble. Many of those people, I might add, if there had been a support service in place, would have felt better off. I think it is extremely important for the federal government to work with the provincial governments in order to set up some sort of support system that works with hospitals that provide care on a short-term basis or on a long-term basis, such as the Brockville Psychiatric Hospital. Also, the government should work with agencies such as shelters in order to deal with this incredible problem.
There is no doubt in my mind that in the long run, prevention is what is needed, providing shelter for those
people and providing them with the kind of support services they might need.
I think the minister of health should get a copy of the transcript and try to approach the provincial governments to find out what can be done in this area of prevention. I am sure she will find that it is a major problem. In fact, it is one of the biggest problems we are faced with in urban centres. While there are no specific statistics on the number of homeless who might have those mental or other problems, I think this is an urgent matter for the minister to consider in her consultation. I would suggest that in the long run the whole of society will benefit from that.
In closing, I want to congratulate both my colleague, the member for Moncton, and the Minister of Justice on working collectively in order to make sure this bill is law.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. members:: Question.


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


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and the Solicitor General.

Marcel Danis: that Bill C-27, an act respecting the privileges and immunities of foreign missions and international organizations be read the second time and referred to Legislative Committee E.
He said: Madam Speaker, this bill combines and abates two existing acts dealing with privileges and immunities, the Diplomatic and Consular Privileges and Immunities Act and the Privileges and Immunities International Organizations Act. It will also assist the Canadian Government in its efforts to obtain favourable treatment for the overseas offices of Canada's provinces by permitting, for the first time, the granting of limited privileges and immunities to offices of sub-units of foreign states which, on a reciprocal basis, grant the same treatment to offices of Canadian provinces.



International law requires Canada to grant privileges and immunities-certain exemptions from Canadian law-to embassies and consulates of foreign countries and to their diplomatic and consular officials. That is the purpose of the first part of the bill. The inviolability of diplomatic representatives is an important foundation of international law and one of its oldest principles.
The special legal status that we must grant to diplomats under international law is not there for their personal convenience. It was developed over the centuries to ensure that a country's representatives abroad can discharge their duties effectively and independently from the tremendous influence that a modern state can exert on an individual.
Whether they are participating in sensitive international negotiations or are busy urgently evacuating Canadians in a war-ravaged region, Canada's representatives abroad need the protection given them by their special status to be able to continue to serve Canada's interests abroad. Public international law demands that the same special status be granted to representatives of other states in Canada. The special legal status of diplomatic and consular missions is set forth in the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations and the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations. Like most nations, Canada is a party to these conventions.
At present, the articles of these international conventions that relate directly to the legal status of foreign missions and their personnel are given the force of law in Canada by the Diplomatic and Consular Privileges and Immunities Act. The new act would continue to give force of law to these articles. It would also provide for more flexibility in the treatment of foreign embassies and consulates.
Within the framework provided by the two Vienna conventions, the treatment of foreign diplomatic and consular missions is governed by the principle of reciprocity. This is perhaps a rather un-Christian principle: "Do as you are done by." But it is the mechanism that ensures that the obligations undertaken in the Vienna conventions are fulfilled.
Government Orders
If a country treats Canada's representatives unfavourably, Canada will treat that country's representatives here in a similar manner. If Canada's representatives are treated favourably, we will then reply in kind. The new act would increase Canada's flexibility in ensuring that reciprocity of treatment is applied to foreign diplomats in Canada.
International law also grants a special status to international organizations. Membership in the UN, the OECD, and other organizations of states, carries with it the obligation to grant those organizations and their officers certain privileges and immunities. Without legislation permitting the grant of such privileges and immunities, Canada could not be a member of those organizations. Nor could we act as host for such organizations as the International Civil Aviation Organization in Montreal or the Commonwealth of Learning in Vancouver.
At present, such organizations are granted privileges and immunities by Order in Council under the Privileges and Immunities (International Organizations) Act. The level of treatment which Canada can grant international organizations has not changed since the predecessor to that act, the Privileges and Immunities (United Nations) Act, was passed in 1947. But international standards of treatment for such organizations have changed significantly, and the restrictions of the existing legislation have created difficulties for Canada's relations with international organizations, including the largest international organization with headquarters in Canada.

The International Civil Aviation Organization has its headquarters in Montreal. It is one of the great specialized institutions created by the members of the United Nations at the end of the Second World War. ICAO seeks to ensure the development and smooth operation of the world's civil aviation system. Its technical mission may explain why it is not as well known to Canadians as other specialized UN agencies like UNESCO or the World Health Organization. That Canadians consider ICAO a simple fact of life, although an extraordinarily complex enterprise like international air transportation demands the coordination of thousands of technical standards, training requirements and security measures, is perhaps a measure of its great success. We should never forget the unique importance of civil aviation in

October 4, 1991
Government Orders
such a vast country as Canada. ICAO's being located in Canada is perhaps a reflection of this importance.
For years, ICAO and its member states have maintained that the headquarters agreement concluded with Canada was outdated and unsuited to the new requirements of the Organization. In 1951, for example, when Lester Pearson signed the existing headquarters agreement with ICAO, it was expected that the representatives of the Organization's member states would be in Canada only for short periods every year. The Organization's practices have evolved over the years and today, there are 33 permanent missions to ICAO based in Montreal.
In response to these concerns, Canada negotiated a new headquarters agreement with ICAO last year, but it cannot come into force yet. I am pleased to say that this new bill will make it possible to implement the new headquarters agreement with ICAO, thus eliminating the problems that have complicated our very special relations with that organization.

However, the area of our interest is broader than just ICAO. Canada is committed to a multilateral approach in dealing with international issues and we pursue this objective through such international organizations as the UN, CSCE, the OAS and others.
One way in which we can enhance our role in such organizations is by encouraging them to establish offices, or preferably headquarters, in Canada. With modernized legislation Canada can pursue more vigorously its policy of working to attract the offices of international organizations in Canada.
Apart from the foreign policy reasons for such efforts there are significant economic benefits from such offices. The hundreds of jobs and tens of millions of dollars that ICAO brings to Montreal is the most obvious example.
On a much smaller scale the Commonwealth of Learning in Vancouver and the North Atlantic Fisheries Commission in Halifax also provide a welcome contribution to the local economy. Other countries have interests in such organizations similar to those of Canada and compete vigorously to attract them.
This new legislation will ensure that Canada can compete on an equal basis with other states in these efforts. While the first two parts of the act update existing legislation Part III is completely new.
This part would allow Canada to grant limited privileges and immunities equivalent to those granted to consulates to the offices of a sub-unit of a foreign state, such as a German land or an American state.
A number of Canadian provinces maintain offices abroad. This is a practice that is almost as old as Confederation. As a rule there is a close and co-operative working relationship between Canada's diplomatic missions and these provincial offices. Canada makes every effort to assist them in furthering provincial interests.
When local conditions so require, provincial representatives have even been given the status of Canadian diplomats to ensure they can fulfil the provincial function effectively.
It has also been an established practice for many years that when requested to do so by the provinces, Canada requests foreign states to grant privileges and immunities to provincial officers in those states.
A number of countries have agreed to grant such status to Canadian provincial offices. We have always been conscious when seeking such treatment on behalf of the provinces that we had no legal basis to reciprocate.
With this act the government will be able to grant in Canada the status it seeks for Canadian provincial offices abroad. I should note that the bill limits the privileges and immunities that can be granted to such offices to that which is granted to a consular mission.
It is important to understand that this is a limited level of privilege and immunity compared to that of a diplomat. The representative of a sub-unit, such as a consul, would have immunities from Canadian law only in respect to acts performed in the exercise of official functions. It would be up to Canadian courts to decide what is or is not an exercise of official functions.
I am pleased that this legislation will permit the grant of limited privileges and immunities to an office which the government of Hong Kong intends to establish in Canada.

Hong Kong, a British dependency, already grants a similar status to the provincial offices established in Hong Kong.

Mr. Speaker, it may seem that this bill deals with an esoteric subject, but its passage will make Canada better able to pursue an active foreign policy, to play a role in international organizations and to help provinces pursue legitimate interests abroad.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.

Mr. Speaker, if I have the agreement of the Official Opposition and the New Democratic Party, I would move:
That, instead of the bill being referred to the Legislative
Committee E, the bill be referred to committee of the whole and
considered at all stages this afternoon.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Hopkins):: Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Jesse Philip Flis: Mr. Speaker, I was not aware you were looking for a new role in this Chamber but the chair suits you.
I am pleased to participate in the debate on Bill C-27, an act dealing with privileges and immunities of foreign missions and international organizations. The bill repeals two existing statutes, namely the Diplomatic and Councillor Privileges and Immunities Act and the Privileges and Immunities International Organizations Act.
I agree with the Minister of Labour that Bill C-27 permits for the first time certain privileges, immunities and benefits to be granted to political subdivisions of foreign states.
Article 2(1) defines a political subdivision as a province, state, territory, dependency, or any other similar subdivision of a state. It will also provide for extended privileges and immunities to international organizations.
The minister will be happy to learn that my party urges quick passage of this bill for it brings about, at long last, a series of legislative changes that will make Canada a
Government Orders
better place for foreign missions and international organizations.
If Canada's diplomatic missions and those of its provinces have generally been well received abroad, it is in large part due to the extensive privileges and immunities the missions of other countries have been granted in Canada, and we take pride in that. However, Canada's remarkable reputation can only be enhanced by the provisions included in this bill, long sought by various foreign parties such as the International Civil Aviation Organization and the Government of Hong Kong.
Allow me to dwell on a few of them in the next few minutes and suggest ways in which they can be implemented. First, on behalf of my party I applaud the additions of new measures that deal with the duty of the receiving state to ensure maximum protection of the councillor posts. Canada has had its share of tragic incidents in this respect, such as the attack on the Turkish Embassy a few years ago. This time of revolutionary change abroad no doubt can and has been accompanied by massive, sometimes violent manifestations at home.
There is a need to offer all necessary protection to foreign missions established in Canada. As an example, the consular offices of Poland are situated in Etobicoke-Lakeshore next to my riding. During the early 1980s, when martial law was imposed on Poland, there were enormous demonstrations and attacks on the Polish consular offices in Etobicoke-Lakeshore. I must compliment the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and the Metropolitan Toronto Police Force on their protection of the property of that consular office and their protection of the people working in that consular office. What a pleasure it is now to see people going in and out of that consular office with no demonstrations. The same people who were demonstrating are now using the services of that consular general office.
That being said I want to stress that the legislative authority extended to the Canadian government and its police officers in this bill to protect the premises of foreign missions should be exercised with caution and according to the terms of our charter of rights.
I also welcome the entrenchment of statutory authority of the Secretary of State for External Affairs as a result of increased powers to promote reciprocal treat-

Government Orders
ment and to implement mutually beneficial arrangements.
While our missions have generally been treated well abroad this provision, if used appropriately, may provide the necessary negotiating tool to increase the privileges and immunities now accorded to Canada's diplomatic missions.
Third, I support the provision that provides for additional privileges and immunities to international organizations such as ICAO located in Montreal and the ones we have already mentioned. It is only fitting that then-senior representatives and members of their families be treated like diplomats, a practice that has long been established in most countries over the world.
Perhaps, had this bill been introduced at an early time, an international organization such as the International Maritime Satellite Organization, IMARSAT of Great Britain, an important international organization with 500 employees, might have moved to Canada. The Minister of Labour already mentioned other organizations which could benefit from this bill, organizations such as the Commonwealth of Learning in Vancouver and the North Atlantic Fisheries Organization.
I hope the government will want to use the new measures in a pro-active way by enticing large international organizations to locate their headquarters in Canada.
Fourth, and most important, I welcome the new provision that will permit certain privileges, immunities and benefits to be granted to political subdivisions of foreign states, such as provinces, states, territories and republics, a word I am throwing in purposely.
Part III of the bill introduces legislation that is new to Canada. Presently our government cannot offer reciprocal treatment to offices of a state's political subdivision in Canada because the Secretary of State for External Affairs has no statutory authority to do so.
Political subdivisions in which offices of Canadian provinces could be granted a consular type of status have little incentive to establish consular offices in our country without the possibility of being offered reciprocal status here. I am informed that Hong Kong, a British dependency, has granted special status to provincial offices in its territory. It has been authorized to open a
commercial office in Toronto but refused to do so until Bill C-27 is in force, since a Hong Kong office could only then be accorded reciprocal privileges, immunities and benefits.
The word "benefits" is used throughout this bill. The government could improve or fine tune the bill by defining "benefits". Reciprocal benefits could be anything under the sun. We are creating unnecessary future difficulties by omitting the definition of benefits. Perhaps we could discuss this when we move to Committee of the Whole.
The granting of reciprocal privileges, immunities and benefits to political subdivisions of foreign states is a change which the Liberal Party fully supports and which meets Canadian interests. It is not enough simply to declare that Canada will give better treatment to the foreign missions of substates. These changes will only bring the increased co-operation and open the necessary opportunities if it is used for that purpose by the Canadian government.
To a large extent the relevance of these changes will depend on the Canadian government's recognition that it has failed to seize many opportunities and that it requires an urgent and comprehensive review of its foreign policy. It makes little sense, for instance, to have the Secretary of State for External Affairs and the minister of industry touring the Soviet Union if these contacts are not based on development of a solid framework on which to develop our relationships.
I want to ask the minister: Is he going to implement this provision with respect to Ukraine? As we all know the representatives of Ukraine, with whom our critic, the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre and I have met on numerous occasions, have developed long grievances over the inaction of this government on its request for the opening of a new office in Ottawa. This is not to mention the abysmal delay in the opening of our own consulate in Ukraine. Now that it is open, let us not delay in opening a reciprocal office in Canada.
Article IV of the Vienna convention on consular relations outlines how a consular post gets officially recognized. Bill C-27 is silent on the procedure of how an office of a political subdivision would become recognized. Can the minister explain why the bill is silent on this since it is a severe offence under the bill to misrepresent any premises as an office of a political
October 4, 1991

subdivision of a foreign state? The process for having such offices recognized must be clarified in the bill.
While I am on the subject of clarification, can the Minister of Labour, on behalf of the Secretary of State for External Affairs, clear up the ambiguity of the use of the word "state" in Part III of the bill? In the interpretation section of the bill first use of "state", for an example, that could be a state of New York in the U.S.A., and the second use it would mean a federal type state.
Let me just enlarge upon that and read the exact definition because I feel this is very important when we get to the committee of the whole.
Article II reads, under the interpretation clause:
"political subdivision" means any province, state, territory,
dependency or any other similar subdivision of a state.
The first use of the "state" is a different meaning than the second use of "state." The second use of "state" could be a county of New York. The first "state" could be, yes, New York state, and then the second part could be part of New York state. So I think we need that clarified and fine tuned.
The French does not appear to have that problem because-

"subdivision politique" Province, Elat ou dependance d un Etat ou
toute autre entite similaire de celui-ci.

In the French translation they use the word celui-ci, and in the English they use "state." I think that is where the confusion lies.
My colleague from Quebec compliments me on my French. I am learning. I am getting there.
The world is changing very quickly. New independent nations are springing up around us. Many dependent republics of today will be independent nations tomorrow, yet Canada lacks resources in our embassy in Moscow, has paid foreign mission tokenism in the Baltics, lacks presence in Latin America, and is dragging its feet in eastern Europe.
Our critic, the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre, was in Moscow recently for the CSCE conference where he met with representatives from around the world. He tells me that other countries are not respond-
Govemment Orders
ing to recent changes in an ad hoc reactive fashion, but are seeing incredible opportunities in the Soviet Union and eastern Europe, and are seizing them. We are not.
While their interest in various parts of the world remains strong, the means by which we pursue those interests are too limited, and too fragmented. For this bill to bear fruit, it must be utilized to reflect the changing realities emerging in Europe and the Soviet Union, to reflect the importance of developing special relationships with new, yet to be bom, nations of the world and to enhance the particular advantages of Canada.


Mr. Breaugh:: Mr. Speaker, I noted that this is your first occasion in the chair since I have been here, and this is my first occasion to carry a bill, so between the two of us things might go wrong this afternoon.
I must start by admitting that this bill is not exactly a hot topic of conversation in Oshawa. We are a little involved with the Eric Lindros controversy, and we know a lot about the NHL draft, but we are not really as hep about various Geneva conventions as we might be.
I was interested, as I went through the research on the bill, to find some touch points. Sometimes in this world it is strange that things which appear on the surface not to have any impact on you or your life really do affect you.
As I went through the briefing notes on the bill and the research that has been prepared for us on it, it become quite clear why everybody should be in support of this legislation. As one goes through the different parts of the bill one can see some concerns that I would think would be legitimate about the status of people who work in offices such as this and the privileges that are accorded to them. As one gets deeper into it, one is reminded that this is kind of the way that the world has worked out its agreements on this matter. This is not a matter that Canada can change unilaterally on its own. There are ways and means to do that. This bill proposes to put in place some means of regulating what happens when someone else representing an agency comes to Canadian soil and wants to set up and do whatever it is it does.
To that extent, I think all of us in the Chamber should understand that this is becoming increasingly important in our daily lives. Many of us, I am sure, would think that this is part of the diplomatic corps and does not have much to do with the life and times of people in our

October 4, 1991
Government Orders
ridings. However, more and more people are concerned about what happens in different parts of the world. More and more of our industrial sectors are now starting to contemplate what they could do in a country that is trying to rebuild, that is trying to put in place a different kind of an economy.
It occurred to me that several local business people have come to me and talked about doing business in nations in which two years ago it would have been unthinkable for them to do so. But now there are opportunities there. Although there are the regular diplomatic channels which they could pursue, these are people who do not normally move in those circles. Therefore, it would be of assistance to them to have a labour organization there, a commercial organization there, someone that they know from the province of Ontario, for example, to be able to go and work on an exchange program.
There are interesting concepts that are being discussed currently, ways in which investors can go to several European countries where a year ago it was forbidden. They were communist bloc nations and it was not really possible to do much in the way of business transactions there. Now they are very open to such transactions and they need some offices such as the ones that would be covered under this bill to facilitate that exchange. This might involve the province of Ontario establishing an office that could assist in the Ukraine, for example. It might involve someone from one of those states or provinces establishing an office in Canada where they could readily get information.
All members, if they reflect on it for a while, will understand that this is becoming increasingly important as the world becomes more of a mobile place where ordinary citizens can and do move around a great deal and where there is a need for information on what is happening somewhere else in the world or in your own community and that information is needed in a hurry. Anything that facilitates or regulates that or essentially makes it something that is recognized and dealt with by Canadian law-there is an established pro forma way to go about it so that it can happen-is a good thing. That is essentially what this bill does.
I noticed as I went through some of the briefing notes enclosed with the bill that there are some interesting technical aspects of what role is expected of a police
officer in providing security, for example, at one of these offices. It is something, I think, many members would have been involved with at different levels of government. Often the reason one cannot do what is so apparently necessary is that there is no legal provision to do so. If that sounds kind of stupid, that is because sometimes that is the way the law works. If there is not a specific law which outlines how an office is set up and recognized in Canadian law what everybody's legal obligations are, then it is questioned from time to time as to whether one can provide what would be seen as very normal and natural security provisions to an office of this kind.
On the surface the bill looks like something which would not affect anybody who might live in the riding of Oshawa, but as the member I think I could give a pretty good case that it will. On the surface it looks as if this is something that has to do with conventions struck in Vienna some time ago. I am aware that the provinces of Ontario and Quebec and several other of our provinces have agonized for many years now over just how they go about setting up an office in Washington, London, or in several other parts of the world; how to get trade and consular offices put in place; and how the various organizational groups that are playing a supportive role get established, identified and recognized under law.
Essentially what this bill does and what I find eminently supportable about the bill is that it provides a piece of framework legislation for Canada, and that makes sense. It acknowledges that such organizations exist, and that makes sense. It limits and restricts somewhat, for some of them, the kinds of provisions that would provide them with immunity. That has to do with whether they pay taxes or not, whether or not they can carry back and forth confidential information. All of these I know to be areas where there has been some confusion before, where there have been occasions where it is the absence of a law which prevents something very sensible from happening.
On those grounds, we find the proposal in Bill C-27 to be eminently supportable. We may have a question or two as we go through the committee stage, and I hope the minister will indulge us if we simply do not understand the language which has been used. He will have the advantage of staff and briefing notes, which we do not have to provide us with clarification.
October 4, 1991

So, with those small provisos, Mr. Speaker, you and I have made it through our first occasion this afternoon.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the House went into committee, Mr. Hopkins in the chair.
Andrée  Champagne: Order. House in Committee of the Whole on Bill C-27, an Act respecting the privileges and immunities of foreign missions and international organizations.
Shall Clause 2 carry?
On Clause 2-Definitions


Jesse Philip Flis: Madam Speaker, I need your advice that this is the order to make recommendations, suggestions, et cetera. As I mentioned in my debate, I think we could improve upon the bill.
First, we said something about benefits. I wonder if the minister could explain why benefits are not included. Under the conventions and in the schedules attached to the bill, there is talk about privileges, et cetera, but benefits is a new introduction. It is probably a good introduction, but I think we need some clarification on that.


Marcel Danis: Madam Speaker, my colleague from Park-dale-High Park wishes to improve the bill and therefore wants to know what is meant by the word "benefit".
What we mean by benefits is giving access to certain rights which we have as Canadian citizens under our legislation to the people who would come here. For instance, the right of access to property if it were denied by someone or if, for instance, our access to property in a foreign country was made exorbitant or impractical by that one, that would give us the authority. In a sense I cannot call them negative benefits, but they are benefits which they should get and the federal government would be in a position to grant the benefits that you and I have to people coming over here.
It is there as a protective measure for the federal government, not that at this time we have no plans to use that section, for example access to universities or access to schools by these people, is a general clause that would
Government Orders
allow the government to do things in case they are needed.


Jesse Philip Flis: I thank the minister for that explanation. Under the Vienna convention they use the wording of facilities, privileges and immunities. I thought those kinds of benefits might be covered here. If they are not, I can appreciate maybe why the wording has been changed. I like creative thinking. I like our country being the first to bring in some changes.
The second item I would like to bring to the minister's attention is again what I mentioned in the debate, the use of the word "state". Article 2(1) reads:
Political subdivision means any province, state, territory,
dependency or any other similar subdivision of a state.
If we look at the United States of America, we can say that political subdivision means any state such as Florida, and then a similar subdivision of that state would be a smaller unit of Florida, whether it is a regional government or a county. It could be very dangerous if we do not amend this.


Marcel Danis: The hon. member for Parkdale-High Park is quite right, I believe, to raise the issue.
The word that we use in this legislation is the word "state". What we mean is the same meaning that is in the state immunity act. It is the word that is used internationally.
I know it creates a technical problem, but the French version is a lot clearer. Obviously, for instance, if we are talking about the Americans we are referring to New York State and not Clinton County, which would then ask us for a reciprocal arrangement under this legislation.
The member was quite correct. When we talk about states it would be a state but the French word, just because of the word itself not because of the legislation, is clearer. But the hon. member did not raise that in his speech at second reading.


Jesse Philip Flis: Madam Speaker, I can accept the minister's explanation that political subdivision means any state, to use the example of New York State. However the same phrase goes on: "or any other similar subdivision of a

October 4, 1991
Government Orders
state". Now we are looking at a subdivision of New York State. Could you tell me what that subdivision would be?


Marcel Danis: We do not mean to refer to a subdivision of New York State. When we refer to states, if we are talking about Americans we refer to states. If we are talking about Germany, we refer to landers. If we are talking about Switzerland, we refer to cantons. It is not our intent whatsoever to include parts of states when we refer to states.


Jesse Philip Flis: I almost feel that this bill should go to a legislative committee just to iron out things like this. I can substitute the word lander in Germany, which is what Germans use, and it would read that the political subdivision means any lander or any other similar subdivision of a lander. Does this mean that we would have reciprocal immunities, privileges and benefits for smaller units of a state such as a subdivision of a lander?


Marcel Danis: I realize that the language of the State Immunity Act might not seem clear. However, I read 2(1) in English and 2(1) in French, and in French it is quite clear. It is quite clear subdivision politique, province, Etat ou dependance d'un Etat ou toute autre entite similaire de celui-ci.
It is not our intention under this legislation to provide for reciprocity with, as an example, part of an American state. When we read both sections it is quite clear. I think the confusion may be a result of the use of the word "state". There is the same problem when using the word "nation" in French, which creates problems for people who talk about the Constitution.


Jesse Philip Flis: We are anxious that this bill be passed as quickly as possible. However, I leave it to the government to look at it again and make it clear through its notes of explanation or whatever. This would not stand up in a court of law, and I leave that to my lawyer friends in the House.


David Kilgour: Madam Speaker, I have two questions that were raised by a member of diplomatic personnel here in Ottawa.
First, about the GST. It seems this government requires the tax to be paid, and there is a refund after several months, I don't know how many. I therefore wish
to ask the minister whether this bill will affect that particular issue?
At the same time, perhaps he could answer another question. The same diplomat told me recently that the present government in Canada asks diplomats when they arrive in Canada whether they can specify how long they intend to stay in this country.
Could the minister inform the House whether this bill in any way affects the two issues I have just raised?


Marcel Danis: This bill does not affect the GST whatsoever. Our policy is that it is done in a reciprocal way.
When countries do not charge a similar tax in their country, we do not charge the people who are here. It is done in a reciprocal way. It does not apply to every one of them.
As for his second question, which was do we ask them how long they will be here when they come here, generally when diplomats or consular officials come here we are told the period for which they are coming. It is done in a flexible way and very often the governments will renew their length of stay in the country.
However, we do have a policy which would prevent people from coming here and staying for the rest of their lives, for very long periods of time. Generally people are here for approximately three years. Obviously we have to be flexible on the issue but we still have that policy.


David Kilgour: Madam Chairman, the diplomat in issue indicated that as far as he knows Canada is the only country that demands to know in advance how long diplomat x or y will be staying in Canada.
He said that it was contrary to both the Vienna convention which deals with that matter and the practices of all other industrial democracies. Maybe the minister has a further comment on that.


Marcel Danis: Madam Chairman, I have just stated the policy. If there is a specific case, such as the case that my hon. friend has mentioned, I would certainly be willing to look into it and discuss it with the Secretary of State for External Affairs.


David Kilgour: Madam Chairman, will the minister tell us if the bill deals with the question of the Russian federation, Ukraine or other members of the former Soviet Union. If for example we receive an application
October 4, 1991

tomorrow from the Russian federation or Ukraine, as we might well, to send an ambassador or a representative to Canada, would this bill affect that in some way?


Marcel Danis: In answer to the question from my colleague, there would be two options that would be available to the Government of Canada. One, if Ukraine was recognized-I prefer not to use the word "state", I prefer the word "country"-as a separate country, then of course it would ask for diplomatic recognition here and diplomatic relations would be set up by the government. This act here would not affect that at all.
What this act would affect would be that if Ukraine became, if I could use the word under the legislation, a sub-unit of the Soviet Union, and then Ukraine would allow provincial representatives from Ontario, for example, or Alberta to Ukraine, then that act would allow us to recognize Ukraine under this act and then we would establish diplomatic relations with it.


David Kilgour: Yes, but looking at the interpretation section, Madam Chairman, of political subdivision, would the minister tell the House if by political subdivision, as written, it means that Ukraine or the Russian Federation or the Baltics are for purposes of this act considered now, if passed today, to be political subdivisions of the U.S.S.R.?


Marcel Danis: Madam Chairman, the Baltic States are not a subdivision. They are not recognized as a subdivision. With regard to Ukraine, the decision then would be, depending on the referendum and a decision of the people, a decision by the government with regard to diplomatic recognition then, depending on the referendum. The answer is not with regard to the Baltic States. They have been recognized by the government already.


Michael James Breaugh: Madam Chairman, I have three questions to ask. I think I will put them on this clause because they will fit.
One question is the matter of attaching the various conventions that you have put in this part of the bill. I would like to hear the minister's comments on whether at some point in time there are going to be disputes between those things which are printed as part of the bill, that is to say drafted as the normal law that we
Government Orders
would see, and those things that are interpreted out of the various conventions that are attached to the bill. Could we have some kind of clarification as to which will win the day? Does the convention, which is kind of an international agreement on how to do things, supersede any opinion that you might have in terms of drafting the rest of the legislation which you have printed here?


Marcel Danis: Madam Chairman, the legislation is both in C-27 and the potential of conflict with the Vienna conventions.
I am advised that many sections of the Vienna conventions are force of law in Canada. We do not anticipate problems between this bill and what is in the Vienna conventions, and those sections which are part of Canadian law. Obviously, if there was one, then the courts would decide.
By virtue of section 12, by virtue of the regulation section, that allows the government to have the regulations. As my hon. friend would hope and as I would hope, surely the government would draft the regulations under the law, that the regulations which would be drafted under this section certainly would have to fall under the general laws that are either in this or in the two Vienna conventions that apply. I hope they are.


Michael James Breaugh: Madam Chairman, that might clarify some of the definition problems that we have been discussing about what is a state and what is not.
The second area that I wanted to explore just a touch is there is a great deal of the use of the word reciprocity here. My understanding is that that is just a general principle that is used. It also would lead one to believe that at some point in time, if one could get an agreement with another jurisdiction that went well beyond what might be contained in either of these conventions or this law, that nation or that jurisdiction might in fact have privileges that would extend well past what is enclosed or contemplated in any of these conventions or this act.
Could we hear the minister's comments on that?


Marcel Danis: I thank my hon. friend for his question.
When we talk about reciprocity, of course we are bound by the legislation that we have. We do agree with two sections, one in the Vienna Diplomatic Convention,

October 4, 1991
Government Orders
section 47, which talks about reciprocity and non-discrimination, and section 72, page 52 of our bill, which talks about consuls.
People who are considered diplomats get just about every immunity or privilege they could possibly get. There may be difficulties-I do not know if you could call them difficulties-but certainly the issue can be raised and has been raised by some that in certain cases consulates should have a type of immunity which would be similar to that of a diplomat. I am told that that is the case between the United States, the U.K., the Soviet Union, and China.
I am advised we have had one request from one government to modify the normal consulate privilege and immunities that they get and External Affairs is looking at it. It is done, I gather, in the normal course of business by External Affairs.
On the whole we are satisfied that the system we have in place is good, but does not prevent other immunities from being granted if done always in a reciprocal way.


Michael James Breaugh: Madam Chairman, I appreciate that this is pretty complicated stuff for us to be trying to deal with here on the floor without a lot of staff around, but I would like to hear comments on the power of the various ministers. I will put it in this context. The Secretary of State is mentioned and earlier the Minister of Finance is mentioned. There is clearly some ministerial powers that will be interpreted subsequently by one or more ministers of the Crown.
Is it the government's contention that where a conflict should arise, one or more of the ministers may extend the powers or may go the other way and curtail such powers. I would like to hear a little bit of an explanation as to how the government envisages that would work. I would be reluctant to be quite so enthusiastic about the bill if I thought that one person subsequently could rewrite this. I am not concerned at all that someone has to interpret particular circumstances, but I am concerned at how broad the powers given to the ministers are under this bill.


Marcel Danis: Two ministers are concerned with this legislation; first, the Secretary of State for External Affairs who, under this legislation, keeps the same powers that a minister has under other legislation. The legislation does not increase the powers of the Secretary of State for External Affairs. The powers of the secretary of state are not increased with the proviso which I told
my hon. friend a few minutes ago when I was talking about consulates. That is the same.
What is new in the legislation, with regard to my hon. friend's question about powers, to use that word, of ministers, is that the Minister of Finance would have the authority to make decisions with regard to certain tax rolls in the diplomatic community. For example, if it will be to the mutual advantage of both countries to have certain diplomats exempt from certain taxes that would be done by the Minister of Finance. I believe that would be a reasonable thing for the Minister of Finance to do.


Jesse Philip Flis: Madam Chairman, the other issue I raised in the debate was of course that the bill is silent on the question of how an office of a political subdivision would become recognized as such. Again, in the Vienna Convention, Article 4 reads;
1.	The sending State must make certain that the agrement of the receiving State has been given for the person it proposes to accredit as head of the mission to that State.
2.	The receiving State is not obliged to give reasons to the sending State for a refusal of agrement.
Let us take the example of a diplomat from Ukraine who will come, let us say, to a consular office in Toronto, Ontario. The Secretary State for External Affairs has accepted this person's accreditation, but the subdivision state, in this case Ontario, does not accept this person to work in the Toronto consular office because it felt that this person had Communist ties in the past or whatever.
So at the federal level we are saying: "Yes, this person is acceptable to serve in the consular office in Toronto", but the Ontario government is saying; "No, sorry, we cannot accept this person". I do not think the bill addresses this issue, the process of actually setting up a consular office in a subdivision of Canada.


Marcel Danis: Madam Chairman, my hon. friend from Parkdale-High Park is correct. The bill is silent on the issue because it was not the intention of the federal government to give a role in the recognition of a person from the Ukraine to the provincial government. If New York State wants to have someone in the City of Toronto, the federal government would recognize whoever went there. But we would not recognize someone from New York to Toronto unless we had been told by Queen's Park ahead of time that it would receive reciprocity in New York City. The decision of recognition is a federal one but we are not going to do it unless Queen's Park asks us and says that it wants reciprocity or have obtained reciprocity.
October 4, 1991

We do not believe there will be a problem with that.


Jesse Philip Flis: In crossing the country and asking for input into our Constitution, one of the big concerns expressed is the division of powers-which powers will go to the federal government, which powers will go to the provincial governments and which powers will be shared. Does the minister not think that since we are passing a new bill this should be spelled out? If it is a shared decision the bill should say so. If it is federal jurisdiction the bill should say so.
When we pass legislation today we are passing legislation for the next 20, 50 years. Let us get it right the first time.


Marcel Danis: Madam Speaker, I see my friend's point but we feel that the bill is clear on that issue with the interpretation of section 6.(1). The bill says that the Secretary of State for External Affairs may, for the purpose of according to that office, make sure that reciprocity is offered in the other jurisdictions. As a result of the wording of section 6 that can be the only interpretation.
The government always likes to take a co-operative approach to these issues. I am sure discussions would be held with the respective provinces if there was a request for that.


Jesse Philip Flis: Madam Chairman, I thank the minister for his explanation. My concern is on record. I hope that it will be explored further, even after the passage of this bill.
Clauses 2 to 17 inclusive agreed to.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Government Orders
Schedule I agreed to.
Schedule II agreed to.
Schedule III agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Title agreed to.
Bill reported.
Benoît Bouchard: that the bill be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Benoît Bouchard: that the bill be read the third time and passed.


Marcel Danis: Madam Speaker, on behalf of the Secretary of State for External Affairs I would like to thank all members of the House for their co-operation, allowing us to pass this bill at all stages. Specifically I would like to thank the hon. member for Parkdale-High Park and the hon. member for Oshawa. I am sure it will allow the government to better pursue its national foreign policy objectives.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed.
Marcel Danis: Madam Speaker, I believe that if you ask the House you will find there is unanimous consent to call it four o'clock.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: All being in agreement we will call it four o'clock.
It being four o'clock p.m., the House stands adjourned until Monday next at eleven o'clock a.m.


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 2.28 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Monday, October 7, 1991